Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 46

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 46)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jusdafax in topic People from the Islamic Golden Age: a case study on the completeness of the list
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50
PASSED
Passes, 5-0 pbp 17:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Jane Addams

First American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Influential settlement houser and pacifist; one of the founders of the ACLU. Made the Atlantic Monthly 100 Greatest Americans list; at present is the highest-ranked American woman on that list not on the VA/E. pbp 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support You have stated her case well above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 14:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove John Cockroft

A second-tier nuclear physicist, of which we already list many (Becquerel, Bethe, the Curies, Fermi, Oppenheimer, Bohr, Rutherford, Thomson, Chadwick, Teller, Meitner, Hahn) and there are some not listed (Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, Leo Szilard) who are better known than Cockcroft. We don't list Ernest Walton, the physicist who shared the Nobel Prize with Cockcroft; we do already have another specialist in particle accelerators, Ernest Lawrence.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support a huge step down from the likes of Bohr, Rutherford and Oppenheimer. Gizza (t)(c) 08:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove John G. Kemeny

I don't think co-inventing BASIC is enough grounds for vitality. We don't list the inventors of programming languages like C++ (Bjarne Stroustrup or Java (James Gosling) and we're not listing co-inventors of more important things like the transistor (Robert Noyce) or Unix (Ken Thompson).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support clearly not vital.  Carlwev  18:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Many more inventors have stronger claims of vitality. Gizza (t)(c) 11:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support I was actually gonna nominate him for removal myself before i got side-tracked in real life. Probably the least notable on this list GuzzyG (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0 pbp 00:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Scott Hamilton (figure skater), Add Marit Bjørgen

A year ago User:Neljack wrote: "The most decorated female Winter Olympian, Marit Bjørgen has won 10 medals, including 6 gold. She has also won 12 World Championship titles (plus seven other medals) and 66 World Cup races, both records." She's now up to 14 World Championship titles and eight other podium finishes, and 75 World Cup races. Scott Hamilton is nowhere close to being as dominant a figure skater as Marit is a cross-country skier, and we have two other figure skaters but no cross-country skiers.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Bjørgen has 10 Olympic medals; Hamilton has one. I'm not sure Hamilton is necessarily even the greatest male figure skater of all time - Dick Button, for one, would be a strong contender for that title. Cross-country skiing has perhaps been overlooked because (unlike figure skating) the countries where it is big aren't English-speaking. This swap will also help with the gender imbalance in our sporting figures. Neljack (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 13:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support removal  Carlwev  18:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Both, i would in theory support a male figure skater - it would not be Scott though. GuzzyG (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We don't even list cross-country skiing, Bjørgen's main pursuit, I would like to list cross-country skiing itself before listing an individual cross-country skier. She is clearly more notable than Hamilton though, and we had too many figure skaters previously, although we removed some already.  Carlwev  18:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Carlwev, I've opened a proposal to swap Nordic skiing for cross-country skiing below. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Edmund Kean

I think the only pre-1900 British stage actor worth listing is Henry Irving. I can't see how Kean's more vital than writers of the time like Mary Shelley, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Emily Brontë or Robert Browning; or artists like Dante Gabriel Rossetti, John Everett Millais or William Morris; or a politician like Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey; and none of these people are on the list even though they all get at least ten times as many page views as Kean.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:Arnoutf, does this swap work for you? The other pre-Irving stage actor we list is Richard Burbage who I think is similarly non-vital – yes, he acted for Shakespeare, but there's no way he should be listed when far more well-known and important figures of English culture like Henry Purcell or Alexander Pope aren't. Cobblet (talk) 17:19, 21 September 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.
Swapped 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Gilles Deleuze, Add Alexis de Tocqueville

We're a bit heavy on French poststructuralists – we already have Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, and I don't think Deleuze, who is as notorious for his impenetrable prose as for anything else, has been quite as influential. We also don't list philosophers of the previous generation like Jacques Lacan and Roland Barthes who are also probably a bit more widely studied.

But before we start adding any more 20th-century philosophers (we've added Arendt, McLuhan and Said recently) I think de Tocqueville, author of what is still probably the most influential critique of American society, Democracy in America, should be listed first.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Removal and add. Sorry A. W. Moore  ;) GuzzyG (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since Deleuze was considered to be one of the greatest philosophers by A. W. Moore.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 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.
3-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Pope Francis

We discussed it above in the Xi Jinping discussion. pbp 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support while it is very much recentism, I'm in favor of including a set of current world leaders. Pope, leaders of some countries (G8? permanent security council members?), UN secretary general maybe? Plantdrew (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Pope Francis, besides being the first Latin American Pope, has brought many issues to light. He has campaigned to fight climate change, argued for the poor, improved interfaith relations, and opened the debate on numerous social issues. That in addition to the fact that he is a current influuential world leader, which for me is justification to include no matter what. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose What has Francis actually done that makes him so vital? There are plenty of important popes from the past that we don't have. To take one relatively recent example, John XXIII established the Second Vatican Council, resulting in huge reforms to the church. Even Benedict XVI arguably had a bigger impact in his many years first as John Paul II's right-hand man and then as pope than Francis has had in his 2 1/2 year pontificate. Of course, it's possible that Francis will ultimately be a sufficiently important pope to warrant inclusion, but it would be precipitate to add him at such an early stage. Neljack (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't think there's any harm in waiting a couple of years more before we get a better idea of his impact. Right now his only concrete achievement is the US-Cuba thaw. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  08:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose If we have to have someone from the 2010s on the list, considering the current push to have more women and more non-American human rights activists, I think someone like Malala Yousafzai is ahead of Pope Francis. Gizza (t)(c) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Too early to see whether his pontificate will have lasting importance, warranting inclusion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

While I'm sympathetic to the argument that the first Latin American pope is kind of a big deal, it would be nice if more people like Neljack would take a look at the list of popes we have and see how Francis compares with them and whether there are other noteworthy omissions, e.g. I've long noticed that Pope Urban II isn't on the list, and calling for the First Crusade seems like a big deal to me, although frankly I didn't have a clue about the Middle Ages before I started helping out here. Cobblet (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We could always swap one pope for Pope Urban II in a separate proposal. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Who do you suggest? Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
On the second thought, we do not have many popes. We should swap out a person from the Western Christianity, Catholic Church. Anselm of Canterbury, John Wycliffe, and Tomás de Torquemada are options for the swap. Alternatively, we could always just do a straight decision. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Dunno if you noticed but there are more popes among the political leaders. Also we literally added Anselm yesterday... Cobblet (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. Pope Julius II seems to me to be a good choice for the swap. He may have commissioned the reconstruction of the basilica and the painting of the Sistine Chapel, but we have other artcles about those two events. In your opinion, would this be a good choice for a swap? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. I've tried to remove Cosimo de' Medici before who seems to me even less vital than Julius II. If I had seen a pope that was clearly less vital than the rest I would've suggested removing them already, but I didn't find one. History isn't my strong suit. Cobblet (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
History is my strong suit. I'm of the opinion that it would be a bad idea to remove John Wycliffe, FWIW. pbp 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Purplebackpack89, while you're here, what are your opinions on Torquemada, Menno Simons and Charles Spurgeon? I'd like to add more women associated with religion to the list, e.g. Esther, Rabia Basri, Olga of Kiev, Catherine of Siena, Meera, Annie Besant. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet: Let me first off say that I think religious figures are underrepresented on this list, so I'm less concerned about cutting it (I'd rather cut athletes or Hollywood figures). I would certainly agree that the three men you've mention are in the lower quartiles of this list. I'd say keep the first two; one was the leader of the Spanish Inquisition and the other founded a sect (the Mennonites). Spurgeon maybe you can drop; the other weak link in Protestants is maybe Melanchton (sic)...while he was early, he's hardly the most important; he's second banana to Luther in Lutheranism and there is no Melanchtonism. I know Protestanism isn't as large or as old as Catholicism, but IMO there's not really that much room to cut it...we only have 13 guys, most of whom founded sects or were transformative world figures. I'm inclined to say that the fat is in Eastern Orthodox (just like we have/had fat in Eastern Europe and Central Asian political leaders), but that might be because I have little familiarity with it. Sorry for the slow response; I was AFK most of yesterday. pbp 16:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It is true that Francis has highlighted and promoted many social issues (poverty, climate change, inter-faith dialogue, etc), but it seems to me too early to judge how big an influence his advocacy will have on these issues. If we want a pope who has had a big influence on social issues, I would suggest Leo XIII as a better choice - he issued Rerum novarum, the foundational document of Catholic social teaching, and played an important role in reconciling the church to the modern world in his long pontificate. If we want a great reformer (and while Francis has talked a lot about reform of the church, again I think it remains to be seen how successful he will be in that regard), how about Paul III? He was the great pope of the counter-reformation, reforming the curia, creating the Inquisition, promoting new religious orders, and commissioning Michelangelo to paint the Last Judgement. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Jiang Qing

