Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

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 Yashpal

India's one of the famous writer who won Padma Bhushan won of the prestigious awards in India and Sahitya Akademi Award, highest literary award in India. Yashpal's writings were centered around three themes : gender equality, revolution and romance. His novel Jhutha Sach has been compared to Tolstoy's War and Peace.

Support

1. Support as nom. Logical1004 (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support crystalclear (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not vital. --^Melody _Lavender 07:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Premchand and Maithili Sharan Gupt should be in before Yashpal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Logical1004 (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Renata Scotto, Add Umm Kulthum

You aren't likely to have heard of Renata Scotto unless you're a serious opera buff. If you are a serious opera buff, you might realize that Scotto probably isn't even the most notable Renata in opera – that ought to be Renata Tebaldi. I also don't see how Scotto can be vital when the likes of Kirsten Flagstad, Montserrat Caballé and Jussi Björling aren't listed.

Meanwhile, despite a long and notable tradition, there are no exponents of Arab music on the list. Umm Kulthum was one of the greatest Arabic singers ever. She was wildly popular in the Arab world during her life (millions of Egyptians took to the streets for her funeral, possibly the largest of any artist in history – footage can be seen here) and remains one of its best-selling singers long after her death.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support great swap. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Good swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Scotto was a very fine singer, but I can think of 20 greater sopranos alone. Neljack (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 22:01, 28 December 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 Ibn Saud

Ibn Saud overthrew the pro-Ottomon House of Rasheed and was the first monarch of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He enforced urbanization on the nomadic Bedouin tribes and established Wahhabism within the state.

More importantly, it was Ibn Saud who gave the American oil companies substantial rights and authority over the country's oil reserves, to the dismay of the British and other powers. In hindsight, it was a pivotal moment in modern history.

Ibn Saud is more vital than his son who succeeded him and is listed, Saud of Saudi Arabia, who at best just continued what Ibn Saud started. We can do a swap although 2 Saudi leaders isn't that unreasonable when you look at the rest of the list.

Support

1. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I support removing Saud of Saudi Arabia, who was not a particularly successful monarch and was forced to abdicate in a family power struggle. If we want a second Saudi monarch, I would say that his successor King Faisal is more vital. Neljack (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:20, 28 December 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 Sayyid Qutb

An Egyptian author, educator, Islamic theorist, poet, and the leading member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1966 he was convicted of plotting the assassination of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser and was executed by hanging.

Support

1. As nom. The fact that he played an important role in the history of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and many of his writings were officially among the curricula of schools, colleges and universities by the mid-1940s makes him vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC) 09:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Pivotal figure in the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and modern Islamism. Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Muslim brotherhood might be vital. --^Melody _Lavender 07:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sayyid Qutb wasn't just a leading figure in the Muslim brotherhood. His writings inspired the creation of Al-Qaeda and influenced Islamist thought throughout the Muslim world. This is a case of a person being more vital than the organisation. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. I would be happy with not listing either. Also, should he really be listed as a political leader? He's a convicted criminal. Several people have brought up the need for a section on criminals that are considered vital. --^Melody _Lavender 08:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

He would fit better in Rebels, Revolutionaries and Activists. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

The man who leads Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Support

1. As nom. He is definitely crucial since ISIS is currently one of the largest threats in the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) 09:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) fix

Oppose

1. Oppose Recentism. Cobblet (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Recentism! The first person to preach extreme Islamic ideology (Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab), the first person to implement it (Ibn Saud which I've proposed) and one of the first to successfully make it grow (Sayyid Qutb which you've proposed) are WAY more vital. The only recent extremist that's vital is Osama bin Laden. In any case, if al-Baghdadi why not Abubakar Shekau? 13:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose for the same reason as above Logical1004 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose recentism. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose come back in 2024 and then we can talk. pbp 05:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose crystalclear (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Richard Doll

The man who turned epidemiology into a rigourous discipline and studied the relationship between first-hand tobacco smoke and lung cancer. However he was quite controversial since he receive substantial consultancy payments from chemical companies whose products he was to defend in court.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Per nom. German scientist Fritz Lickint was the first to suggest a link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer but Doll was the first to prove it. Makes him vital IMO. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support His legacy goes far beyond the link between smoking and lung cancer. The most important epidemiologist ever. Neljack (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose; I'm willing to change if shown opposing evidence, but I really don't think he's that well known. As someone not significantly more well-versed in epidemiology than the average person, I've certainly never heard of him, and I don't see why the admittedly significant subjects he's worked on bestow their legacy on him. Tezero (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Tezero. --^Melody _Lavender 09:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

1. I'm not sure whether Fritz Lickint is the first man to suggest a link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, but Franz H. Müller had proven that the two has a link before Richard Doll conducted the study. In spite of this fact, Richard Doll is still crucial since before 1950 most British persons did not know that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is a widespread feeling that we may not be adequately covering epidemiology. Adding the biography of Dr Doll is not the answer. I don't think the vital article list is a Hall of fame sort of list where we honor people by putting them on the list. The question we should be asking ourselves is: Is this article vital to the reader? No. I don't think it is. It's a pretty boring biography of an affluent person, like many biographies on the list. We are adding such articles at the expense of the really vital scientific concepts Dr Doll has worked so hard for all his life. Endemic (epidemiology), Screening (medicine), Clinical trial are the types of articles Dr Doll would write up as vital. --^Melody _Lavender 09:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add History of Southeast Asia

Add this history article to the History by continent and region as it is a very basic article for this category.

Support

1. Support : As nom Logical1004 (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Weak Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose : History of Asia is already listed as vital article + there are already three subarticles on the list. So better to skip this. More views are welcome. crystalclear (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per my general doubt of history of whatever articles I can see no reason why this should be included.--^Melody _Lavender 06:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know if the best way to improve representation of SE Asia is to add this or add the history of more countries. Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are listed. The Philippines and Malaysia would probably the next to be added from the region. Then again, if History of India/South Asia is listed in addition to History of Republic of India and History of East Asia is listed along with History of China AND the History of the People's Republic of China (bearing in mind that History of the United Kingdom and History of England are both included as well), this won't be the worst case of overlap if added. There are some defined regions in the world where the countries are too small individually but the region as a whole may make their history article vital. For example History of Central America and History of the Caribbean are surely no less vital than History of Scandinavia.

Also I have to say that History of Austria is probably the weakest article in the section. I can think of ten countries that have stronger cases for inclusion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've come to a similar diagnosis in the past: History of Austria might not be necessary. But then I started to find some oversights, I believe it was in the Babenberg times. Austria has a hugely important history, so this would have to be examined thoroughly.--^Melody _Lavender 06:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Gladiator

Well-known classical warrior/entertainer that should be added with many of the same reasons for Ninja, below. Gladiators are popular and speak to people's imaginations. It is the job of an encyclopedia to explain the phenomenon. The article also covers an outline of the games, thus covering a somewhat broad field that is vital for people's understanding of the Roman Empire. Huh, according tot the article, even some emperors preformed as gladiators. Interesting...

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 08:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support that's got to be the biggest omission ever.--^Melody _Lavender 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  18:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Prefer adding this to the sports section rather than the history section. Cobblet (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

So it's historic, but it's still interesting, I'd much more prefer to read htis than several articles on ice skaters, pole vaulters, and ten tennis players, but maybe that's just just me. We also have Greco Roman wrestling, similar importance.  Carlwev  18:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Boo modern sports, yay classic ones! :p ~Mable (chat) 08:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Chukchi Sea, Add Sea of Okhotsk

The latter is a far more significant feature of Russia's maritime geography than the former. The former's most notable feature, the Bering Strait, is already listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 10:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  17:39, 30 December 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 Hispaniola

The two countries on this island, Dominican Republic and Haiti are listed separately on level 4, so Hispaniola is redundant.--^Melody _Lavender 10:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --^Melody _Lavender 10:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Strong support. I would actually support removing British Isles as well, even with the more impenetrable nomenclature in that region. Tezero (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support although Hispaniola is historically important as the first place to be colonized in the western hemisphere I think it is redundant with the two modern countries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think islands can be vital, an island that includes nearly all the territory of 2 nations and has a population of nearly 20 million seems vital to me, this is the most populated island in the whole of the Americas. Why pick this specific island? Why is this less vital than sparsely populated (or uninhabited) Russian and Canadian islands that have a fraction of one nations territory, or less vital than Mediteranean islands that are within one nations territory and have just over or under half million population Corsica, Crete, or 5 million Sicily, a quarter of Hispaniola's. The same single argument used here could be used to remove all regions and islands, as everywhere is part of a nation, we purged the regions once before, and many regret it. Any reason for this specific island and not any other, with no other argument?  Carlwev  19:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose unless Great Britain and the Iberian Peninsula are removed for the exact same reasons. Cobblet (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Are you sure about that? Should we remove Ireland and Great Britain (note that British Isles is also included) because Republic of Ireland and the UK and its constituent countries are all listed? Cobblet (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. That situation is much more complicated, the terminology surrounding the UK is a minefield for non-Brits. --^Melody _Lavender 20:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Great Britain and Ireland

Surprised there's consensus for removing Hispaniola. Well, these two islands are also redundant to the modern countries and to the British Isles which are listed. That article clearly explains the various geographic terms used to describe the location of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. (Update: Ireland is a cultural grouping like Korea, so I've withdrawn that part of the nomination. I don't think the island of Great Britain (as opposed to the UK or its constituent countries) is a cultural grouping in any meaningful sense.)

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose After thinking about it I think the reason GB and Ireland is more vital than Hispaniola is because of the current political importance of the islands, and the resulting relevance for readers to be able to read about these topics. Hispaniola has no current political significance. Ireland and GB does.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hispaniola is an island. Great Britain is a former country. Ireland is a current country, and long-time historic region. Consider the fact that nobody is referred to as "Hispaniolan", but a lot of people are referred to as "British" or "Irish"
3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

For any political entity that is also an island or archipelago, we include on the political entity on the list, not the island. We do not list Japanese archipelago, Pulau Ujong or Grande Terre (New Caledonia), but Japan, Singapore and New Caledonia. Actually in most cases a separate article on the island simply does not exist: usually it's just a redirect to the country, but sometimes it's a redirect to the geography article for the country – Taiwan (island) and Formosa redirect to Geography of Taiwan and Madagascar (island) redirects to Geography of Madagascar. We don't include "Geography of..." articles on the list since country articles can be expected to cover their geography in detail, and articles on "Hispaniola", "Great Britain" and "Ireland" are arguably redundant to the geography sections of their respective countries as well. Similar arguments can be applied to peninsulas: Greek peninsula redirects to Geography of Greece, and we've previously removed the Italian Peninsula for a similar reason. Cobblet (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have been told many times that anything related to the English speaking world is particularly important because this is the English wikipedia. Not sure how good an argument this is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That argument isn't unreasonable, but it's still up to us to decide how far we want to take that argument. For example, we could've used that argument to add all fifty US states, but that hasn't happened. Cobblet (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus:: If you're referring to Irish unification, I can buy the argument that Ireland is a cultural region with significance beyond the modern political entities; the same argument works in favour of Korea. But Great Britain (not as a synonym for the UK, but as the island itself) is a geographic concept, not a political one (that would be the UK). I mean, look at the article itself; none of the information there isn't already covered by another article on the list, be it British Isles, United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, History of England or History of the United Kingdom. Cobblet (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that it is important for political reasons to be able to distinguish between the islands and the different political units. And many people cant. Which is why it is useful for an encyclopedia to be able to help them. The same problem doesnt occur with Hispaniola.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That distinction is made clear in the lead paragraphs of both the British Isles and United Kingdom. I don't think we need to include Great Britain for the sole purpose of explaining what this term means; and even if we really wanted to do that, the best article to include would actually be Terminology of the British Isles. That doesn't sound like a vital article, does it? Compare America, a disambiguation page, with United States and the Americas; including Great Britain is a lot like including America IMO. Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And how about this: is the distinction between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China not confusing? Do we need to add Mainland China just to explain why some people use that term to refer to the latter entity? Or how about adding Metropolitan France to explain the concept of l'Hexagone? Cobblet (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89:: The article on Great Britain states quite clearly that it's about the island, not the Kingdom of Great Britain. And again, we already list History of England and History of the United Kingdom. Cobblet (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Re-add Normandy

One of a bazillion articles that didn't survive the Great Region Cull of July-August 2013. This region has been significant for, oh, at least 1000 years. pbp 23:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 23:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  14:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Maplestrip (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It is the Normans and their exploits that are vital, not so much the region they came from. Given that the Normans are listed, I don't think the region is needed as well. Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet, I was unaware that we already had the Normans, which seems to cover this subject and more. Maplestrip (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Think Alsace is a more vital missing region of France than Normandy. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I think Normandy is very significant. I think we had a lot of odd non vital regions when we cut through the region section, but we also removed quite a few important ones too, there are probably more that could be considered for re-adds too.

Off topic but this also got me thinking about suggesting Gaul as a vital article in ancient European history. Along with many Roman topics, we list Gallic Wars, which is Roman wars, with/in Gaul, but not Gaul itself. Kind of Biased to have a Roman war with a region but not the region itself. (Kind of felt the same about having Korean War, Vietnam War, and Arab-Israeli Conflict in the 1000 but not Korea, South Korea, Vietnam, Israel, Arabia, Arab League but we are slowly correcting these.) Does anyone like the idea of Gaul? I think I do.  Carlwev  14:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd definitely support Gaul, and I just noticed that South Korea is at level 3, but both Korea and North Korea are at level 4. Why is that? Maplestrip (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There's discussion in the level 3 talk page or it's archives. Found it Here it is. North Korea is definitely not lev 3 vital. But South Korea vs Korea? was the question. It was close at one point but after a short while it was clear people started siding for South Korea. We decided South Korea was better as it's an actual nation, and an important one. Korea although a nation previously and for a long time too, is now just a region. For lev 3 a comparison is... Bangladesh is listed over Bengal. UK is listed over Great Britain, British Isles, and/or England even though the UK is the youngest, it's the actual present day sovereign nation. There's more rational in the link take a look.  Carlwev  15:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining~ Maplestrip (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the Normans, Normandy was famous for the D-Day landings though I'm not sure if that's enough. Normandy isn't particularly different from mainstream France in terms of culture or anything else. Being in the north, it is generally a region more familiar to the UK and therefore English-speakers while the people of Spain, Italy and Germany are probably more likely to be familiar with the regions of France closer to their respective countries. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather add Normandy landings or Invasion of Normandy than Normandy itself, though I'm sure something similar already exists on the list? ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That would boil down to adding History of Normandy.--^Melody _Lavender 07:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose adding that. The closest thing to D-Day we have is Western Front (World War II). We list only a handful of individual battles/campaigns within larger wars and the two world wars are already very generously covered relative to other wars; I'm not saying they shouldn't be, but I'd oppose adding more things related to WWII unless we significantly expanded the history quota. There are a whole series of significant moments in WWII that could be considered besides Normandy – Leningrad, Stalingrad, Midway, Guadalcanal... Cobblet (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the addition of History of Normandy, but I don't see how Normandy landing has a chance of being voted onto the list. Western Front (World War II) in my opinion is an obvious candidate for removal. And just to be clear, I would support Normandy landing. There is a similar situation where the town of Nuremberg is on the list, not sure why. Maybe because of the Nuremberg trials or Gingerbread - in such situations I'd opt for including Gingerbread and the Nuremberg trials instead of the location. At least in the Nuremberg case, the trials get a lot more pageviews, too. --^Melody _Lavender 08:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can remove Western Front (World War II) unless we completely redo the way WWI and WWII is represented on the list; still, that may be something worth discussing. I think the strongest argument for keeping Nuremberg on the list is its historic role as the cultural centre of the Holy Roman Empire. Whether that's good enough a reason is for all of you to decide; but to me it's a better reason than anything that can be said for Reykjavik or Brno. Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Reykjavík

OK, lets then add Reykjavík. Sorry about Iceland, have no any cities.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. SUpport Reykjavik is a capital of a significant European nation, it has been a financial center for entire europe in prior to the 2008 recession. It continues to be a major cultural center in Europe. The fact that it has fewer inhabitants than 8 Belarussian or ukrainian cities is irrelevant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support unless we decide on a significant quota reduction for the geopgraphy tab all capital cities have a good case for inclusion. For all I know we include all countries; their capitals would be next in line, imo.--^Melody _Lavender 08:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support All capital cities are vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Per PointsofNoReturn.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose Iceland's human geography does not need more coverage beyond what is in the article on the country. Plus cities in western Europe are already overrepresented on the list to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. A population of 120,000, and the capital of one of the smallest countries in the world and least significant in Europe. Also, Reykjavik has no history to speak of, and the economy is not particularly noteworthy. I'm open to more cities, but not from Iceland. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose agree with Ypnyn and Cobblet. Ignoring the missing vital non-capitals on the list for a moment, Kingston, Jamaica, Port Moresby, Nouakchott and Ashgabat are considerably more vital than Reykjavik, especially considering the lack of representation of their respective regions although there are other reasons as well. Within Northern Europe, Tallinn and Gothenburg are ahead of the queue. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

(These comments are in reference to the general discussion taking place and not just this proposal) Raykjavik could very well be vital. But it's nonsensical to regard the capital city of every nation as vital. Regarding the capital city of every autonomous but not fully independent state such as Tórshavn of the Faroe Islands as vital is even more foolish. Being the capital city makes that city the political centre. It's just one of many factors to consider. Cities that are crucial financially, culturally, historically, geopolitically and demographically can easily override the capital city in vitality.

If we follow the capital city = vital reasoning to its maximum extent, on Level 3 we will have to replace New York City with Washington D.C., Istanbul with Ankara and São Paulo with Brasilia (you'd think Rio de Janeiro would be next in line). Los Angeles and San Francisco are not even capitals of the state they're in, California. We would have to replace them with Sacramento instead.

I would extremely hesitant in adding a city (where capital or not) from every island state or autonomous groups of islands in the world. Some of them like Reykjavík, Kingston, Jamaica or Port Moresby may be vital. The vast majority of them are clearly not. See List of island countries to see how many capital cities of island nation states or island provinces/autonomous entities will have to be added. Keeping in mind that the capital cities of small non-island countries and autonomous regions within larger countries will be added as well, I predict there will be around 200 additions to the list. And countries with multiple capitals will get a bonus one or two articles on this basis.

Also Canberra is not vital. Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth are heads and shoulders above the rest and are sufficient. The next cities in line would be Adelaide, Gold Coast despite its proximity to Brisbane, and probably even Darwin despite having a smaller population, because of its very different ethnic makeup, history and climate (being part of the Top End). As a frequent visitor to Canberra, I can assure there is nothing that needs to be known about it in a vital encyclopedia apart from what is mentioned in the Australia article itself. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add all 71 unlisted national capitals

We list 195 countries but only 121 capitals (by my count). Since two people have expressed a belief that all national capitals are vital, let's put it to a vote. (Vatican City, Monaco and Singapore are city-states and cannot be said to have a capital.)

Support

1. Support Every nation should have its capital listed. It is biased not to list national capitals no matter how small they are. In fact, I would remove many cities in order to add national capitals. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose I started writing my comments above before seeing this. I could have written my thoughts here instead. Anyway, I strongly oppose this. Ignoring the fact that capital city is often not the vital city of a country, there should be countries with no city representatives at all. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose I dont think we need to have all capitals, as in some countries the capital is not the most important or well known city. I dont think I can think of any countries whose capitals I would not include before Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and Chernihiv though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose, per Gizza. Maplestrip (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I see very little need to have capitals of countries with less than a million people. pbp 04:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus:: Would that include the capitals of every island nation in the Caribbean or the Pacific? Cobblet (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to think the proposer is doing here is to establish a rational basis for including cities. That a city is the capital of a country is a reasonable criterion -- although some countries aren't important enough to justify their capital being included. (Notability is not inherited.) Another is that the city is the largest in a given country -- subject to the same caveat. A third would be that the city clear cultural/historical value to humanity. And a fourth -- which I don't know if anyone has considered -- is that an active Wikiproject has rated it as Top Importance. Were we to look at the various city articles currently on the list with these four criteria in mind, would that help us to add or remove any of them? -- llywrch (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder, do we already include "each" country? ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Compare the list of sovereign states. All 193 UN member states and both UN observer states are included on our list. Nine of the eleven other states included on that list are also on our list, under "unrecognized or largely unrecognized states"; the exceptions are Niue and the Cook Islands. Certainly an argument could be made to include these two – I wasn't aware that a handful of countries now formally recognize their independence (see political status of the Cook Islands and Niue), although New Zealand does not. Cobblet (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Time travel

As discussed down at space colonization, time travel could be placed as follows: "Literature>Basic concepts of literature>Fiction>Science fiction>Time travel". It is one of the major subjects of science fiction, besides space exploration and robotics (which are obviously currently a real thing). Since H.G. Wells The Time Machine, the concept of time travel has been an incredibly popular topic in many ways. The concept is absolutely vital for an encyclopedia to approach, as it should explain the history of the concept, practical limitations, time paradoxes, plenty of things that are tricky to wrap your head around, but a popular topic of discussion regardless. ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Pretty big science fiction topic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'll support this once a serious attempt has been made to actually perform time travel. Otherwise this belongs in the same realm of speculation as teleportation, psychokinesis and rayguns. Intangible targets of speculation like alternate history and dystopia are just as popular in literature and pop culture yet are not vital either IMO. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Again like space colonization, alien invasion and telepathy, this is too early and speculative. I'll reiterate my support for future studies/futurology which studies all these futuristic technologies and other issues like the future of the world economy, environment and resources, population projections and all that. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

I'm more interested in time travel as a literary device and trope than as a "future technology". Obviously, it has no ground to stand on when you look at how it "might be possible someday," but that's not why I suggested it. It might be a bit similar to alternate history and dystopia, though, I won't disagree about that... ~Maplestrip (chat) 07:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Singing

We are over the quota in the music section so we need to make some cuts. I consider this redundant with Song which we have.

Support

1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose and the proposal clearly demonstrates that the current quotas are way way off, to the point where I think it's almost ridiculous. As Malerisch says below, the entire artx section is 1% over a ridiculously tiny quota, not the music section. Music articles are even popular articles. If there appear to be too many arts articles maybe the musicians section could be cut.--^Melody _Lavender 06:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, level 3, the vital one between song and singing ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose : CrystalClear (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

FYI singing is also listed on level 3. (In case it wasn't clear, we're over quota for the entire Arts category—music doesn't have a specific quota, so cuts can come from other sections as well.) Malerisch (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of the two, song appears to be the non-vital article. Singing describes singing techniques and pedagogy, the biology of singing, the role of the human voice in music and even the health benefits of it. Song merely mentions the types of song that exist (folk song, pop song, etc.) which seems redundant to music and the main genres. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Lute

We are over the quota in the music section so we need to make some cuts. I think we ought to cut either this or Lyra from the stringed instruments.

Support

1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose pbp 02:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose --^Melody _Lavender 06:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose: Significant historical instrument. Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Alternative rock or Indie rock

Important, often mainstream, long-lasting musical styles, encompassing artists from Nirvana to the Cure, from R.E.M. to the Dandy Warhols. For context, Heavy metal, Hard rock, and Rock and roll are already listed. If you support one or both, specify which.

Support

1. Support per nom. Tezero (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, They are among my favorite musical genres, but they seem insignificant by nature, it seems. I strongly oppose Indie rock, as it is barely a genre of music on its own and has only recently become bigger. I have a weak oppose to alternative rock, as Nirvana, hard rock and punk rock are already listed. These do a fine job of explaining different, more alternative kinds of rock music, and we shouldn't get too many of these subgenres. I do agree that it would be the next one to add if we wanted to add more rock. ~Maplestrip (chat) 18:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Alternative rock was removed back in June, and IMO it's sufficiently covered by rock music. Indie rock is a subgenre of alternative rock and is even less vital. Malerisch (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose We were right to remove this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose pbp 02:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Cutting down Specific musical works

Given that we are over quota I would suggest cutting classical works to 10 from 13 and modern works to 20 from 28.