If we're going to add a recent Chinese politician, the wife of Mao Zedong and leader of the Gang of Four during the Cultural Revolution is an obvious choice. If Hong Xiuquan is vital she is definitely vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Popé, Add La Malinche

Popé is simply a bad choice for a native American rebel – Crazy Horse, Geronimo and Louis Riel all figure more prominently in history. But I also think it's worth thinking about adding a native American woman to the list. Americans may be more familiar with Sacagawea and Pocahontas but the most influential native American woman of all time has to be La Malinche, also known as Doña Marina. She was Hernan Cortes's interpreter (and lover): without her diplomatic skills it's quite possible the Spanish conquest of Mexico wouldn't have succeeded. She's a complex figure in Mexican culture, reviled as a traitor to her own people (her name is synonymous with traitorism) but seen at the same time as the symbolic mother of the mestizo ethnicity.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Rani of Jhansi

By far the most notable rebel leader in the Indian Rebellion of 1857, a pivotal moment in India's history currently not represented by anyone on the list. She isn't any less notable than Diponegoro or Hong Xiuquan.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Some Japanese middle school history textbooks mention her.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I believe Rani of Jhansi, Meera, Indira Gandhi and some figures from film and music (of which we now have Madhubala and Lata Mangeshkar) are the only women from India who are vital from an objective standpoint (their actions make them vital, not their gender). Beyond that, you would have to lower your standards just for the sake of balance and diversity. Gizza (t)(c) 08:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarojini Naidu looks vital to me although maybe one or two actresses of Sridevi's calibre might be even better choices. Gizza, would you support adding Amrita Sher-Gil? Cobblet (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if any Indian painter is vital. Raja Ravi Varma is a stronger candidate than Amrita Sher-Gil. Naidu is not a bad choice, but Bhagat Singh is an independence activist and writer that left a more enduring legacy and has greater name recognition and status today. Gizza (t)(c) 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi

I'll just quote what I wrote earlier: Rhazes was a polymath especially known for his contributions to medicine. George Sarton and Britannica call him "the greatest physician of the Islamic world" which is a bold claim with Avicenna, Geber and al-Zahrawi to contend with, but perhaps not unjustifiable – for example, he was the first person to note the difference between smallpox and measles.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Northern Sea Route, Add Northeast Passage

The "Northern Sea Route" is the Russian government's term for the part of the waterway traditionally called the Northeast Passage that lies within its territorial waters. The other term remains the most common one in English for the waterway as a whole and most of the content originally in the first article was moved to the second last year.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Virginia

This U.S. state is crucial, since it is the first colonial possession established in mainland British America, and eight U.S. presidents were born there, more than any other state.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Virginia was also the heart of the Confederacy. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Neither rational given is persuasive. The early founding of a small British colony (followed no more than three years later in Newfoundland), is not significant. The number of presidents is a poor discriminator, and is anyway subject to how one counts. By birth Virginia has 8, but Ohio has 7, so even that is hardly a significant difference. Rwessel (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose need a stronger rationale. Gizza (t)(c) 23:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Montgomery, Alabama and Richmond, Virginia

Since both were once the capital of the Confederated States of America, they are no doubt vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The only US city I'd consider adding is Baltimore (and since the Second Continental Congress did meet there for a while, you can consider it a former capital of the US, not that that has anything whatsoever to do with vitality). Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 09:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: The Confederacy itself isn't really vital, and the first of these was the capital for less than a year. By the same logic, we should add Princeton, New Jersey, York, Pennsylvania and Annapolis, Maryland. (Why?) But I believe we should re-add Baltimore. pbp 22:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

There are 30 US cities in the AP Stylebook (which Wikipedia follows) that do not not require the name of a state to accompany them. There are current 26 US cities listed. Charlotte, North Carolina and San Jose, California are the cities listed as vital but not in that group of 30 while Baltimore, Honolulu, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City are the six unlisted cities that do not require states in their names. 24 cities are shared between both groups. Not advocating any change based on the opinions of one agency (and the Associated Press have a different goal to us) but the differences and similarities between the lists are interesting. Gizza (t)(c) 09:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add A People's History of the United States

Howard Zinn's magnum opus A People's History of the United States is a bestseller, influencing American and non-American citizens a lot. The book is written from the perspective of the people, rather than the elite. It also emphasizes some unimportant historical facts omitted from many elementary, middle and high school American history textbooks, such as the fact that "elevated" Thomas Woodrow Wilson was a notorious racist, hence a lot of Americans think that if you want to know the truth about the history of the US, buy this book and read it.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - Vital in my world. Jusdafax 04:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't see how this left-wing revisionist hack job is any more vital than, say, Ayn Rand's novels. Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Probably 50 other works of history or lit I'd add before this. pbp 00:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Cambalachero (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. The facts that some high school and college American history teachers regard Zinn's A People's History of the United States the general American history book which best reflects truth, a lot of schools adopt it as the American history textbook or supplementary teaching material, it was adapted into various texts and inspired some other works, and that in France it was awarded guarantee its vitality (The American Pageant has influenced many Americans a lot as well, but not that vital as its narrative was considered not that true by some teachers, and it was never adapted into other texts).--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC) altered some statements
"Some". Cobblet (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
But the fact that Howard Zinn's A People's History has been adapted into A Young People's History, and a television programmed broadcast by History Channel was based on it as well, and Howard Zinn was quite charismatic mean that it is more important than either The American Pageant and A Patriot's History of the United States, another two best-sellers.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Dignity

Another important concept, recognized world wide, throughout history, relevant to many types of people in many situations. Relevant to social science, philosophy, religion and psychology.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support The paradigm by which modern Western society evaluates the self-worth of an individual. The other two major paradigms are honour and face which are both nominated. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. No doubt it's vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped: Promiscuity added - Casual dating removed - 5-0 support 59 days

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 Promiscuity, Remove Casual dating

Our coverage of sexuality and relationships has become quite detailed. I consider promiscuity to be vital, and of greater importance compared to other articles we include in those sections. We cover the multiple partners from a marriage or official POV with articles like concubinage, bigamy, polygamy, and also infidelity ("cheating" in marriage or non-marriage relationship). But the general idea of casual sex with multiple people regardless of marriage or honesty is not covered. It is of interest to sexuality, sociology and psychology and to religion and ethics, and it does get written and read about and studied. There are articles in the area of sex/relationships that seem equally or less vital, like foreplay, oral sex, moiety, endogamy, exogamy.

I won't suggest to remove any at this time though, as some were fairly recently added successfully by voting, and many I think deserve a place. There are other articles about multiple partners in various contexts that I need to read through to see exactly what they are how widespread and vital they may or may not be, and how much they overlap; articles are Polyandry, Polygyny, Polyamory. Anyone have views on them?