I would cut Années de pèlerinage, Le marteau sans maître and Scheherazade (Rimsky-Korsakov) from classical first. Then I would cut Dixie (song), Pet Sounds, Rock Around the Clock, Rumours, What'd I Say, What's Going On, I Want to Hold Your Hand (keeping Sargeant Pepper), and The Dark Side of the Moon. But then that is just me. Which ones would you all cut?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I would cut some of the opera works too. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd support all those cuts. Pelléas et Mélisande is the least vital of the operas. Cobblet (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree some specific works could be cut. But other than that those are just cosmetic changes to a very needy part of the list. Most of the articles mentioned in the overarching article music theory are vital, for example (Pitch (music), Articulation (music), Timbre...). We really have not done our job in that area. Dance, too, is a mere disgrace: Most of the international standard ballroom dances (WP:RS!) are vital and should be included: Mambo, Rumba, Chacha, Foxtrot... I see no way around a considerable increase in quota. --^Melody _Lavender 06:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to increase the quota you have to cut it from somewhere else. I personally dont think the ballroom dances are vital. Nor articulation or timbre for that matter - they are rather technical and somewhat tangential topics in music theory. I think scale, rhythm, harmony, chord, melody, would be enough.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we are not listing enough technical and theoretical topics, all in all, in most sections. Cut somewhere else? Yes, geography, history, organisms, and, uh, people.--^Melody _Lavender 07:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

People and History are simply more vital than theoretical and technical topics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You would have been able to mention a reason for this bias if it were true that the list should have a bias towards these topics. An encyclopedia should cover technical and theoretical topics also. There is widespread consensus that we should diversify and not limit ourselves to any topic.--^Melody _Lavender 08:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The list should have a bias towards the kinds of things encyclopedia readers expect to see in their encyclopedia. HUmans tend to like reading about other humans in encyclopedias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:07, 29 November 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 Wonder Woman

Not the best known comic book character at all, evens out Marvel and DC, we have 5 comic book super heroes right now, is that really needed?

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
3. SUpportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support If we need more representation of feminism in the Arts section, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman or The Second Sex are much better choices than Wonder Woman. Malerisch (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support  Carlwev  18:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This female character is vital, since her depiction as a heroine fighting for justice, love, peace, and sexual equality has led to Wonder Woman being widely considered a feminist icon.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose. IME, she and Princess Peach are the two most commonly cited female characters in the context of feminism/gender portrayals in media. Is this a relevant criterion for inclusion? Perhaps not, but she's a popular superhero besides. Tezero (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose - She is the oldest Comic Book super hero still regularly in production, next to Superman and Batman, and the highest profile female comic book character by far. Certainly noteworthy enough to be considered "vital". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose She is an extremely important comic book character. She should not be removed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose: Most significant and historic of any of the female superheroes. If we have Superman and Batman, we need Wonder Woman. This is a major character and no question as to her significance in the genre. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

• Why is there a pervasive need to even out Marvel and DC? The fact is that both Superman and Batman are more significant than Spiderman, and Wonder Woman is at least as significant as the Hulk. Detective Comics/DC is a much longer-established comic book house than Marvel. pbp 20:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont think there is a need to even out marvel and dc. Which company is publishing a character has nothing to do with their vitality.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Hulk would be the next superhero I'd suggest for deletion, and "evening out" isn't the biggest reason to make this suggestion. You guys think I should suggest The Hulk now? I'm not entirely sure about it myself. Feel free to suggest it yourself, though... Maplestrip (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If you don't suggest it, I probably will. pbp 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Barbie is a more frequently cited character than Princess Peach when it comes to gender portrayals. Probably moreso than Wonder Woman too. That aside, I agree with Malerisch and think there are better ways to improve coverage of feminism. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• This particular cartoon superhero is a feminist icon, to remove her (in favor of what?) would be to erase the strongest and most independent female character (not a "girl", this one, not a derivative of a male superhero) from the VA list. Toss any number of other cartoon characters before this one. She's right up there with Superman and Batman, far more important than any others in the DC "universe." Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Little Red Riding Hood

Incredibly well known fairy tail/fairy tail character.

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support at least as vital as Hansel and Gretel if not more so.--^Melody _Lavender 20:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Well-known equals vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Supportper nom.(Gonzales John) 16:00, 06 December 2014

Oppose

1. Oppose; I don't think she's very well-known outside the U.S. and Western Europe, nor have versions of her story hatched independently in other cultures as has happened with, say, Cinderella. Tezero (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I don't think being well-known is enough to make a fictional character notable: there has to be some greater literary/artistic significance associated with it, as evidenced in the frequency and notability of adaptations or depictions in other media, for example. The Tortoise and the Hare might be the most famous fable ever and yet I don't think it is vital. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Little Red Riding Hood is probably more widely known than Faust, Baba Yaga and Hansel and Gretel. Actually most of the characters listed are only known in the West but unlike many of them, LRRH has been around for hundreds of years. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Baba Yaga only known in the west? Well, that can't be right. Other than that, I agree. Maplestrip (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

An understanding of the Faust legend is essential for appreciating a good deal of Western art. Baba Yaga and Hansel and Gretel are not quite as essential, but still more significant than Little Red Riding Hood. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

LRRH gets about 10 times as many google hits as H&G and it ranks higher in article traffic stats: Little Red Riding Hood is among the 10,000 most viewed articles on Wikipedia (rank 9617).--^Melody _Lavender 20:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd use that as an argument to remove Hansel and Gretel, not add Little Red Riding Hood. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there have been some adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood, both faithful and loose, and elements from the tale have often been incorporated into other media.(Gonzales John) 16:00, 06 December 2014

Yes, but none of them have any substantial artistic or cultural significance. One's appreciation of the Western literary and artistic canon is scarcely diminished by not knowing who Little Red Riding Hood is. Cobblet (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Bigfoot and Cyclops, add Monster, Giant (mythology), Elf and Yeti

I think we could do with a few more fictitious archetypes. It seems weird that we have Bigfoot but not his archetype (yeti), and Cyclops but not giant. pbp 17:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support additions  Carlwev  17:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cyclops, Giant and Elf. Opose Monster, as I don't think it is as vital, as it's more a general description of "something scary and unexplained" - depends on what is deemed vital Maplestrip (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support removing Cyclops and adding giant. Undecided about bigfoot, elf and yeti. Oppose Monster per Maplestrip. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support removing Bigfoot and Cyclops which are both creatures with a very limited global geographic relevance (Northern America; Ancient Greece/Rome). Support adding Giant as a more general archetype. Neutral on Elf, which is also based on limited Norse/Germanic origin but through Tolkien and Christmas can now be seen as a global mythical figure. Oppose Yeti, which is a local myth of the Himalayas and as such has no more claim to being vital than other local myths. If we remove Bigfoot and Cyclops we should not add Yeti. Arnoutf (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support removing Bigfoot and Cyclops. Malerisch (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support removing Bigfoot and Cyclops, and adding Giant, Oppose adding Monster and Yeti. Jucchan (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Support removals, Oppose adding elf. Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I started to research the topic from the same perspective: looking for an overarching article (in that case an archetype), and had the same idea: Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yowie and so on all belong to the same species: the Yeti. I was wrong. According to our article the Yeti lives only in Tibet and there is no mention of them being related. Bigfoot however is identical to Sasquatch according to our article. The archetype I'm considering proposing is Cryptid.--^Melody _Lavender 06:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I've suggested adding cryptid in the past – I think it's a better choice than yeti. I'm indifferent to elves (fairy is sufficient IMO), but would support the rest of the proposal. Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I still can't decide between, Cryptozoology and Cryptid. I am fully aware that cryptozoology only covers animals and there is also cryptobotany, although the plant one seems to be a lot less interesting and only has man eating plant of any interest, crytozoology just seems more well known and gets more reading and editing attention than cryptid. But we could change that perhaps partly by adding cryptid here and improving it... maybe?

Also we removed Ufology in a bulk removal a while back, As a topic that "may or may not be something" in the public mind UFO or Ufology is just as bigger part of modern folklore, modern culture, as bigfoot and loch ness monster if not more and probably has more books and stuff published on it. What are peoples views on UFO or Ufology? we removed it once but some things we have gone back on, some not.  Carlwev  17:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We already added extraterrestrial life and astrobiology; an encyclopedia should prioritize science over pseudoscience. Cobblet (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree ET life and astrobiology are sufficient. There's no need to re-add UFO. If we add UFO again, articles like crop circle and Bermuda Triangle will be knocking on the door. The Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid as well and should probably be discussed alongside Bigfoot and the Yeti. It is possibly a mythological character as well with one 6th century Irish text mentioning a water beast but it's not really part of any greater narrative unlike most of the creatures listed. I'm sure we could add another Scottish symbol somewhere if it gets replaced by cryptid. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I count 4-0 for removing Bigfoot, 6-0 for removing Cyclops, 2-3 for adding Monster, 6-0 for adding Giant, 3-0 for adding Elf, and 2-2 for adding Yeti, so do we count that as a passing consensus for removing Bigfoot and adding Elf? Malerisch (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to add my !vote and reclose this. There isn't consensus to add elf. Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add endogamy and exogamy

If topics like moiety and house society are being considered for vitality then endogamy and exogamy should also be added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Of course. This is more vital than all the kinship topics I suggested below.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 03:00, 25 December 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 Moiety

The kinship section is too focused on the institutions of Western kinship. We need to add more kinship forms from the anthropological literature. Moiety is a kinship organization in which societies are divided into two halves each of which must marry a member of the opposite half.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 20:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per gnome, the article seems to be off to a decent start :) ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support assuming that the proposal should now be interpreted as adding Moiety (kinship). Neljack (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Currently, this doesn't have it's own article. Moiety (kinship) is a redirect. Not sure what to do in these cases. Put it on the list and turn the redirect into a stub maybe and insist it be written? The article must have great potential and I can immagine people might want to look that up.--^Melody _Lavender 21:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We can classify the articles as redirects or redlinks in the same way we currently classify them as stubs, featured articles, etc. Articles like endogamy and exogamy can also be considered. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add House society

The kinship section is too focused on the institutions of Western kinship. We need to add more kinship forms from the anthropological literature. Ahouse society is a society in which kinship is determined by belonging to households.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 20:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

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 Affinal kin

The kinship section is too focused on the institutions of Western kinship. We need to add more kinship forms from the anthropological literature. We have consanguinity which is the one major form of kinship recruitment, the other is affinity - i.e. kinship by choice such as marriage, adoption.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Change of mind since last time. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --^Melody _Lavender 12:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Another suggestion that is a redirect (to Affinity (law), in this case). I'm not sure how well that article works together with the concept of affinal kinship, or how big the overlap is. I don't know much of anthropology, so I have no idea what kind of encyclopedic value affinal kin has, especially when we already have marriage and adoption themselves. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Fictive kin

The kinship section is too focused on the institutions of Western kinship. We need to add more kinship forms from the anthropological literature. Fictive kin is a major kind of kinship in the literature which covers institutions such as coparenthood/compadrazgo and similar institutions that are found in many societies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

Discussion

My other thoughts on food and drink in general: I am a little unsure of hot chocolate, surely the next most vital chocolate article would be chocolate bar. Also unsure of lemonade, we have soda, and why we removed cola but kept lemonade? it's the only flavour specific thing in addition to main overview article, why not orange juice in addition to juice, or apple pie, chocolate biscuit or cake, or cherryade? Also I really want Potato chip re-added, We should have some snacks, we have chocolate, biscuit, breakfast cereal, cake, ice cream. Crisp or potato chip market is huge and more significant than several foods we include, they are approx 150 years old, many adults and children eat them daily, in a supermarket they often have there own aisle to themselves unlike many other foods and drink we have. Someone said snack would be better but I disagree as that's little more than a dictionary definition and why would we keep the other snacks we have? it's like adding dinner than removing all the food you could eat at dinner.  Carlwev  12:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the food section needs a lot of work and I'd very much like to see it combined with agriculture, and maybe with edible organisms. Concerning snack: snack food might be the better addition. We should also have potato chip. And Orange juice.--^Melody _Lavender 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The section might also be a bit too Western Centric: We don't have Tahini, Falafel, Humus, Baba Ganoush.--^Melody _Lavender 13:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Food storage

Food logistics in a private household means all the planning and other activites to keep your refrigerator full of fresh food. This requires detailed planning and budgeting in cases of larger families, and, of course, food logistics is also an issue in industry.--^Melody _Lavender 07:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --^Melody _Lavender 07:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not a commonly used concept. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If food storage is supposed to be food logistics rather than food preservation, perhaps that's a change that the article needs to reflect first. I would possibly support food logistics if it was an article, but food storage really is just about the preservation of food while in storage. I suggest you bring this idea up in the talk page of the article itself, or maybe start a new article if you can find the references. Maplestrip (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

While we have little clue sometimes about what vitality means, there is one basic mission we have, and that is to identify articles that should be well developed and watched. So the current state of the articles is really not relevant, even a stub or a red link could be vital. I also have moved the article to food logistics now. --^Melody _Lavender 10:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the topic that is the issue here. Food storage is/was about the preservation of food, which is not vital. food logistics could be vital, I agree with that, though I am still on the fence. Now you have changed the title (but not the content) of the article, the topic might be better suited for being rated a vital article. However, I don't think simply changing the article's name to reflect what you think the article should be about was a good idea. Again, I suggest you discuss that decision in the article's talk page, though if no one complains, I guess the article was just misnamed in the first place and you fixed it?

Anyway, whether food logistics is a vital article, I am not sure yet and rather wait for some other opinions before I make my decision. Maplestrip (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have had that article on my watchlist for quite a long time and I don't think the move can be considered controversial (so I don't see the need to discuss it first). Because obviously many people will believe food storage is the same as food preservation (which is on the vitals 10,000 list, by the way). And there was no article at all on food logistics (which includes transport and storing), not even a redirect. Let's see if anybody wants to move this article back, but I've had this in mind for quite a while and I think the move was not controversial. It can be undone, of course, I won't revert.--^Melody _Lavender 14:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is really not the place to discuss this, but food storage has been moved back to its previous title with the comment "original article title. Very recent move was not discussed or even proposed in advance. current name is much less informative than old name." Again, I suggest discussing the change in the Talk page or creating a new article entirely if you can find the references. You've defined what "food logistics" is supposed to be about well enough for this page, though, so all of this should not be a reason not to add it to the list, much like how a red link isn't a reason for that. Maplestrip (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I really don't see any need to discuss this. If you really want to discuss this, this page can very well be the place, or the article page. I'm more likely to respond here, however. I just don't see what you want to discuss, you're not mentioning any issues and it's all pretty self explanatory. --^Melody _Lavender 13:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who moved it back, you'd have to discuss this with the person who did. Maplestrip (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I see you changed back the title of your suggestion. What do you want to be a vital subject, "food storage" or "food logistics"? I oppose to the former either way, seeing the overlap with food preservation. Maplestrip (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Re-add potato chip

Many Western and non-Western people enjoy having this kind of snack, which means it has been widely consumed since its invention, hence it is crucial and should be added to the list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  14:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Kindergarten

Vital basic step in education. Important for work life of parents and for social life of children.--^Melody _Lavender 10:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 10:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, particularly important in an encyclopedia, at least as important as university. ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support It is the original and most influential style of early childhood education, which is regarded as a stage of education, not simply a grade level. I might've preferred listing the technical umbrella term slightly but I agree that something in this area should be on the list. Cobblet (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I do not think one grade level is vital no matter which grade it is. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Points. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Gizza but would support early childhood education, primary education, and secondary education. Malerisch (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I prefer early childhood education. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that above kindergarten also. I'll change my opinion here to oppose once it is suggested. ~Mable (chat) 16:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add academia

No doubt it is crucial.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I don't believe any subtopic of academia is crucial, whether peer review, academic journal or interdisciplinarity. I would leave it at this and research, which is already on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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

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

---

Add Emoticon

A particularly common kind of communication these days that is here to stay, though seeing as it's a rather modern phenomenon, it needs to be explained in an encyclopedia and explained well. The symbols have quite a bit of history around them, are very familiar looking (everyone recognizes :)) as they are everywhere, allow for a huge amount of variations (I've often had to explain to my mother what :p or :s means, or even what :-) means) and are used all over the world. Japanese-style emoticons (o_o) are getting more popular as well, and there's images too.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Weak support. IME, emoticons only really entered the mainstream in the late 2000s, which would be unusually recent of an advent for a vital article, but they're so well-established and unlikely to leave the cultural lexicon that I think they're appropriate. Tezero (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Add punctuation first!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think emoticons have had any particularly significant impact on human culture at this point. They area form of punctuation, similar to the exclamation point in the way they add an emotional stance to the message. But I also voted against including punctuation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not before punctuation, which is in turn redundant to orthography. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose : Logical1004 (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Something in this area that's missing and in my opinion more important is Short Message Service (SMS) or Text messaging, (apparently 3.5 billion users or almost half the world population now "texts") emoticons are either used online or via SMS, other vaguely similar missing topics are cyberculture, Initial, Acronym not sure they would be vital either.  Carlwev  13:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Emoticons are not a complete communication system or language. They supplement real language. In a way they are like punctuation (particularly exclamation marks) but the proposal to add punctuation itself failed some time ago. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd support both punctuation and text messaging. Initial and acronym seems much less vital for an encyclopedia to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Specific languages?

I was wondering what rules are used to determine whether a language is vital. Do they simply need to be in use by enough people? I've noticed he Dutch language on the list and was thinking about suggesting it to be removed, but I don't know what rationale is being used for languages... ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is free to propose what they see fit, and others to oppose or support, I don't see emoticons as more important to the world or an encyclopedia as the Dutch language, but that's just me, although I think others will agree too; but I've been wrong before. Suggest removing it if it's what you genuinely think.  Carlwev  13:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a combination of number of speakers and cultural significance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

When is a language culturally significant? I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of language having much impact on culture besides being a natural limit to arts... ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Think of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Hebrew or Koptic for example. Very large cultural significance compared to the number of current speakers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, but would fit very little modern languages. Perhaps a large amount of specific languages should actually be removed, I'm not really sure why many of them are vital for an encyclopedia other than for the fact that "it's the language of country Y and X".

Let's pick a random modern language: Swedish has a very large history section that is of interest and would probably be its selling point. Then comes geographic distribution, which is important. Dialects, phonology, vocabulary, writing system, grammar and sample all refer to how the language works... Eh, I really don't know, I'm not a fan of language articles in general, so I'm really not the right person to suggest removals in this category. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the classical languages I think it is safest to go with number of speakers and simply list a handful or two of the most widely spoken. It would take a very strong argument that I cant really see how to make to suggest that Swedish is vital for example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Hiragana and Katakana

Hangul is listed, but hiragana and katakana have been used in more languages (all the Japonic languages + Ainu vs. Korean + Jeju) and are more recognizable to non-Japanese people through the popularity of anime, manga, and Japanese video games.

Support

1. Support per nom. Tezero (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --^Melody _Lavender 07:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Prefer Japanese writing system. We do not list Traditional Chinese characters and Simplified Chinese characters, but Chinese characters. Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Add Japanese writing system instead per Cobblet. This reminds me of the proposal to add Delta Works and Zuiderzee Works where we finally agreed to add Flood control in the Netherlands instead. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose, ad writing system as discussed below. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Kanji

To go with hiragana and katakana. They're called chinese characters and some of them are identical to Chinese characters, but they are differene and Japanese Kanji together with hiragana and Katakana constitute a writing system of their own which is vital for all the reasons mentioned in the above proposal.--^Melody _Lavender 08:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom. --^Melody _Lavender 08:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Again, I prefer Japanese writing system. BTW, most kanji characters are identical to Chinese characters. Cobblet (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Every adaptation of another writing system cannot be considered vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose now that Japanese writing system has been added. Malerisch (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think we can have Katakana and Hiragana without Kanji, but I don't think the Japanese written language should have this many topics as vital. I'd prefer to switch Katakana and Hiragana with Japanese writing system as well, as that article should also explain the different ways these are all used alongside eachother, which is possibly the most important part about these articles. ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It made no sense to propose only hiragana and katakana alone. I agree it's getting to detailed and would prefer Japanese writing system, which would probably also explain which Chinese characters can be used in Japanese and when hiragana or katakana are used and so on. Very interesting article and I'm sure many readers would like that.--^Melody _Lavender 15:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

TV shows?

I mentioned in discussion before and several users I think Monty Python are very significant, but we are trimming comedians quite brutally, does Monty Python doesn't deserve two slots, when other significant comedians/comedy groups don't have one, as Monty Python itself is included under comedian biographies. Although Flying Circus is one of their most significant projects, they are well known for several movies as well, and other TV shows too. There are only 15 shows, not sure if this is top 15 shows ever, othersin the list look odd also like Roots (TV miniseries). I notice we have one animation, The Simpsons, and one children's program, Sesame Street, I was thinking if we should have a significant children's cartoon like Tom and Jerry? I thought for a while should there be representation for William Hanna and Joseph Barbera? I don't know if they deserve 2 spaces in biographies or not, and the article Hanna Barbera doesn't seem right either as it's a company/studio and we can't really have that if we don't have companies/studios like Disney or 20th cent Fox. I have also thought about a swap, Donald Duck for Disney, if it were not for the hatred of companies. Thoughts on these?  Carlwev  18:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely Support adding Tom and Jerry (and possibly something like Southpark? Just stating what is in the top of my head here, though) and I guess I'd support removing Flying Circus, as it seems to fit under Monty Python well enough. We have Walt Disney for Disney. I guess the general philosophy here is that companies don't change the world - people do. It creates some issues, but if we'd add one company, we'd immediately have to add 200-or-so of them, if not more. Maplestrip (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Roots is probably on there for two reasons: 1) it is the most-watch miniseries ever, 2) it is considered culturally significant. pbp 21:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd support keeping Roots as well. I agree that Monty Python shouldn't take up two spaces. If we were to have another British comedian, Peter Sellers or Rowan Atkinson could take the place of Flying Circus (not saying we should add them, non-English speaking comedians are the clearest absentees on the list) Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Emotions??

The emotions are on level 3 located in Everyday Life, wheras here they are located in social sciences>psychology. I think the latter makes more sense myself. Should one of the two be moved so they match up with eachother? ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add positive psychology

Now many college students take positive psychology courses, so it is more and more important.

Support

1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support but not in the psychology section. Positive psychology is vital as an esoteric pseudo-science. --^Melody _Lavender 08:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This is not vital. It is a recent pseudoscientific fad.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I prefer improving our coverage of real psychology first. It doesn't have the longevity of pseudosciences that are vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Though some people criticize positive psychology, it is no pseudoscience. Just read the article and you'll agree with me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC) 08:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC) fix

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 nature versus nurture

It is as crucial as structure and agency.