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  22:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Casual dating should be removed; promiscuity is the more general and important topic. Neljack (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support adding promiscuity and removing casual dating. Gizza (t)(c) 23:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support and casual dating should probably be removed. We could list the removal below or turn this into a swap. I am convinced the removal will pass. I will let you all decide that. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support swap. Cobblet (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I think I'd more readily support this if we didn't also list casual dating in addition to dating. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Altered to a swap kept votes the same, as the 3 votes that aren't myself all mention removing casual dating already.  Carlwev  17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Nordic skiing, Add Cross-country skiing

Nordic skiing is essentially an umbrella term for ski jumping and cross-country skiing, two skiing disciplines that have little in common besides the structure of the ski boot. The other two articles are far better developed but we only list ski jumping, so I think this swap is pretty natural.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Kabaddi and Sepak takraw

We list sports of localized popularity in Western countries (Aussie rules football, Basque pelota, lacrosse, NASCAR) but not ones in non-Western countries, even though kabaddi and sepak takraw are at least as prominent as the first three sports I mentioned. Kabaddi is the national sport of Bangladesh and also popular in India, and sepak takraw is popular throughout Southeast Asia. Both sports have been on the Asian Games programme since 1990.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Yeah. GuzzyG (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Sepak takraw seems slightly more important than Kabaddi, but they are both decent ideas. Which ever number of articles we dedicate to sports, I think actual sports should, most but not all the time, be considered more important than listing many many sportspeople/athletes. This is also good for regional diversity, and the sports are actually quite popular and old, not obscure... For forms of entertainment, I still think Professional wrestling should be in, it has failed twice I believe, but if people can get over the fact it is an obvious over the top form of theatrics, a pretend sport almost, and realize it's a hugely popular, industry and form of entertainment in several nations, and it's history is not the longest but isn't just recent, compare with something like roller skating or skateboarding which were invented within living memory. I really dislike wrestling myself, never watch it, but I think it's important enough to include here.  Carlwev  16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are also local Western sports missing such as Gaelic football and hurling. Maybe Gaelic games is an option. I support professional wrestling and beauty pageant. Miss World 2014 has 121 participating countries and WWE is broadcast in over 175 countries around the world. As superficial as they may be, their sheer popularity worldwide makes them vital IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 23:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd definitely support professional wrestling and beauty pageant, the former is heavily important in Japan, Mexico (where it's a religion almost) and the US. Beauty pageant would help our female bias. i don't know if there's space though. GuzzyG (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Currently the quota for everyday life section is 500, and there're only 479 articles in it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Karaoke

A pretty widespread form of entertainment these days, and again one with non-Western roots.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I like it more than individual songs and albums.  Carlwev  16:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 13:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I was wondering if we should add Hatha Yoga to the list. We have Yoga but it barely discusses the Western and modern conception of it. The original "Yoga" is important not the most important spirtual idea in Eastern religions either. Its vitality on that basis is borderline compared to a few missing topics in the area. Gizza (t)(c) 03:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about Hatha Yoga, I think massage would be better, but it failed once.  Carlwev  09:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll support massage. It didn't receive any opposes last time. It wasn't successful and became "no consensus" only because of the time limit on proposals (might not have been an active time here). Maybe the nom could be fleshed out a bit more. Gizza (t)(c) 08:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add endocrine disruptor

No doubt it is crucial, since news media often talk about its negative effects on human.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose What? pbp 22:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Seems redundant to endocrine system and hormone without further explanation. News media doesn't talk about this at all. Gizza (t)(c) 11:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Not as vital as carcinogen? I don't think so.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cancer's responsible for about 15% of all human deaths. Endocrine disruptors don't kill. The only endocrine disruptor that might be vital is DDT but we already list Silent Spring. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Though endocrine disruptors are no lethal, they are crucial since they are harmful. Specifically, endocrine disruptors may be associated with the development of learning disabilities, severe attention deficit disorder, cognitive and brain development problems; deformations of the body (including limbs); breast cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid and other cancers; sexual development problems such as feminizing of males or masculinizing effects on females, etc. (taken from the lede of the article)--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Cate Blanchett

I'm surprised Cate Blanchett is not on the list, especially when there are less accomplished and/or renowned subjects (great in their own right) listed, like Gérard Depardieu, Marcello Mastroianni, Shintaro Katsu, and even Isabelle Huppert. If necessary, I propose removing any of first three. Lapadite (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Lapadite (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

As widely acclaimed as she is, I feel uneasy making Cate Blanchett the only vital Australian in acting and directing. Gizza (t)(c) 00:05, 22 December 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.
2-0, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Thurgood Marshall

Support
Oppose
Discussion

@TonyTheTiger:, I would like to support this proposal. We could do with a few more legal people. I think apart from John Marshall, there are no other judges on the list excluding people notable for other reasons. We also have Hugo Grotius who was a jurist. Is Thurgood Marshall the second greatest U.S. Supreme Court justice of all-time? No doubt he is very notable and contributed to the civil rights movement. I still support adding either William Blackstone or the Commentaries on the Laws of England. Gizza (t)(c) 09:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question "Is Thurgood Marshall the second greatest U.S. Supreme Court justice of all-time?" I'd have to say he's definitely top 10, and that he's also notable for being the NAACP lawyer in Brown vs. Board of Education. However, I'd be inclined to give second great U.S. Supreme Court Justice mantle to Earl Warren, who was chief justice during Brown, Miranda, and a number of other significant cases in the 1950s and 60s. I consider Warren to be one of the gravest omissions of American political figures on this list. pbp 13:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
If diversity is one of our primary concerns then I'm unconvinced a second American jurist is necessary – Americans might still quote Blackstone, but I wonder how often Warren gets quoted outside the US. And while we're talking about American government officials I'll name-drop J. Edgar Hoover. We lack intellectuals from earlier in history, we lack intellectuals outside the Anglo-American world, we lack female intellectuals... frankly I would prefer seeing Ida B. Wells and Maya Angelou added before Booker Washington and Thurgood Marshall (Madam C. J. Walker and Zora Neale Hurston are also worth considering), although Washington looks like he'll be added anyway (in which case there probably isn't room for Marcus Garvey). I will add that Thurgood Marshall is at least more important than Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Cobblet (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Marshall is an excellent Jurist. However, he was also one of the greatest lawyers of all time. He is not only known for winning Brown v. BoE, but also he had a phenomenal record in his Supreme Court cases, as I recall. One of you can look it up, but I think, in the face of all kinds of bureaucratic racism, he might have had something like 10 or 15 United States Supreme Court wins versus 1 or no losses. I don't know law well enough to know who the greatest jurists were. However, that is sort of looking at it from the wrong angle. It would to me be like asking is MLK one of the 10 greatest orators or preachers of all time. He may be, but if he is say 4th or 10th, he is probably more important than almost all of those above him for obvious reasons regarding his social impact. Judging just his legal impact and influence as a jurist is not really what should decide his inclusion, in my mind.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • True. We can't just look at Marshall from a legal perspective but an African-American perspective too. We have to look at every article from many angles (vocation, country, race, gender, etc.) which is why we can't delegate to individual wikiprojects. I'll support this for now although I agree with Cobblet and believe that the lack female intellectuals and people from the rest of the world is a bigger hole at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I should note that this was on the the Atlantic Monthly 100 Greatest Americans list that I have seen Purplebackpack89 discuss above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2016 (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 Faisal of Saudi Arabia