Support

1. as nom. I'm not sure where to put this proposal, so I put it here.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support One of the debates going on about the development of children. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. --^Melody _Lavender 21:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support one of the long standing and ongoing topics of interest in psychology (but also I guess in biology and education etc.). Arnoutf (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

What is precisely the difference between "structure and agency" and "nature versus nurture"? Both articles debate whether human actions and choices are caused by society, environment and genetics or our own free will and personality. Why do we need both? Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Microorganism

We list several main groupings of life, this one is one of the most basic, and includes many types of life. Microorganisms are studied a lot, they are important regarding medicine, hygiene, and some industries. Also in the past before microscopes there where theories about whether they actually existed or not. The article does a better job at explaining how important they are than I can.  Carlwev  14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Agree Logical1004 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support CrystalClear (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Have to agree with Gizza. Besides the microbiology article, both history of biology and history of medicine treat the evolution of our understanding of microorganisms in some detail. Cobblet (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per Gizza ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose In addition to microbiology, the important classifications of bacteria, protist, etc. are listed. We don't need microorganism. We replaced many species of deep sea fish with deep sea fish but that was because we were cutting down on the number of fish. This can never replace an article like bacteria. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This seems redundant to microbiology, keeping in mind that it is not a taxonomic rank. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add ginseng

Definitely a crucial article, since some dishes use ginseng, and ginseng has medicinal uses.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support We could use a medicinal herb on the list. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

User:Plantdrew/Vital has some good ideas for adds and removals in the plant section. The bold links in particular. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd definitely support Maple ;p Anyway, that page seems to be filled with good ideas, so some of them should probably be suggested. Will be hard to keep the amount of flora at a reasonable size if we suggest too many of these, though... Swaps are probably recommended. ~Mable (chat) 12:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add harm reduction

A range of public health policies designated to reduce the harmful consequences associated with various human behaviours, both legal and illegal. Not all people embrace it.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale given. No vitality that I can think of.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Not so sure about this, it's more like a catch-phrase. The article is mainly about a public policy that really is embraced in many areas and it's controversial. But harm reduction is a phrase used everywhere, daily life, management a.s.o. Does that make it vital?--^Melody _Lavender 07:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add toxicity

I know this article has mild overlap with toxin and toxicology, however it is still crucial since the three articles correspond to relevant but different topics, and the concept is by no doubt vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support and I would prefer to swap it with toxin. Toxin deals with animal poisons only, like snake venom. Stuff like radioactive plutonium is not covered by toxin.--^Melody _Lavender 18:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Redundant with Toxin. Also no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, please explain why this topic is vital next to the other two. Maplestrip (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Could support a swap with toxin if someone wishes to discuss the matter further. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that. Toxin is really not vital. It's a term frequently but mistakenly used for toxicant (which in turn includes toxins). I'd prefer to add toxicity over toxicant.--^Melody _Lavender 07:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support a swap, but not an addition. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add carcinogen, co-carcinogen, anti-carcinogen, carcinogenesis and oral cancer

Support

1. As nom. They are all no doubt crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support carcinogen only. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support carcinogenesis, and if that doesn't pass, I'd put up with carcinogen.--^Melody _Lavender 20:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support carcinogen only.Gonzales John23 December 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support carcinogen. Jucchan (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Very clearly overlapping and mutually redundant. Might support carcinogen, but none of the others are vital. very poor judgment Rekishi seems to think this list infinite.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose all except carcinogen. Jucchan (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support carcinogen, but the rest are indeed redundant with carcinogen itself. Different kind of cancer (such as oral here) aren't vital because of overlap with cancer itself. Never stop suggesting new additions, RekishiEJ :) ~Maplestrip (chat) 17:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose the rest. Too detailed for the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 20:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose addition of co-carcinogen, anti-carcinogen and carcinogenesis pbp 21:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add peer review

An absolutely crucial article which does not appear in the Level 4 list.

Support

1. as nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, basic process in the advancement of science. --^Melody _Lavender 07:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose no rationale given. Plus we recently discussed this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Too specific to academia. Also this isn't the best place to put it anyway. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

I am surprised that there is no mention of this, even in biology, given that lots of things in medical agricultural, and other fields rely on biotechnology. Could include Genetic engineering, Genetically modified organism, Polymerase chain reaction (an common and important biotech procedure), Gel electrophoresis (likewise) Restriction enzyme (an important molecular tool used in biotechnology), and any other things that might be suggested. Sarr Cat (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Sarr Cat: I agree with your analysis and yll the topics you mentioned are vital, plus Biopharmaceuticals which have existed since the 1970s. We only have Genetical engineering and Biotechnology itself, both are on level 3. Too me, this is an indicator that we should have more detailed articles on level 4. I' suggest to propose each article for addition individually because I'm not sure that everybody will support all of them.--^Melody _Lavender 08:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Biopharmaceutical

Interesting, expensive, ingenial, first product was introduced on the market in 1982. In 2001 alone, 34.527 new patents for biopharmaceuticals were registered. Some of the most interesting applications are in rheumatoid arthritis, a crippling illness that affects 1% of the adult population, and can start in childhood. Vital application of biotechnology. --^Melody _Lavender 08:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It makes no sense to list this without listing small molecule drugs as well, but neither is necessary, since pharmaceutical drug already covers both concepts. BTW, I'd support all of Sarr Cat's suggestions: there's a lot of molecular biology stuff that needs to be added. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Gel electrophoresis

As suggested by Sarr Cat: A common and important biotech procedure for separating proteins in DNA fragments.--^Melody _Lavender 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Essential analytical technique in molecular biology. Cobblet (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 05:39, 28 December 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 Restriction enzyme

As suggested by Sarr Cat: Important molecular tool used in biotechnology - another method to cut up DNA at a predetermined point.--^Melody _Lavender 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We shouldn't go overboard with the experimental techniques: I'd rather add more general DNA-related manipulations such as DNA sequencing, or proteins that are essential to molecular biology as a whole (including the experimental side) like DNA polymerase or antibody. If you're thinking about adding restriction enzymes, you have to consider whether the equivalent for proteins is vital as well – these also find extensive applications in biotech. Cobblet (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet. Malerisch (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Bubble sort

Simple sorting algorithm, more of a theorectical and inefficient solution to the sorting problem. According to the article it has practical significance in computer graphics. --^Melody _Lavender 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose; highly niche and unlikely to be known by anyone who's not a programmer. Tezero (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose A general audience may need to understand the significance of sorting algorithms in general; they do not need an in-depth treatment of specific instances of sorting algorithms. After all, they are hardly the only significant type of algorithm. Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Merge sort

More efficient than bubble sort, does have meaning in practice as a sorting algorithm, and is a divide and conquer type algorithm. Developed by John von Neumann . --^Melody _Lavender 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per Bubble sort. Tezero (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Quick sort

From what I know this is the state of the art algorithm to solve the common problem of sorting things in computer science, using the divide and conquer strategy. --^Melody _Lavender 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 14:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Quicksort is always discussed in the context of efficient sorting algorithms, but there are others – in particular, merge sort-based algorithms are also very common. Sorting algorithm is more vital – the information in the Classification and Comparison of algorithms sections are exactly the kind of things an encyclopedia should be expected to explain, and big O notation is something this article should also cover. In contrast, much of the information in the Quicksort article itself (e.g. the implementation and formal analysis of the algorithm) is not essential for a general audience to understand. Cobblet (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose per Bubble sort; this one's at least pretty universally taught in intro computer science classes and may be known by some non-programmers. Tezero (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know anything about sorting algorithms, but how about simply adding the overarching article instead: Sorting algorithm? Maplestrip (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the overarching concept is that apart from telling us that sorting algorithms sort stuff it is - and probably should be - an overview of sorting algorithms that are not vital. Taking a closer look, I think most of the other algorithms listed are just variants of those basic three (e.g. bucket sort is based on merge sort). All courses of study in computer sciences are probably different, but sorting algorithms are usually part of the curriculum.--^Melody _Lavender 17:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Inequality (mathematics)

This proposal's failed before, but it seems a lot more fundamental to me than union (set theory) and intersection (set theory) which were just recently added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
2. No doubt it's crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support~Mable (chat) 11:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This raises the question of whether equality (mathematics) (seems trivial, but I understand that formalizing this concept is a key problem in mathematical logic) and binary relation are vital. Note that equivalence relation is listed. Cobblet (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Data visualization

I don't think methods of visualizing data like table (information) or chart or diagram are vital on their own, but a discussion of such practices as a whole might be vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
2. No doubt it is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 06:00, 28 December 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.

Archiving Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

Discussion

Is it possible to archive the talks according to sections (eg People archive, Everyday Life archive, Technology archive etc) instead of the present way of archiving. Then it will be beneficial for the person to look into past history of proposals for a particular section. Logical1004 (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be amazing, but probably practically impossible, as it would require a lot of work. You can also wonder how neccesary such a change really is, seeing the search function and the fact that we are usually looking for suggestions that are the same as your own... ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It would indeed require a lot of work to change the current archives into a split structure and it would require more work to maintain that structure. The search bar at the top is quite helpful though. Just type a topic or subtopic there and you will see discussions that have mentioned that topic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if a search parameter could be added, and then a requirement to search before posting to be sure the issue hasn't been raised previously. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Diego Rivera

We have Frida Kahlo, his wife, at level 3, but we do not have Diego Rivera at all. Painting in the 1940s, he is highly known today for his murals that established the Mexican Mural Movement in Mexican Art. He painted murals about Mexican history, with one mural being displayed in the National Palace. He also was a member of the Mexican Communist Party, even hosting Leon Trotsky for several months while he was in exile in Mexico. A painter of such cultural influence and also with political influence should be on the list. Perhaps he should be on the level 3 list, but for now we'll see about the level 4 list.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I can get behind this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Do you think Diego Rivera could make it onto level 3 too? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The current proposal to remove Frida Kahlo isn't going anywhere and as long as she stays I don't think Rivera has a chance. The list is simply too short to list more than one representative figure of most things – a lot of things don't have any representation at all. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just curious. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Curtis Mayfield

It seems to me that Curtis Mayfield, especially being as influential as he is, needs to be identified as a Vital article. He's a double inductee into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. His music is also important from a civil rights perspective, from the politically charged lyrics from most of his work. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support a swap removing What'd I say and adding Curtis Mayfield.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I support that swap as well. Hmm... I'll start a vote on that here.

Support

1. Support and swap with What'd I Say ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support and swap User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support swap Neljack (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition Mayfield seems like a significant step down from the other soul musicians listed—he ranks #98 on Rolling Stone's list of greatest artists, for example. Malerisch (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support removal, oppose addition If we're removing musicians as iconic as Mariah Carey and genres like hip hop are only represented by one person, I don't see how we have room for more soul musicians. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support removal, oppose addition per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support removal, oppose addition. Jucchan (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

@Malerisch:To even be on the list on a publication as prestigious as Rolling Stone is an amazing feat within itself. Even with a double inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, these kinds of things aren't handed out lightly. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly an amazing feat, but is that good enough to be listed? He's ranked #98 on a list of the greatest artists in rock and roll history (i.e. Jazz and Latin musicians aren't part of the list), so when this list should represent the greatest 100 or so artists in world music, I don't think he makes the cut. We also don't list figures that are ranked significantly higher, like Muddy Waters (#17), The Velvet Underground (#19), Bo Diddley (#20), or Jerry Lee Lewis (#24). Winning a Nobel Peace Prize or becoming the President of the United States are amazing feats as well, but we don't list Jane Addams or John Quincy Adams either, though I'd support those additions. Malerisch (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Malerisch: But then where do you draw the line then? In the field of music Curtis is one of the highest figures in terms of influence, musical skill, and like I said from a Civil Rights perspectives, one of the most important parts of history (at least in the United States anyway). Marvin Gaye is a vital article, of which he shares the same as Curtis in terms of musical ability, influence etc. These lists are prestigious yes, but you're basing importance way too much on these lists. What's also amazing about Curtis is that he's not even strictly a Rock and Roll musician, mostly Soul and Funk, to be on a list like that simply because of his guitar work is quite incredible. Needs to be an addition alongside James Brown and Otis Redding (who even then doesn't deserve to be a vital article). The other examples you listed don't even compare to the field of Music alone, winning a Nobel peace prize or becoming the President have nothing to do with music at all. Just a simple question, how is he a step down though? Curtis is one of THE staples of Soul music.Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Romila Thapar

Romila Thapar is one of the acclaimed Indian historian of recent times. Her research is mainly focussed on ancient India. Her major contributions are Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations, Recent Perspectives of Early Indian History (editor), A History of India Volume One, and Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Her historical work portrays the origins of Hinduism as an evolving interplay between social forces. Her recent work on Somnath examines the evolution of the historiographies about the legendary Gujarat temple. She rejected Padma Bhushan twice, one of the highest civilian award in India citing that ""I only accept awards from academic institutions or those associated with my professional work, and not state awards".

Support

1. Support : As nom. Logical1004 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support crystalclear (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Less influential than Max Müller, James Mill, and Megasthenes in the historiography of India. I realize that none of these people are native to India, but India's lack of an indigenous tradition of historiography until recently is well-documented [1], and we shouldn't try to claim otherwise. Malerisch (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose There are more important Indian historians. Neljack (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe after Al-Biruni, that the most important Indologists are William Jones and Max Müller. In modern times, Michael Witzel is just as notable. Wrt the Padma Bhushan, there are two higher civilian honours in India which many academics have received and have in truth made greater contributions to their field. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Professor Romila Thapar is a renowned historian of modern Asia. Starting her academic career in post independence India, she has transformed conventional historical description by introducing a positive viewpoint into research work, and has examined Indian history in the context of human history. Her achievements are highly regarded in international academic circles, and her contribution to the scientific exchange between India and Japan is outstanding. I think she is best suited along with others as one of the modern historian. crystalclear (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Logical1004 and Ypsaraswat: From my count there are only 2/3 Indian women on the list: Indira Gandhi, Lata Mangeshkar and arguably Mother Teresa. Adding Thapar is such a select group will make her look very out of place. I also agree with Malerisch and Neljack. More Indian women ought to be added though, and I think Mirabai, Rani of Jhansi and many, many film actresses and singers are better options than Thapar. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add José Enrique Rodó

"Considered by many to have been Spanish America’s greatest philosopher." – Britannica

"Rodó's Ariel, indeed, ranks as the ethical gospel of the Spanish-speaking New World, much as Emerson's Self Reliance was the gospel of the Anglo-Saxon nation to the North." – Arturo Torres-Rioseco, The Epic of Latin American Literature

We added Emerson recently. The intellectual history of Latin America deserves some attention as well.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not of comparable importance to the philosophers we have. His influence has dwindled too. Neljack (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I agree with Neljack. While we don't currently have any Latin American philosophers, SEP's article on Latin American philosophy [2] doesn't give the impression that it needs representation on the list since "the thought of European philosophers has largely dominated philosophical discussions in Latin America" and "the influence of Latin American philosophy outside of Latin America has thus far been relatively small." IMO Rodó is clearly less vital than other philosophers not listed like Epicurus (Epicureanism), Zeno of Citium (Stoicism), or Mozi (Mohism), even though they don't tick the globalization box. Malerisch (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Gaul

A ancient region of Europe, we include the wars the Romans had with the people of Gaul Gallic Wars but have left of the people and region themselves. Although the wars were important we have included many articles on events and people important from the Romans point of View and other big player like Greece and Persia but have left off entire regions and cultures that were not the biggest in the world but still significant. They didn't record their own history as well as the Greeks Romans and Persians, so less material is available but it's by no means obscure. By the way, it was a Roman province but it existed as a region with the name Gaul long before the Romans took it, it was not just a Roman Province . Carlwev  20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Maplestrip (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Gaul was just ancient France and a few other smaller kingdoms. It is not really necessary to add a time period specific article as it was simply part of the Roman Empire anyway. It was just a Roman province. The wars may be significant, but the province article is not. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Points. Celts is already listed. There isn't enough space to add every subgroup of Celts. Along with Gaul, there's Picts, Gallaeci and Gaels to name a few. Or alternatively, there's British Iron Age. The overall distribution of the Celts is quite large and discussed here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add chariot racing

Chariot racing (‹See Tfd›Greek: ἁρματοδρομία, translit. harmatodromia, Latin: ludi circenses) was one of the most popular ancient Greek, Roman, and Byzantine sports. Chariot racing often was dangerous to both driver and horse as they frequently suffered serious injury and even death, but generated strong spectator enthusiasm. In the ancient Olympic Games, as well as the other Panhellenic Games, the sport was one of the most important equestrian events. Each chariot was pulled by four horses.

In the Roman form of chariot racing, teams represented different groups of financial backers and sometimes competed for the services of particularly skilled drivers. These teams became the focus of intense support among spectators, and occasional disturbances broke out between followers of different factions. The conflicts sometimes became politicized, as the sport began to transcend the races themselves and started to affect society overall. This helps explain why Roman and later Byzantine emperors took control of the teams and appointed many officials to oversee them.

The sport faded in importance after the fall of Rome in the West, surviving only for a time in the Byzantine Empire, where the traditional Roman factions continued to play a prominent role for some time, gaining influence in political matters. Their rivalry culminated in the Nika riots, which marked the gradual decline of the sport.

Support

1. As nom. It is no less crucial than gladiator, which has been proposed before.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, also much more important than teh various modern-day sports figures we deem vital. It's another very popular history topic that people expect to read about in an encyclopedia. ~Mable (chat) 10:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support User:Gonzales John 17:50, 16 December 2014
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The chariot is vital no doubt. Chariot racing however hasnt been for a couple of 1000 years, and should be covered in the article on chariot. I would not expect to find an article on this sport in an encyclopedia that isnt specifically about the ancient world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Gizza. Malerisch (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

The Ancient Olympics should be in before chariot racing. The former still has relevance as it has been revived in its modern form. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: If this is added, it should be added under sports, not history. pbp 18:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Aq Qoyunlu, Kara Koyunlu, and Göktürks, add Turkic peoples

Per above discussion.--^Melody _Lavender 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition of Turkic peoples as redundant to Turkic languages (Turkic expansion may be the better article) and oppose removal of Göktürks unless we remove most of the 20 or so nomadic migratory groups listed. The history of Central Asia during the "post-classical" period isn't exactly the most overrepresented part of history either. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose removals, but I'd support swapping Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu for the Oghuz Turks – they were both Oghuz dynasties. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We list both Bantu peoples and Bantu expansion so I don't see why we couldn't list both Turkic peoples and Turkic expansion. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I support swapping Bantu people with a well known Bantu subgroup that is not the majority in any country such as Zulu people or Xhosa people. Three Bantu articles on people, language and expansion doesn't feel right. Same with Turkic. Uyghur people is already listed and Tatar people, another well known Turkic-speaking minority is represented with Tatarstan so I'm not sure if another particular Turkic subgroup is necessary. Oghuz Turks could work. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages

No doubt they are all crucial.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, ehhh, all a bit redundant with Middle Ages in general, and very Europe-centric... ~Mable (chat) 12:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Mable. I don't think we need too many of these vague era articles. Do we want to venture into articles like Early modern Europe? Malerisch (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Mable and Malerisch. Very Eurocentric. This is a global list. And there are no equivalent articles for any other continent. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

I may write a proper rational later, but I thought of these earlier, Middle ages is at lev3 so having the 3 sub divisions of it here isn't a bad idea, we have the sub divisions of the Stone Age, although I'm aware they lasted longer and covered most of the world as opposed to the Euro region. If we are worried about numbers, I would search for kingdoms, leaders or other people from Medieval Europe to stop Europe getting to high compared to other regions, or just look for more vital topics from other continents history to add.  Carlwev  12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about how it makes sense to have subdivisions of Middle Ages as well, as it is on level 3. However, I would much prefer more specific articles like castle and knight. The overlap between these three articles with Middle Ages itself is not something I can really approve of. ~Mable (chat) 12:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

OK each to their own, knight and castle are already included in the 10'000 list, by the way.  Carlwev  12:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware - I checked right after posting - but those are the kind of articles I would be more interested in, as they explore the middle ages from a different angle than the three suggested articles would. Similarly, topics such as "the Catholic church during the middle ages" or "farming in the middle ages", would be more interesting as well. The three articles mentioned are basically a more in-depth look at the same subject that Middle ages supplies.

Or at least, that is how I feel about it. There are no guidelines of what is considered vital article, so you should definitely suggest articles and make your own case :) ~Mable (chat) 13:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::I agree with Mable. Specific in this case is more vital than broad. If you want to go really broad, you can add articles like 5th century, 6th century or even 1st millennium and 2nd millennium. Even though the latter cover 1000 years of history for the whole world, they are not vital. There are only so many arbitrary, overview articles one can have on the list. Articles like the Battle of Hastings and Fall of Constantinople provide so much more educational and encyclopedic value despite being events short in duration. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, Add South India and Madhya Pradesh

After the creation of Telangana earlier this year, Andhra Pradesh is no longer the behemoth it used to be and I don't think it's vital by itself anymore. Instead of arbitrarily putting two of the south Indian states on the list, it might be better to cover the region as a whole, which is quite distinct from the rest of the country in several ways (language most obviously). Also I propose adding India's second-largest state, which is notable for its long history (e.g. Ujjain) as India's central region (just about everyone in Indian history has squabbled over the area at some point) and its large tribal population, which has made it one of India's poorest states despite having lots of mineral resources and some notable industrial cities (Bhopal, Indore, Gwalior, Jabalpur).

Support

#Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Opposee Tamil Nadu/South India Swap, neutral on Andhra/Madhya swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Since the former Andhra Pradesh is covered by Telugu language, I can support its removal. South India is a well-defined region unlike the North, East and West so I understanding including it. But having individual states from other parts of India and lumping the Southern states into one may suggest an anti-South bias. We include Northeast India, the other clearly defined region, but the states of NE India are on the whole tiny apart from Assam and it is a good way to capture many birds with one stone. Not sure about the South.

To compensate we could add Tamil people as they are a famous pan-national ethnic group. The other famous pan-national ethnic groups of South Asia are represented with countries or regions (Bengali people with West Bengal and Bangladesh, Kashmiri people with Kashmir and Punjabi people with Punjab, Pakistan although nothing on the Indian side). It would also somewhat improve coverage of Sri Lanka. Something like the Sri Lankan Civil War I think is very close but not quite vital. The Tamil people article discusses the war in some detail and may be sufficient.

Madhya Pradesh will be a good addition although like India's biggest state Uttar Pradesh does not have a coherent identity. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with adding Tamil people and if the History section wasn't already overcrowded I would definitely support adding the Sri Lankan civil war as well. BTW there is an article on the transnational Punjab region. To be frank I would be completely happy to see more Indian states added, along with more subnational entities from around the world, but after the great purge of last year and the continued complaints over the size of the geography list, I'm basically limiting myself to swaps that will IMO improve the balance of the list. As you've pointed out before, it's a bit odd to see Sindhi language and Oriya language listed and not Sindh or Odisha. Cobblet (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Tamil people are a current ethnic group and would go in ethnology, which is in the society section and under quota. Adding the Sri Lankan Civil War will be more of a challenge. Yeah Punjab region exists and is not listed. We could swap it with Punjab, Pakistan which 70% of it. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont think "South India" is likely to be as salient an encyclopedia topic as a specific state. I think readers are a lot more likely to look for the specific topic in general and also in this case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case then let's add the major south Indian states. Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Brno

Second largest city in the Czech Republic, which only has Prague listed (for comparison, Poland has five cities listed); capital of historical Moravia.