The facts that he rescued Saudi Arabia's finances and made significant contribution to the modernization of the country mean that he is as vital as the other two monarchs of Saudi Arabia currently included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Also the man most responsible for the Arab oil embargo. pbp 15:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support I would support removing Saud of Saudi Arabia, his incompetent predecessor whom he overthrew. I'm not sure why he's on there and Faisal is clearly much more significant. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support He's not more vital then the founder of the country and the man who put it together but he is vital. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Caroline Herschel and William Herschel

This brother-and-sister team discovered the first planet (Uranus) not known from antiquity and revealed that the nebulae catalogued by Messier were in fact clusters of stars, both groundbreaking discoveries in the history of modern astronomy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 00:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - I'm surprised they are not already listed. Jusdafax 17:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add David Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo

They are no less well-known than Lionel Messi or Ronaldo in Taiwan, where soccer is not popular, hence they are as crucial as these two listed persons.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that they are not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose There would be lots of soccer players I would add before Beckham. Ronaldo is a bit stronger candidate, but I don't think he is quite at the necessary level at the this point. Neljack (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: pbp 00:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. In the past I had nominated some baseball figures (Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive 44#Add_Pete_Rose_and_Barry_Bonds) for addition but failed because some people argued that adding them would destroy the balance, as soccer is more popular than baseball in the world. This is no good argument, since this list does not adequately cover vital baseball figures (Cy Young, Ed Walsh, Pedro Martínez, Mariano Rivera, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Pete Rose, Edgar Martínez, Barry Bonds, Cal Ripken, Sr., Cal Ripken, Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter and Yogi Berra are currently not included), a lot of Americans, Canadians and Australians watch baseball games, baseball is becoming more popular in Israel and the Philippines, and this is the English Wikipedia, meaning this list should contain all articles whose corresponding topics are regarded as vital by Americans. If adding all of these baseball figures would break topical balance then more soccer figure articles should be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 09:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC) modified a bit
@RekishiEJ: we need to get a better understanding of your views on sportspeople and the rest of the list. In your opinion, how many baseballers do you think should be vital, how many sports figures overall should be vital and how many people (all biographies) should be on the list? Please give at least a ballpark figure for each of these questions so we know where you stand. Otherwise these mass addition proposals are pointless and will be shut down every time. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, this list should contain at least 10 baseball figures, since cricket is less popular than baseball on earth, and currently the list merely contains 7 cricketers, and it should contain at least 120 athletes. The quota of people in the list should be raised to at least 2,010, since there are still many crucial figures not included in it, and currently only eleven more people can be added to the list due to the fact that the quota is 2,000, and the list presently contain 1,989 articles about people.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually cricket is more popular than baseball, so we should be removing baseball players, not adding them. I personally don't think Cobb and Gehrig are vital. Every sport has major figures missing from the list and there are many sports without any representation at all, but there are many types of biographies an encyclopedia needs to cover and I think 100 sports biographies, i.e. 5% of the biographies in general, would be sufficient. And even then most of those biographies would be irrelevant to anyone who isn't a fan of that particular sport. On the level 3 list, not a single sportsperson is listed among the 132 biographies. They're just not that vital. Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-4 Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Ronaldinho and Rivaldo

They are no less famous than Ronaldo, and currently Ronaldo is in the list, hence these two figures should be added to it as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose I dispute that. In any case, they were not as great as Ronaldo. Neljack (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose pbp 00:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:31, 29 November 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.
3-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:39, 7 January 2016 (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 Mount Ararat

Since both Jewish and Armenian tradition say Noah's Ark rested on Mount Ararat, it is considered to be a holy mountain by Armenians, and it is the central national symbol of Armenia, it should be listed.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support but more on the grounds of its geological importance and interest, its wide cultural importance, and its political significance due to its physical location. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Երևանցի talk 08:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose - In religious terms it's a pretty minor subject, and I don't think being the national symbol of Armenia is remotely close to justification. Rwessel (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 08:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I would've thought that Noah's Ark is more vital. That itself may be redundant to Noah. Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But the fact that Mt. Ararat is considered holy by Armenians guarantees its vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Armenia is a pretty small country in the scheme of things. It might have been historically larger but so were many other countries. A mountain considered sacred only by Armenians is not vital. Topics that carry significance beyond Armenia's borders like the genocide and having the oldest national church in the world are arguably vital but Mount Ararat isn't. Gizza (t)(c) 08:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
So is Israel. And Jews number only 15 mln (c.f. 10 mln Armenians). Smallness does not equal to insignificance. The amount of European literature on Mt Ararat proves its notability. --Երևանցի talk 08:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
But Mount Sinai is not included on the list. There are no sacred Jewish mountains included at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd support the inclusion of Mt. Sinai and Temple Mount. --Երևանցի talk 08:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
These are all red herrings! The article is proposed to be added to the list of mountain peaks within the Land Relief subsection of the Physical Geography category. Nothing at all to do with religion. Ask anyone anywhere in the world to name a mountain, and beyond naming their local big mountain, Ararat would be high in any list of mountains mentioned, probably just behind Everest, Kilimanjaro and K2. There are at the moment 19 peaks listed, some of them are very obscure and of very local geological importance. And amongst all of those 19 peaks, none have the cultural importance on a world scale that Ararat has. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:19, 7 December 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.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 03:14, 7 January 2016 (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 Yushan (mountain)

This mountain is the tallest mountain in Taiwan, and was also the tallest one in the Empire of Japan.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Ridiculous. Cobblet (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 21 December 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.
Sindh added 5-0; Balochistan not removed 3-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Balochistan, Pakistan, Add Sindh

Removing Sindh was one of the biggest mistakes during the mass cull of regions a few years ago. Central to one of the oldest civilizations in the world with a rich history since, Sindh is far more important to Pakistan than Balochistan in nearly every way imaginable (economy, population, cultural influence, etc.). In fact, Balochistan is the least vital of Pakistan's four provinces. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is more vital too as it is the unstable Afghan border region known worldwide for being the part of Pakistan most affected by the War on Terror (though the instability dates back to British colonial times if not earlier). Gizza (t)(c) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  05:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support addition only. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support addition per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm fond of geography topics, and I wasn't a fan of the region cull. More sure of the add than the remove. But yes we have to make choices. Balochistan only wins in area which isn't too big a deal, Sindh has almost triple population, almost, and does seem more significant in most things.  Carlwev  05:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not opposed to listing all four of Pakistan's provinces though I doubt there will be consensus for that. As matter of priority, Sindh and even Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should be in before Balochistan. Gizza (t)(c) 05:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
No question Sindh is absolutely vital. I'd even consider the Thar Desert which is partially located in Sindh to be vital. But Balochistan is the main homeland of the Baloch people and a low-intensity separatist conflict in the region has been going on for much longer than the War on Terror. And it should be noted that we list Peshawar but not Quetta. If you ignore the armed conflicts in either region I actually think Balochistan's a slightly better choice for the list, although I'm not opposed to listing all four of Pakistan's provinces either. (But we should definitely be adding more Indian states and Chinese provinces if that's the case.)
A long time ago I argued Darfur was less vital than War in Darfur; I feel the same way regarding Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the War in North-West Pakistan. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Depending on how this goes, I might delete the removal from the proposal. Gizza (t)(c) 04:43, 13 September 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.
Both removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Saint Louis Blues (song)

There are plenty of jazz standards that are just as popular, and if that's the only measure of a song's vitality then we should be adding stuff like Yesterday (Beatles song) and Amazing Grace.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Over the Rainbow

Why do we need this in addition to The Wizard of Oz? We don't list hit numbers from any other musical or any famous operatic arias at all.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support didn't know the movie was listed too. Makes it even less vital. Gizza (t)(c) 08:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It's described as a ballad, we don't have ballad, is ballad worth thinking about? better than Over the Rainbow I would think.  Carlwev  18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ballad is about the genre of folk song in English-speaking countries. I wouldn't mind adding something like European folk music but that's a redlink. (Even Music of Europe is just a redirect.) Over the Rainbow is a pop ballad which is definitely not vital IMO. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Perspective (graphical)

The rediscovery and codification of the principles of linear perspective had a revolutionary impact on Western art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support I would rather add specific pieces of art, but since this is such an important concept, I will support this addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support I was close to opening this myself.  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I think we should add Filippo Brunelleschi to the list of architects. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems decent idea  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of opening this myself, also I was thinking of suggesting the removal of Mercator projection as we list Map projection already but no other single type of map projection (unless you include globe as a projection).  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The Mercator projection is definitely the most significant map projection (used universally in nautical charts) and its invention was an important development in the Age of Exploration. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Adam and Eve, Add Adam and Eve

Intertwined subjects. The article on the duo is of comparable quality to the individual articles, and this would save space.

Support
  1. Support as nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Good catch. Gizza (t)(c) 03:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Very sensible idea, noticed this myself before as well. FWIW, the article on the story gets as many hits as the articles on the individual characters combined. Cobblet (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support The combined article appears to cover just about everything the individual articles do. Rwessel (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. To make room for more articles about specific Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Sikh topics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kurds added 5-0, other proposals failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2016 (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 Iranian peoples, Persian people and Kurds

These are no doubt vital, since Iranian peoples has been playing an important role in the history of the world.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Kurds. Important enough the have ethnicity and region listed. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Kurds, per Gizza. Rwessel (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Kurds. --Thi (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Kurds. Plantdrew (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Iranian and Persian. Very redundant to Iran, the Iranian language and the Persian language. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Iranian and Persian, per Gizza. Rwessel (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Iranian and Persian. --Thi (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Why are the Kurds important enough to have both ethnicity and region listed? Most countries do not have both the country and the nationality or its most common ethnicity listed. Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the larger population of the Kurds (at least 30 million) and the fact that they compose a significant minority in four countries (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran) makes them stand out from other groups. FWIW, we have both Tibet and Tibetan people, Xinjiang and Uyghur people. Gizza (t)(c) 01:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Assyrians are like Kurds; Both are stateless nations, and form significant ethnic minorities in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. However, people know Kurds more than Assyrians (I didn't know that Assyrians form a stateless nation until 2015!)--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
No, the situation of the Kurds is very different from the Assyrians, Tibetans or Uyghurs. If Iraqi Kurdistan formally declares its independence from the state of Iraq tomorrow, would either of you still support listing the Kurds? They're already de facto independent. Cobblet (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Iraqi Kurdistan can replace Kurdistan because it is the one area where they have some autonomy. Having Kurds will represent all of the Kurdish people outside of Iraq too. Gizza (t)(c) 02:14, 13 December 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.
Failed 1-4 Cobblet (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2016 (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 Copts and Yazidis

Since both of these two ethno-religious groups have been persecuted by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and news media pay attention to them a lot, they are crucial, just like Ebola virus disease.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose I agree with DaGizza - persecution, by itself, is an insufficient rational for inclusion, except perhaps in exception cases. Although as an ethnic group of some ~30 million, the Copts may come close to qualifying on just that basis. Rwessel (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The Coptic church is listed. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The Yazidis are really a subgroup of the Kurds. Gizza (t)(c) 02:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Ebola was on the list long before the recent news about it spreading in West Africa. As fascinating as they are, Yazidis are not vital. Not every group in the world facing persecution is vital. There are hundreds of them and there's clearly not enough space. Gizza (t)(c) 23:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add Gizza (t)(c) 02:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add The Economist

This news magazine is no less influential than Der Spiegel on earth, but currently the former is not in the list, unlike the latter, which is quite strange.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support This is a very important publication.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support The magazine section is currently very American-centric. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd put investigative journalism at a higher level of importance than political analysis from one particular viewpoint. Like I don't see how The Economist is more vital than the Brookings Institution. Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

These proposals deal with a part of the list that has not been touched in a long time. Whatever the outcome of these four individuals proposals, thank you for bringing this area to attention Rekishi. The questions we have to ask ourselves are first of all, how many newspapers and magazines are vital and then which ones are vital. What sort of variety do we want in terms of categories, country, circulation, prominence and language? Gizza (t)(c) 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We cut the TV networks down to one some time ago. I think we should be similarly selective when it comes to newspapers and magazines. Different types of media within the same news genre should be compared – is it necessary to list both WSJ and the Financial Times when we don't have Forbes, Fortune, CNBC or Bloomberg L.P.? Also, I suggest that the most important factor for inclusion should not be online traffic (in which case Xinhua News Agency, People's Daily and China Daily take the top three spots globally; how are they more vital than other highly-viewed websites?) but historical influence, which is usually tied to journalistic quality – in that sense it's obvious no Chinese paper has any real significance while I think The Times and The New York Times are ahead of the pack among English-language papers. It's also the reason why Punch and Mad are on the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:02, 15 September 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.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 23:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Financial Times

This paper is quite popular among most senior financial decision makers in the world's largest financial institutions, and was regarded as the most credible publication in reporting financial and economic issues among the Worldwide Professional Investment Community audience, hence it is vital, in fact more worthy of being included in the list than Wall Street Journal.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (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.
All 1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 02:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Trinomial nomenclature

This article is vital since this nomenclature is used to describe the scientific names of taxa below the rank of species, e.g. subspecies of a particular animal species.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Subtopic of binomial nomenclature. There really isn't that much we can say about it. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Phylum

This article is, in fact, no less vital than domain, since some middle school biology textbooks mention phylum but not domain, and the latter is currently included in the list, which I think should be kept.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. In many fields classification is increasingly cladistic, rather than using Linnean ranks. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add class (biology)

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. In many fields classification is increasingly cladistic at this level, rather than using Linnean ranks. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add order (biology)

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. In many fields classification is increasingly cladistic at this level, rather than using Linnean ranks. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add family (biology)

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add tribe (biology)

This concept is vital in both zoology and botany.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Minor rank, not vital Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add genus

This article is important, since the first part of the scientific name of a particular species is the genus where it belongs to.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add subspecies

This article, though not as vital as species, still deserves to belong to the list since a lot of species have subspecies.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose this and all the other nomenclature-related proposals above per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 28#Remove Phylum, Class (biology), Order (biology), Family (biology), Genus. As for subspecies, existence != vitality. Cobblet (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Minor rank. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 06:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Prostate

Present in male humans and many other animals, we have begun to list some glands like thyroid and adrenal gland, we already had testes, breast and ovaries that are sometimes described as glands. The prostate is of interest to biology, sexuality and medicine as prostate cancer is mildly common. I believe it to be more vital than some other biology articles we list, glands or otherwise. Also we have prostate cancer, it seems a little odd to have the cancer of something before the thing itself. (To list both, well I assume no one would remove the articles skin, brain, breast or lung because we list the cancers of them also)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. We have prostate cancer but not prostate on the list, which is quite strange.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This organ is not important enough to add. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet and Points. Gizza (t)(c) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

OK, but the other glands we've added are all far more essential for human physiology than the prostate. I suggest better objects of comparison are cervix, cervical cancer, gallbladder and gallstone, none of which are listed. Even pituitary gland isn't listed. Listing prostate cancer (very common in places with high life expectancy) rather than prostate doesn't seem so odd when you consider we list lung and skin cancer before human lung and human skin, or colorectal cancer and anal sex instead of anus/rectum/anal canal. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If we want more coverage of human reproductive anatomy I suggest adding male reproductive system and female reproductive system. As it stands right now, reproductive system deals with all organisms generally, while the other two articles specifically focus on the human anatomy. Sex organ is redundant to these articles and could be removed. Cobblet (talk) 02:54, 28 September 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.
No votes in more than 50 days. No consensus to add any of the body parts Gizza (t)(c) 23:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Add elbow