Support

1. Support as nom. Tezero (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  18:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There are several modern Eastern European capitals not listed; this should not be listed before them. And we have too many European cities to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose we have too many cities on the list anyway. --^Melody _Lavender 21:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• How about removing some Ukrainian industrial cities then?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus:: Why Ukrainian industrial cities in particular? How is Donetsk less important than Cardiff or Sochi or Zagreb or Hanover? Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Because there are six of them and Ukraine merits at most three. I would support removing Sochi and Hanover. Not Cardiff or Zagreb which are the only cities representing their respective countries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk are the largest cities in Russian-speaking Ukraine. Why should that part of the country not receive representation, while Wales (much less integral to the history and culture of western Europe than Novorossiya is to eastern Europe) should? I think five Ukrainian cities is entirely reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No comment on Brno itself or the Ukrainian situation. But regarding the comparison of Poland and the Czech Republic, Poland is larger by area and population than even the former Czechoslovakia. And there is no evidence that either country is historically or culturally more significant than the other. On that basis, it is perfectly reasonable that Poland have more cities represented than the Czech Republic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove six of the individual Seven Wonders of the Ancient World

(Colossus of Rhodes, Hanging Gardens of Babylon, Lighthouse of Alexandria, Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, Statue of Zeus at Olympia, Temple of Artemis)

The parent article Seven Wonders of the Ancient World does a good job explaining the category and linking to the individual items. I'm not sure these are individually vital, except Great Pyramid of Giza. The others no longer exist, or may never have existed at all, and really have not had much significant effect on the world in centuries or millennia, except as part of the group of "seven wonders of the ancient world". Rwessel (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. Rwessel (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, good idea. ~Mable (chat) 18:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support no need to include the inexistant ones separately.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per the discussion in May. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

This was proposed in May this year but failed. See here. Consensus may have shifted since then. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that in that discussion, the two people with probably more interest in architecture than most both supported the removal. And the argument that these articles would look better on the list if they were in a history or archaeology section doesn't convince me: with the exception of the Giza complex the remains of the other wonders are not all that significant as stand-alone archaeological sites. I believe it would be a clear improvement to list Ephesus rather than the Temple of Artemis, or Rhodes rather than the Colossus. Cobblet (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Elegy

See my triple proposal below .Original date and signature of proposal:Gonzales John 17:22, 06 December 2014

Gonzales John 22 December 2014

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose Elegy. ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Elegy. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Elegy. Jucchan (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
4. (Support epic only, which is a narrative form quite distinct from other forms of poetry, and can be said to be a literary genre in and of itself.) Oppose (ode and) elegy. Cobblet (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

1. I think Lament is more notable than elegy, and it is attested in cultures worldwide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Elegy may not be as vital as the likes of the Sonnet and the Haiku, but I think it should be added because we need a poetry form that is used to express sorrow. Gonzales John 18:26, 16 December 2014

An elegy is a poetry form? I was under the impression that it was a type of poetry only really defined by intent and style, not really comparable to poetic form. After all, there are no clear rules to what makes an elegy, unlike those that define the sonnet and haiku. Perhaps it's mostly comparable to a genre, as it can basically be defined as a "sad poem (usually a lament for the dead)". Hmm, perhaps Lament would be a uch better addition, as it's broader in scope. ~Mable (chat) 10:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Grief is another option. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Elegy, Ode, and Epic Poetry

The Elegy and the Ode are widespread poetry forms, and (I think) of equal importance with the Sonnet. Epic poetry should certainly be added as Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, Odyssey, Iliad, Ramayana, and Mahabharata are all epic poems and they are included. Gonzales John 17:22, 06 December 2014

Support

1. Support as nominator.Gonzales John 17:22, 06 December 2014
2. Support ode and epic. Not so sure about elegy. Even within English literature it is not very vital and it does not seem to be very widespread in other languages. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --^Melody _Lavender 12:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support epic only, which is a narrative form quite distinct from other forms of poetry, and can be said to be a literary genre in and of itself. Oppose ode and elegy. Cobblet (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Elegy. ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Elegy. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Elegy. Jucchan (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

1. I think Lament is more notable than elegy, and it is attested in cultures worldwide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Elegy may not be as vital as the likes of the Sonnet and the Haiku, but I think it should be added because we need a poetry form that is used to express sorrow. Gonzales John 18:26, 16 December 2014

An elegy is a poetry form? I was under the impression that it was a type of poetry only really defined by intent and style, not really comparable to poetic form. After all, there are no clear rules to what makes an elegy, unlike those that define the sonnet and haiku. Perhaps it's mostly comparable to a genre, as it can basically be defined as a "sad poem (usually a lament for the dead)". Hmm, perhaps Lament would be a uch better addition, as it's broader in scope. ~Mable (chat) 10:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Grief is another option. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Add sub-section Literature by languages/region/countries under section Literature

We can sub-categorize the Literature section further into Literature by language/ by region/ by countries. This can include some important articles that are not included in current category. Please discuss.

Support

1. Support : As nom. Logical1004 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

At the moment, literature is divided by type (nonfiction, "fiction" and poetry) and then subdivided by era (antiquity, early print and modern). Fiction seems to be only encompass prose. It may be beneficial to split some of the larger sections further by region (probably continents as countries will be too specific) just to get an idea of which parts of the world are underrepresented. At the very least, a count by nationality/region will give us an insight into the biases of the list as it currently is. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Would continent or language be better? if we do any at all? something written in English by a Brit in Britain would be with Greek works but not with English works from US or Australia or elsewhere would that be the right way? What about works written by a Brit but published in America or similar things, many people migrate and settle in America and create works whilst living there for example. I don't claim to have the best way on my mind but those points were on my mind. Works published in many languages may be an issue too, especially if the original language version is less well known and slightly obscure or an ancient extinct language, and it's known primarily in another language, like Beowulf, The Iliad. A work like One Thousand and one Nights is a collection of stories from different countries in different continents like Egypt and India originally in different languages and had extra parts added on by Europeans later, although most may simply call it Arabian. Grimm's Fairy Tales is also a collection from different languages mostly European probably, but itself was of course German. Sorry to play Devils advocate.  Carlwev  14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the purpose of dividing the list up further would be to improve navigation, not necessarily create a subquota. So it may not matter that an Australian work sits alongside UK because of language, or not because of continent. OTOH, any sort of subdivision may make it clear that some areas (languages or regions) are completely missing from the list. That aside, there's nothing wrong in playing Devil's advocate. The list usually improves when we try to be skeptical of everything, in good faith of course. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Remove Doctrine

Another dictionary term redundant to actual religious doctrines and concepts. There isn't much to learn from even a well-developed article about doctrine.

Support

1. as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, definitely a dictionary article. The word "doctrine" is used differently in a variety of fields. ~Mable (chat) 08:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  09:27, 31 December 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.

---

Swap: Add Thoth, Sekhmet,and Bastet; Remove Hathor

Thoth is a vital god of knowledge for the Ancient Egyptians, as he is credited by them to be the author of all works of science, religion, philosophy, and "magic"; later, he is credited by the Greeks as the inventor of astronomy, astrology, the science of numbers, mathematics, geometry, land surveying, medicine, botany, theology, civilized government, the alphabet, reading, writing, and oratory, then further claimed he was the true author of every work of every branch of knowledge, human and divine. The deity was also described as the mediator between pairs of opposing forces, like good and evil, and makes sure such forces do not have decisive victories over their counterparts, and the one who made the calculations for the establishments of the heavens, stars, and Earth, and he is also the director of the motions of the heavenly bodies, and the Ancient Egyptians believe that without his words, the gods would not exist, and he is described to have unlimited power in the Underworld and power rivaling Ra and Osiris. He was the Egyptian god of equilibrium, the scribe of the gods, and the master of both physical and moral(Divine) law, and a moon god, and he also played a prominent role in many Egyptian myths: the battles of Horus and Isis against Set, the birth of Nut's five children, the mythical addition of the last 5 days of the year to the original 360, and numerous battles between good and evil. If all these attributes of the deity are not enough to make him seem important, then this should: he is rated Top-importance by the WikiProject for religion (as a whole) itself.

Sekhmet is a prominent goddess of war for the Egyptians, having said to lead and protect the pharaohs in battle, as well as a vital goddess of healing and medicine. She is also a prominent solar deity, and was described as the special Eye of Ra, taking part in a major myth in which she was sent by Ra to eliminate the wicked but ended up almost destroying all of humanity. Furthermore, she was a special goddess for women and their menstruation cycle. Ultimately, she was a creation goddess of a sort: her breath was believed to have formed the vast deserts of Egypt.

As for Bastet, she was the primary goddess of cats, and the Egyptians are known for their very special treatment of their pets, to the point of mummifying them during their time of death. She has taken a major role in the myths by slaughtering Ra's greatest enemy to protect him, and in some versions of Egyptian myths, she was the Eye of Ra and not Sekhmet. Furthermore, the WikiProject for Egyptian religion rates her higher than Sekhmet.

It would be enough to add just Thoth, he is just way, way ,way, way, way, WAY to significant to leave out. But according to what Maplestrip just said, we have to keep the mythologies balanced, so I propose to remove Hathor. Out of the Egyptian deities listed, she seems to be the least significant, probably to a very considerable degree. She is rated only mid-importance by WikiProject religion, while Thoth is rated TOP-importance. Thoth is definitely leagues ahead of Hathor when it comes to significance, and Bastet appears to be more significant than Hathor, as Hathor is rated LOW importance in WikiProject Mythology, Bastet is ranked High-importance on the same WikiProject. User:Gonzales John 17:39, 08 December 2014

Support

1. Support as nom.User:Gonzales John 17:39, 08 December 2014
2. Support Thoth and Hathor ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. SupportThoth (obvious omission, was going to propose that myself some day). And Bastet, which reminds me that we should add sabre tooth tiger and Persian cat.--^Melody _Lavender 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Thoth and Hathor. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support swapping Hathor for Thoth. Oppose the other additions. Cobblet (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (Sekhmet and Bastet), though I'd love to support Bastet in particular, we have to keep the different mythologies balanced. There are already seven Egyptian gods listed. I might support a swap, though, but my knowledge of which Egyptian gods are more vital than others is not to be trusted after reading an excessive amount of pop-literature. Oh, also, Religion has hundreds of top-priority articles - we can't add them all. ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose addition of Sekhmet and removal of Hathor.--^Melody _Lavender 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Ogre

Very common in popular culture. There is even a significantly popular and successful animated franchise which starred an ogre with green skin.User:Gonzales John 14:00, 06 December 2014

Support

1. Support as nom.User:Gonzales John 14:00, 06 December 2014
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 12:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Ogres as depicted in the past ~20 years are definitely not vital, but I'm not sure what their significance is as a whole. It is a classical creature that existed in people's mind worldwide, after all...

I prefer to add giant and monster first. If Shrek was so important we would add Shrek instead. Ogres are well known for their cannibalistic lifestyle but we have cannibal and the folklore section should cover that aspect. The current worldwide section in the ogre articles talks about how it is difficult to translate creatures from other languages as ogres. Even though they have some ogre-like characteristics they are creatures of their own and may be better called demons or monsters. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Troll

Iconic. Huge impact. Quoted frequently. Chronologically and geographically diversified. Vital. --^Melody _Lavender 20:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 20:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  09:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't see how trolls are geographically diversified; from reading this article and the one in Britannica, they're limited to Norse and Scandinavian folklore. Modern-day Internet usage of the word "troll" comes from trolling (fishing), not the mythological creature, if that matters. Why should trolls be added before serpents, which are much more universal, both geographically and chronologically? Malerisch (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Agree with Malerisch Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Incredibly well-known Norse/Scandinavian creature, but I'm not really sure if it makes it up there with the other mythological creatures currently in the list. With Cyclops being deleted soon, I'm really not sure if it's that much more important than that article. I'm somewhat undecided... (It does include the internet troll, though ;p) Maplestrip (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What about adding Troll (Internet) instead? That seems to be the more vital usage of the word these days. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Though I completely agree that it is a very important job for Wikipedia to explain and describe terms like Troll (internet), due to recentism, we cannot call it vital. No paper encyclopedia would have an article on such thing and we cannot know if we'll still use the word "troll" to describe such people 20 years from now. Emoticon would have a good chance, though, and I might suggest it... ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Recentism? They've been around for 20 years. --^Melody _Lavender 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Emoticons (and maybe the word "emoticon") have been used for over 20 years, but "troll" hasn't. To my knowledge, "troll" being widely used for someone who deliberately angers or tricks others on the Internet for their own enjoyment is much newer, probably not from before the late 2000s. Tezero (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here I thought "trolls" were something of the past ten years or so, but apparently the term was already popular in the 80s, haha. Either way, it isn't vital for an encyclopedia as still a huge amount of the population might never hear of it in their life. It's particularly an internet thing, much more so than the emoticon. We might be going off-topic here though, guys. This discussion would be more fitting at my emoticon-suggestion, as it actually touches on that topic. ~Maplestrip (chat) 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Troll (internet) would be a case of recentism. Maybe in ten years if the term still exists. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add food processing

Definitely crucial. Now most of us can not live without processed foods.