No doubt it is vital. It is especially vital to baseball players.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Not as vital as knee. Gizza (t)(c) 10:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. Then let's add knee as well!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm not sure of these, not the worse ideas, but we've recently added arm and Human leg which could obviously have fairly in depth info on knee and elbow, and possibly hip and shoulder too. Pushing it, if one were arguing for hip, shoulder, knee, elbow, one could argue for wrist and ankle, although they seem less vital and are covered by hand and foot. Also although covered by hand finger and or thumb seem reasonable and could be argued for, as could jaw. Neck isn't covered by much that isn't a wide overview, may have a mention in some articles like head but it's not part of the head. Other anatomy articles on my mind were tendon and/or ligament.  Carlwev  18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Add knee

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support As vital as Elbow. Perhaps Hip and Shoulder should be added if they are not on the list. Then maybe Neck. That is if we want more joints. Perhaps there are other anatomical parts not on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Hip

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add shoulder

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Neck

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove The General (1926 film)

I see no compelling reason to list the 18th best American film when we have seven other silent films on the list and classic 20th-century American novels like Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse-Five are missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support 18th is quite low. Nothing else suggests vitality. Gizza (t)(c) 04:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There may be a few non vital old films listed  Carlwev  17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be listing more films than works of architecture, so I'd definitely support more well-reasoned removals of films. Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible rearrange?

This may or may not be a good idea. Overtime the geography section has become more locations/regions than topics. What I mean is lists of individual examples of political and physical locations/regions/things on Earth are there, but the articles about the type of thing itself is elsewhere. Nile Mississippi Ganges and Amazon are in Geography but river itself is in Earth science. Same goes for mountains deserts etc. Country, state, city-state, are in social sciences, while individual countries themselves are of course in geography. Looking at basics and urban planning they contain many non place articles like cartography, Remote sensing are more arts or science. Urban planning contains city town slum urban planning, urbanization, urban design and zoning and more. These are not places, but are kind of geography topics, but so are river mountain and country, but we moved them. Urban planning stuff could be moved to social science along with country, city state, do people think this is a good idea? Also why is Central Park the only actual place in urban planning, although not a wildlife thing it could go with the other parks, no? And, we still have continent in geography after the move thread was closed as passed. Was it forgotten or moved back?

Basically do we want non places in geography? if so which ones and why? and which ones are we going to have elsewhere and why?  Carlwev  00:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I moved continent out of earth science when that section was above quota, not remembering the consensus we had. I'll move it back. Cobblet (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care whether we move urban planning topics to Social Sciences or cartography topics to Earth Sciences as long as we adjust the quotas accordingly, since both sections are basically full. I'm also indifferent to where you put Central Park – I personally have no problem with park and national park being in different sections. Cobblet (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I think that Hainan should be moved to the section "Regions and country subdivisions", since Hainan not only refers to Hainan Island, but also refers to the Hainan Province, and this province has more than one island.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2016 (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 Al-Tabari

A Persian polymath who composed all his works in Arabic. Today, he is best known for his expertise in Islamic sciences (Qur'anic commentary and law) or history.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that this article is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose IMO Al-Kindi and Al-Farabi are ahead of him. Cobblet (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Al-Kindi is indeed the next person that should be added from this era. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

But my high school world history textbook mentions Tabari but not Al-Kindi and Al-Farabi!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Just curious: what is your high school world history textbook? Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It is written in Standard Mandarin. It principally deals with cultural history of the world. By the way, my history teacher said that it is not a good textbook as it is not written professionally enough.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
One more question, if you don't mind: what is your current level of education? Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Tertiary education (but not graduated from college).--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I see. There's no way I'll ever take opinions based on a single high school textbook seriously (and I doubt anybody else here would), but at least now I understand why you're using them at all. You seem to be aware of their shortcomings; have you ever considered doing more research beyond your textbooks when you nominate new topics? If you have any appreciation for WP:NPOV and WP:V you should realize there are problems associated with relying on a single tertiary source, particularly one at the high-school level. Cobblet (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2016 (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 Fethullah Gülen

Since he has been described in the English language media as "one of the world's most important Muslim figures", he should be included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
(Re)added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2016 (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 Heinrich Himmler

Support
  1. Support as nom. Himmler was one of the prime orchestrators of the Holocaust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatcherStorm (talk • contribs)
  2. Support under military leaders. pbp 04:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support particularly in light of his role in the Holocaust. Neljack (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. The fact that "In 2008 the German news magazine Der Spiegel described Himmler as one of the most brutal mass murderers in history, and the architect of the Holocaust" (taken from the article) means that it's vital. I'm quite surprised that it is currently not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion
The article is tagged as a vital article but he doesn't actually show up on the list. Don't know how that happened. Cobblet (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: I suppose I did. Talk:Heinrich Himmler says the article's already listed but it isn't CatcherStorm talk 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-4 Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2016 (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 Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Abubakar Shekau

The former is currently the leader of the Islamic State, and the latter is the leader of Boko Haram. Both presented great threat.

Support
  1. As nom. Some people argue that adding the former is currently not appropriate because of alleged recentism, but since experts argue that IS can't be destroyed in the near future, the leader of IS is by no doubt vital since IS itself gets a lot of media attention--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC) added an argument 15:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose I think the charge of recentism is well-justified here. Neljack (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. The fact that IS cannot be eradicated in a short time guarantees Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC) fixed a grammatical error 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 08:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. I once had proposed to add Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_40#Add_Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 4-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2016 (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 Albertus Magnus

The greatest scientific mind of medieval Europe and also a distinguished theologian.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support - Article is in decent shape, and the subject is vital. Jusdafax 17:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 3-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2016 (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 Georges Cuvier

Founder of comparative anatomy and paleontology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support I think he was one of my previous suggestions so i must honour that, haha. GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Rudolf Virchow

Founder of modern pathology and also made contributions to anthropology and anti-Aryanism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2016 (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 Bjarne Stroustrup

The facts that he invented C++ and authored The C++ Programming Language, the first book to describe the C++ programming language, mean that he is as influential as Dennis Ritchie, hence both of them should belong to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose DMRs heavy involvement with Unix makes him much more significant than just his involvement with C. While important, Stroustrup is ultimately just-another-language-designer, albeit of a very important language. Grace Hopper is another good example, she's significant for much more than just her involvement with Cobol. Rwessel (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Rwessel. Gizza (t)(c) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Some people might argue that the article can not be a featured one, hence it should not belong to the list. This is nonsense, since there are a lot of interviews with him, thus by utilizing them the article can become featured.

I can't see any argument in the opposes that says Bjarne Stroustrup is unable to become a featured article. Gizza (t)(c) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what the (possibility) of an article being featured has to do with being on a vital list at all. Today's FA is Kingdom Hearts II, which is highly unlikely to *ever* be in a vital list. Rwessel (talk) 23:36, 28 December 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.
No consensus to add 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2016 (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 Apollonius of Perga

The fact that he influenced Islamic mathematics to the same extent as Archimedes and Euclid means that all of three are vital, however Apollonius is the only one which is currently not in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I cannot support a straight addition since neither mathematicians nor the Ancient Greeks are underrepresented. I can support this if it is combined with a removal of somebody like Zeuxis or Alexis Clairaut. Cobblet (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Making significant developments in conic sections is no doubt vital but like Cobblet I would feel more comfortable if this was a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 00:07, 22 December 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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2016 (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 History of Central Asia

An article not less vital than History of East Asia.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support even though I disagree with the rationale – I don't believe this should be listed on level 3 for example. Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:05, 9 January 2016 (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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2016 (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 History of Southeast Asia

Since histories of Burma, Cambodia, East Timor, Malaysia and Singapore are still no included in the list, and to list all of them is impractical due to the fact that there are some other more vital articles. e.g. history of political thought and history of sport not listed and there are not few it's better to add this to the list first.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support as per last time. The opposes weren't really convincing. One said this is redundant to History of Asia (ugh, what?) and the other doubted whether any "history of" articles are vital which is a little extreme. History of Southeast Asia before History of Austria for sure. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. Logical1004 had made the same proposal before, however later it failed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There are many countries that are fairly important but maybe not enough to list histories of individually, so this obviously fixes it. The region is pretty well defined, is important with a rich and long history that would be worth improving. I'm surprised the article isn't in that many languages, but history of nation articles usually outlanguage history of region, but it's not a good reason alone to avoid it, and maybe it's inclusion could inspire others to write it in other languages, maybe?  Carlwev  18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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


No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 07:47, 8 January 2016 (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 history of Latin America

This article is definitely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 00:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 28 November 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.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2016 (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 Bengal

This ethno-linguistic region is no less vital than Punjab and Kashmir.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Redundant to Bangladesh and West Bengal. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet's suggestion of the Pala Empire is better. Gizza (t)(c) 08:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Then let's remove West Bengal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 2-4 Cobblet (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2016 (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.