Support

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose Common does not equal vital. Cooking is vital. Food processing is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add food additive

Food additives are useful, but sometimes controversial, and indeed vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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 popcorn

Many people eat popcorn while watching a movie.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised by the fact that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm not. Cobblet (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose me neither. Jucchan (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose would support potato chip. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
4. 'Oppose Worst rationale yet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Haha, that's quite some rationale. I must say that many people drink cola while watching a movie as well. We don't list that, though :p Nevertheless, I have no idea how significant popcorn is and will think about it. ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I did some research, and apparently, cola was removed because Coca-Cola was already on the list. Whether Coca-Cola is really the best of the two (especially since it doesn't include Pepsi cola and we are not a fan of brands and companies of this list) can be debated. Regardless, I'm being off-topic and this should be about the suggestion of popcorn. My bad. ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Crossed my mind popcorn has, but doesn't seem vital enough, I would re-add potato chip first, much more vital to me, much more widely eaten.  Carlwev  09:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add chocolate bar

A snack also quite popular among Westerners and non-Westerners.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose, doesn't add enough to chocolate to be vital on its own. It has a bit of history, but that's it. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Maplestrip. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I had never heard of the word before until today, but Confectionery might be an interesting proposal. ~Maplestrip (chat) 07:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add soft serve

It is, in fact, as popular as ice cream, which is currently on the list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's not as a popular as ice cream nor gelato, kulfi, sorbet and sundae. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. Really? I'm not sure whether galato, kulfi, sorbet and sundae are more popular than soft serve in Europe, but in Taiwan the opposite is true: soft serve enjoys much more popularity than most frozen desserts except ice cream and ice pop.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
      1. Lol I am neither from Europe nor Taiwan. Don't get me wrong, I like eating soft serve. It's really tasty. I just don't think it is crucial. Other similar desserts and foods include frozen yogurt, bubble tea and milkshake. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Actually I believe it's the most popular type of ice cream worldwide, but still not vital. Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose covered by ice cream. --^Melody _Lavender 08:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose, couldn't say it better than Cobblet and Melody. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add frozen dessert

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, the article doesn't give any actual content aside from a dictionary entry. Who uses this term anyways? Jucchan (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, never even heard of this term, haha. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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 ice pop

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, probably the most vital one of these ice cream articles, but still not interesting or important enough to warrant its own article. It's actually too simple in this case as well, I think. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose ice cream makes all of these redundant. Keep in mind that there are many desserts other than ice cream not listed. And how many should actually be listed in the first place? Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add sorbet

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support because of it's historical significance. --^Melody _Lavender 08:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose hmm, I'm sure I opposed this earlier. Probably just forgot to sign... ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. No thanksUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Re-add cola and add Pepsi

We have Coca-Cola , but not one of the parent articles, cola, and Pepsi, another popular cola, which is strange since cola is many people's favourite soft drink and some cola lovers prefer Pepsi to Coca-Cola.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. pbp 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support cola, I find it mad that we do have Coca-Cola, but not their product. Oppose Pepsi, as well as basically any other company or brand. I believe we should decide on whether we want more brands in general before adding new brands, actually. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I, for one, would like to add more companies to the list (what makes them so much less vital than People (magazine), Soul Train, or Mount Wilson Observatory?), but I can't support adding Pepsi. IMO the best RS on this topic comes from Interbrand, which takes into account the extended global recognizability and influence of the company. Pepsi ranks #24, which is too low to be listed. I would consider adding Samsung and McDonald's, though. Malerisch (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose and I'm strictly opposed to adding any brands or companies on this level. Industries are more vital (soft drink industry) and they are looked up by investors. Coca-Cola should be removed. Also, this may give rise to a brand creep, as mentioned by Gizza below.--^Melody _Lavender 08:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose adding Pepsi. Jucchan (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

If we add Pepsi, next thing you know we will be adding Big Mac, Oreo and Hawaiian Pizza. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion on campanies and brands in general at the bottom (general discussion section) of this page. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Sprite (soft drink) and Fanta

They are as popular as cola.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose no they're not. Jucchan (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Coca-cola is actually on the list because it is the icon of globalization. Well, that's what consensus said last time. It can be found in all but 2 countries of the world. A bit like Happy Birthday to You. Maybe coca-cola should be moved from food and drink to business and economics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
   1. Coca-Cola is about a soft drink, not a multinational corporation, hence it should belong to the cooking, food and drink section.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Sprite at least. pbp 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose The only vital beverage company/brand is Coca-Cola. Nescafé is more important than Sprite or Fanta but still not vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add confectionery

No doubt it is crucial, but currently it does not belong to the list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support ~Mable (chat) 13:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
3. SupportGonzales John (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale given. Not crucial. not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose We already list the major types of confectionery. If we're looking for categories of food to add, shouldn't staple food be the #1 priority? Cobblet (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Confections are an incredibly common form of food. A chocoloate bar, for example, is a common chocolate confection. There also exist baking confections. Confectionary is "the art of making confections." Flour-based confections are more dominant in the Middle East and Asia. "The words candy (US and Canada), sweets (UK and Ireland), and lollies (Australia and New Zealand) are common words for the most common varieties of sugar confectionery." I have no idea if the article is vital simply because it is not a common search term. However, the subject is particularly huge. It's a decently-sized industry that dates back to the ancient times. The topic is of interest for cultural reasons, health reasons, and simply for the fact that it talks about how candy, chocolate and even gum fit together. ~Mable (chat) 13:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I gave rationale... ~Mable (chat) 09:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew my support as this is redundant to dessert. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Sudoku

Matches crossword puzzle in importance and has been around since 1984, so recentism doesn't apply anymore.--^Melody _Lavender 19:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose yes recentism does apply since it was only a couple of years ago that it became a global fad. Seems to have abated by now luckily. Also we just removed this a little while ago.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose recentism can apply to anything of the last 100 years. There are plenty of video games as old or older. It also became a fad - way bigger than it is now - a few years back. Though still a popular puzzle, it doesn't have the age of crossword puzzles and such to go along with it. It's mathamatically interesting, but that can't save it. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Sudoku along with Cluedo and Reversi were removed over a year ago here. Out of the three, Sudoku has the weakest case being the most recent to become a global fad and lacking a deeper significance which say Cluedo has. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add punctuation

Though there is some overlap with orthography it is still crucial, since orthography not just deals with punctuation but also spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, and emphasis.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, punctuation has important encyclopedic value on its own, moreso then, for example, capitalization or emphasis in typography. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Failed once and for a good reason.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

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

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

---

Swap: Add Civil wrong remove Tort

Tort covers only one type of civil wrong in one jurisdiction. Civil wrong is much wider term. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Tort is on the list not because it is a type of civil wrong but because it is a key legal subject, like contract or trust law. Tort law redirects to tort currently. Tort received 48312 page views compared to 2616 for civil wrong. In fact, cause of action is even broader than civil wrong and receives about double the page views but again it may not be vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose any attempt to remove "tort", a fundamental legal concept. Would support adding cause of action, which as DaGizza points out is even more fundamental. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose removal - this is a very, very basic concept. We can't do without it. Support addition. --^Melody _Lavender 05:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I reiterate my support for law of obligations as a core legal subject in civil law jurisdictions. It also doesn't receive a very high page view count (still more than civil wrong and cause of action) but there is a good reason in this case. The law of obligations only exists in the legal systems of mainland Europe and their spheres of influence. That is, all non-English speaking areas of the world. Its page views shouldn't be compared to tort or contract. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, Igel, but this is not the way to go. I believe you might be trying to find terminology that includes the civil law equivalent. In that light I would support the addition of civil wrong, never at the expense of the tort article, though. But there are better options to improve coverage. I don't think page views are a measure, because the quality of the articles is as of yet so weak that it doesn't surprise me that they are not looked up. The interwikilink situation (connection to other language wikipedias on the left hand side menu bar) is also bad which lowers the number of page views. I believe the notion "tort" vaguely corresponds to "delict" and "damages" in civil law. I would also support cause of action, and law of obligations (sepecially the latter, I remember we talked about that before.)--^Melody _Lavender 05:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree regarding law of obligations. Neljack (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Regret

Somewhat similar to Shame and Guilt (emotion), but it stands on its own as a pretty horrible and common emotion that people want to understand.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support great idea. --^Melody _Lavender 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not a central pyshcological concept. Just an emotion that happens to be named in English. Like son, daughter, etc this is a word, not an encyclopedic topic and wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not that distinct from the other emotions mentioned, in particular guilt. Also per Maunus. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Odd, I've always seen regret as one of the most basic emotions, basically being the basis of guilt as an emotion. I myself rarely ever feel guilt, but I definitely know what regret is like.... Ah well then. ~Mable (chat) 08:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I could support a swap with guilt then. Although I wonder how many common emotions should be listed in comparison to more established concepts in psychology. Most of them including regret are rated as "Low-importance". Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add learning disability

Not less crucial than intellectual disability.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Clearly redundant with intellectual disability.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Maunus ~Maplestrip (chat) 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Quantum critical point

I am surprised to see that most vital article in condensed matter physics section is missing from the list. So I propose the same.

Support

1. Support : as nom. Logical1004 (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support : Seems important CrystalClear (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Most certainly not the most vital article in condensed matter physics, not when topics as basic as electronic band structure or important to research as X-ray crystallography are missing. Mean field theory is more fundamental to understanding phase transitions as well, but I don't think that's vital either. While quantum criticality may be an active research field in condensed matter physics, it's way too recent to be vital, emerging only in the past ~15 years, and not essential to an understanding of condensed matter: there's a reason the article only exists in one other language. I believe the topic is sufficiently covered by critical point (thermodynamics) and phase transition. Compare the importance of CP violation and electroweak interaction in particle physics, gravitational waves in general relativity, or baryogenesis in physical cosmology—all important research fields, but not quite vital enough to be listed. Malerisch (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Logical1004:: Why is this the most vital article in condensed matter physics? Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cobblet::Just like critical points in condensed matter physics were important to study various transitions like solid to liquid, liquid to gas, similarly quantum critical points are. Classical critical points (or just "critical points") results in classical phase transitions, such as the crystallization of water vapor into snow flakes on cold day or the magnetization of a metal pin, are associated with changes in the jiggling random thermal motions inside the material. Similarly at Quantum critical point, physics is governed not from thermal fluctuations, but quantum mechanical fluctuations. Quantum critical point is one of the important scientific advances in later half of 20th century just like Classical critical points were of late 19th century and early 20th century. I can refer to you one of the simplest article here. You can find many more articles showing how important these are today in Physics. Many exotic phases that we see today like superconductivity, superfluidity, supersolid, spin waves, Bose-Einstein condensation and many others. Here I will quote a text from the same article, if anyone don't want to read that fully : "Recent experiments have revealed the ability of quantum phase transitions to qualitatively transform the electronic properties of a material at finite temperatures. For example, high temperature superconductivity is thought to be born from a new metallic state that develops at a certain critical doping in copper-perovskite materials. A material that is tuned to a quantum critical point enters a weird state of "quantum criticality".". High Tc-Superconductor is just one class of phases. There are many more. Logical1004 (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In just one sentence, I will say just type "Quantum critical Point" in google, and there will be more than 150 thousand search results and many research articles implying how important these are in the field of Physics. Logical1004 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Computational linguistics

Basic concept in Computer science, this could be considered the overarching article for programming languages.--^Melody _Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --^Melody _Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Might support applied linguistics instead. There are too many interdisciplinary subbranches of applied linguistics to add all of them. Gizza ^(t)(c) 20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add BASIC

Some editors want to include more individual programming languages, so here is a proposal for a very basic one.--^Melody _Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --^Melody _Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We dont need more programming languages.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think we have just the right amount of programming languages. ~Mable (chat) 09:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Textile industry

Only because fashion is associated with status, and crazyness, we often tend to forget that clothes are as essential as food in many regions of the world, and have cultural significance and impact. The article needs work, but fashion industry goes beyond textile manufacturing, in that it provides an overview of the history of the making and selling of clothes, as well as an overview of the most important companies in that area. --^Melody _Lavender 19:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Prefer history of clothing and textiles to address the needs you mentioned. Taking the long view, the clothing "industry" is a recent phenomenon. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet, would also support history article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Cobblet and Maunus. Redundant to history and textile manufacturing. If we were to add other millennia old traditions that in the modern world are now industries (e.g. agribusiness and music industry) the industry list will become bloated. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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