Swap: Remove Guantanamera, Add Music of Latin America

We need better coverage of music outside the European/North American tradition: but the best way to do it is not by listing cliched tunes like Guantanamera or La Cucaracha or The Girl from Ipanema, but by listing the articles on the musical traditions themselves. That is where one can expect to find coverage of genres, styles, composers, performers and instrumentation – in short, everything one expects in an encyclopedic treatment of music. IMO only specific pieces with a substantial impact on the development of music should be included and in this sense Guantanamera is no more influential than Gangnam Style.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 17:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would rather add specific genres of Latin American music than an overview article on music in the region. I would support removing Guantanamera if another music genre is proposed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per PointsofNoReturn. I also support swapping Guantanamera with a Latin genre. Music of Latin America itself is too big and broad. Gizza (t)(c) 23:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Latin American Music is a genre in which many readers of EN WP place high value on several specific songs. For genres of music more remote to EN WP users this might be a better solution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I have added a similar proposal below, with a specific genre which is not included among the vital articles. Cambalachero (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1-3 and 1-4 pbp 17:34, 7 January 2016 (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 Henotheism and nontheism

They are vital concepts, however they are currently not included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose The second was removed from the list a couple of years ago. Cobblet (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Interesting but not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose henotheism pbp 02:56, 2 December 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.
No consensus to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2016 (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 toast, baguette, croissant and doughnut

No doubt a lot of Westerners and non-Westerners have consumed them, hence they are all vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose for now. Some of these are as vital as foods currently listed but it is more pressing to add common cooking methods like barbecue, frying, steaming, etc. first. Gizza (t)(c) 08:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. The fact that some vital cooking methods are not included in the list does not mean that for now this proposal should be rejected. Instead, we should propose that they be added to the list as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2016 (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 steaming

This cooking technique is no less vital than baking, yet it is still not included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Definitely need an example of a wet cooking technique. Would also support frying as the most obvious example of an oil-based method. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Aeonx (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2016 (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.
No consensus to add 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2016 (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 dodgeball

A sport which is quite popular among many male elemantary school students in the world.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm not sure how the (unsubstantiated) popularity in that particular demographic makes this vital. Rwessel (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rwessel. Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not swapped 1-2-2 Cobblet (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2016 (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.

Swap:Remove Austronesian peoples, add Taiwanese aborigines

Most major groups of Austronesian people are represented by their countries and islands, making the main article redundant. The most notable of groups not really represented are the Taiwanese aborigines, who are a minority in their country and similar to other indigenous people we list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Taiwanese aborigines should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support add Taiwanese aborigines; . Aeonx (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Austronesian peoples should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Remove Austronesian peoples Aeonx (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I don't think the Taiwanese aborigines are all that noteworthy compared to other marginalized peoples in Asia like the Ainu in Japan, the Moro in the Philippines, the Shan and Rohingya in Burma, Syriac Christians, or any number of ethnic minorities in mainland China or Siberia. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I think we should do something with Bantu peoples and a famous Bantu people, possibly Zulu? Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to remove the Bantu and Austronesians, why not the Arabs and Slavs as well? I think non-Bantu ethnicities in Africa (e.g. the Hausa, Igbo and Fula in West Africa and the Amhara and Oromo in East Africa) should get some attention as well. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I support removing Slavs. Arabs are more politically unified and have made regional organizations like the Arab League although the Arab League itself is listed so I can understand removing Arabs too. The Ainu are a good choice IMO. Non-Bantu African groups are also a good idea. I have been thinking of the Congo Pygmies, Hausa and a few others. Gizza (t)(c) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Slavs are a significant pan-ethnicity, and Arabs are quite influential in history, so both should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-2, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 03:40, 10 January 2016 (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 Amish

The Amish are the most famous group of simple living people in the world. Ranked 3142 in page traffic. I would personally have the Amish before many American biographies and pop culture topics that nobody has heard of outside the States.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If we're adding an ethnic group from the United States it simply has to be African American. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:25, 20 October 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.
No consensus to add 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2016 (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 Assyrian people

This ethnicity should be added to the section, since Assyrian people are absolutely descendants of Ancient Assyrian people, who ruled the Assyrian Empire, and during the Umayyads and the Abbasids they contributed hugely to the Arab Islamic Civilization by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2015 (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.
No consensus 1-1 and no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 12:34, 15 January 2016 (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 Turkic peoples and Turkish people

Since Turkic peoples, especially Turkish people play a crucial role in the history of the world, they are absolutely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Strong Oppose Turkish. It was already on the list (many suspect by accident) and removed. Ethnic groups that are a near majority in one country and don't have a significant population elsewhere barring recent migration are redundant to the country. Including Turkish people is pointless when Turkey is listed. Using other examples, Brazilians is redundant to Brazil, Norwegians is redundant to Norway and Ugandans is redundant to Uganda (interestingly it is a redirect too). I thought this would be very obvious. Gizza (t)(c) 08:37, 29 November 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.
Withdrawn as per better proposal below

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 Assamese language, Add Ahom Kingdom

While Assamese has some literate history and has official status at the state level, it only has 15 million speakers, which in the context of the highly populated South Asia region, is very little.

To maintain coverage of this part of the world, I propose replacing it with the Ahom Kingdom, a kingdom that lasted for around 600 years and successfully resisted Mughal expansion into the Northeast of India before finally succumbing to the Burmese and British. It was founded by the Ahoms, a Tai people from Southern China. Over time, the kingdom became Indianized and today the area reflects a cultural and, for wants of a better term, racial mix of all these areas.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support removal only. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Is there any reason you didn't pick the Pala Empire? They seem to me the most noteworthy entity in eastern India that we're missing – they represent the last great flourishing of Buddhism in South Asia and were involved in the Tripartite Struggle. Pala art is quite well known and important in the context of Buddhist and Indian art. There were lots of little kingdoms in Southeast Asia and I've never heard of Ahom, while at least I've heard of places like Lan Na, Pegu and Ava. Cobblet (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Pala Empire is good too. I thought it was already included. It should definitely be in. I was just thinking of a like-for-like swap in this proposal as both articles are about the Northeast. Gizza (t)(c) 07:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2016 (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 Ottoman Turkish language

Given the fact that it was the only administrative language in the Ottoman Empire (cf. languages of the Ottoman Empire), it was deeply influenced by both Arabic and Persian, and a lot of literary works were written in it, it is worthy of being included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose The only historical language I might support adding is Proto-Indo-European language (but we already have Proto-Indo-Europeans). Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The Ottoman Empire is obviously very vital (it is deservedly a Level 3 article) but not every language or dialect used by a vital empire is vital. For example, Early Modern Russian is not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 22:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:32, 23 December 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.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2016 (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 tongue

No doubt it's vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Its critical functions in taste and speech ought to make it vital. Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support eyes, ears and nose are already listed. As the major organ in one of the major vertebrate sensory systems, tongue should be added. Plantdrew (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  12:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2016 (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 therapy

A topic which is undoubtedly vital, yet it is still not included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom. I didn't notice the fact that this article is not included until now!--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Well spotted by Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 02:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Aeonx (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2016 (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.
No consensus to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2016 (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 Turing machine

Turing machines (originally designed by Alan Turing) have been noted as fundamental to computing. They have been studied and used as a model of computation by nearly all computer scientists. Esquivalience t 01:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Support
Opposition
  1. Oppose - this is covered by the broader article, Abstract machine (of which Turing machines are the best known type), which is already listed under Mathematics / Discrete_mathematics / Theoretical computer science. Rwessel (talk) 03:42, 8 December 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.
No consensus 4-3 Cobblet (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2016 (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 Honda and Nissan

Six car companies is too many if we're not listing historically important companies in other areas such as McDonald's or AT&T, and listing one Japanese car company is enough if we're not listing any other Japanese company/zaibatsu.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - No way. The companies are vital articles, and should stay on the list. Jusdafax 17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Both companies are important to Automotives. In fact we should probably add Daimler AG as well. Aeonx (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. McDonald's and AT&T should be added, not removing Honda and Nissan, since these two Japanese car companies are indeed vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (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 hexadecimal and vigesimal

The former is frequently used by computer system designers and programmers, and some people are quite eager to promote it to replace decimal system. The latter is used by many European and African languages. Maya numerals uses vigesimal as well. However, both hexadecimal and vigesimal are not listed.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that they are not listed at this level!--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Neither is remotely vital. Both are convenient in some circumstances, but introduce little other than convenience. In any event, Positional notation, already in the list, covers this adequately, as well as including considerable context. Rwessel (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose you could say that the Sexagesimal system (base 60) is the third most important numeral system after the decimal and binary since it is still used in dividing time and angles but even it is not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 10:07, 22 December 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.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (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 mathematical notation

No doubt it is a vital concept.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital (mathematics is independent of any particular notation), and covered (and linked) adequately in base Mathematics article. Rwessel (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    1. Mathematical notation covers more details, e.g. Modern Arabic mathematical notation.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Rwessel. Gizza (t)(c) 10:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. I had nominated this before, however later it failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_mathematical_notation_and_mathematical_beauty.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:02, 2 December 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.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2016 (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 Cross-multiplication

It's one of the basics.

Support
  1. As nom Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not really that important as an individual technique, already mentioned in Fraction_(mathematics), which is in the list. Rwessel (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Not that vital. I think that topics like Japanese mathematics, hexadecimal or resultant are more vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Rwessel and Rekishi. Gizza (t)(c) 10:40, 12 November 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.
No consensus to add either 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2016 (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 resultant

A concept which is useful in number theory.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion
  1. I had proposed it before, however it later didn't get included in the list due to the fact that the candidate only got three supporting votes (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 35#Add_resultant).

Add discriminant

A concept no less important than resultant.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2016 (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 Inequality of arithmetic and geometric means

An undoubtedly vital inequality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose I just can't see *any* justification for this. It's not unimportant, but it's very technical, and interesting only to a very small group. Rwessel (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose If we add mean it should cover this topic. Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    1. Then let's add mean!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Really? I think that not all sections of the article are very technical.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The subject, not the article (although most of the article is very technical). Rwessel (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
But the fact that high school math textbooks mention this inequality means that the subject is not that technical.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Stop using "high school textbooks mention it" as a reason for vitality. It isn't. Turn to the index of any high school textbook and you will find hundreds of concepts that are "mentioned". Not all of them are equally vital. If they were probably they would probably cover 10 to 20% of Wikipedia articles. In contrast, this list is trying to identify the most vital 0.2% of Wikipedia articles. Do you understand the difference? Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. But this inequality is interesting, and not too technical. Also it has geometrical beauty.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you're proposing it because you like it. This is not productive. Once again you are wasting our time. Cobblet (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I proposed it because I like it. But this is not the only reason. The other reasons are it is crucial to many high school students and the sub-list currently has one identity, two formulae and 13 theorems but no inequalities (except the article on the inequality itself). So to induct this article to the list means the list's scope would be widened.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Just about any addition would widen the scope of the list; that has not prevented us from rejecting hundreds of your proposals in the past. Use more critical judgment if you want to be taken seriously. We have already discussed the "high school" argument previously and I don't know why you continue to bring it up. Finally, if you want a better chance of persuading others, lay out your case in full when you initially present it. Cobblet (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I mean, the topics contained in the list should be as diverse as possible. For instance, if the math sublist contains a lot of theorems but no inequalities except the article on inequality itself then it should be diversified by adding some articles about particular inequalities (e.g. the one I proposed above). However if the biography sublist contains a lot of singers then adding more singers would not diversify the list as much as adding more articles about inequalities.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Aiming for diversity makes sense when you're trying to select examples of things that all have a certain degree of significance but cannot be compared any more precisely than that, e.g. historical figures. Adding things that are unimportant just because they're different defeats the point of having a list of vital articles – once again, this is not a list of articles that are merely interesting. Just because there are eighteen arbitrarily defined subcategories within Category:Mathematical theorems does not mean the list is improved if we add an example from every subcategory on the list, if none of the theorems added are of fundamental importance. Cobblet (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is vital, since it is useful in financial mathematics, just like implicit functions.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:43, 31 December 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.
No consensus to add 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2016 (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 model theory and structure (mathematical logic)

Both are crucial concepts in mathematical logic, yet they are still not included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
No consensus to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2016 (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 mathematical model

A crucial concept in applied mathematics.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Redundant with applied mathematics. Cobblet (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. I had proposed to add it before, however later it got failed due to the fact that the candidate got no votes in more than thirty days (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_mathematical_model).--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:50, 2 December 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.

Women on the list

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

Now that Sojourner Truth's been nominated again for removal, this seems as good a time as any to ask a question that's been on my mind a lot lately: how many women should we have on the list? If that's too loaded a question or too hard to answer, how about this: is there a minimum number of women we should be including? Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the first question we should ask is how many women and men are currently on the list (and other classifications like nationality and historical era). It will take a long time to count though. Apart from actors and actresses, no other section is divided by sex. That aside, if we do not have a target or quota for women, there are obviously many vital women due to their contributions and actions in a particular field. The fact that they're women doesn't come into it. Curie, Austen and Thatcher to name a few.
Deciding on a specific number of women is difficult because the number is shaped by the number of people we have on different categories. The gender split in acting and musicians will be closer to 50-50 than in areas like sports and military leaders. Therefore if we increase the sizes of the former at the expense of the latter, we will end up with more women on the list but that isn't the best way to go about it.
When a man and woman are roughly equal in vitality in terms of "objective" criteria, I favour adding the woman to reduce the monotony in the list. Same with nationality. I support diversity in the sense of adding variety to the people section (and other section) since this vital list is aiming to summarize all human knowledge. For this reason, I don't necessarily believe a non-political leader needs to change the world to the same extent as a political leader to be vital. On the other hand, you do have the draw the line somewhere and can't add people who have made no real long-term impact in their field just because they're female, non-white, LGBT, disabled or some other minority group. Gizza (t)(c) 10:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I basically agree with what you said. If there are men and women of similar vitality then it should be at least be 50/50 as to the gender of the person we pick – you seem to be suggesting we go even further. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

By my count, there are 191.5 women on the list – I'm counting the Williams sisters as one because only Serena has any business being on the list anyway, and the half is because of Kenneth and Mamie Clark. (I did not count mixed-gender music groups like ABBA.) In other words, women make up less than 10% of the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For comparison, it's been found that around 15% of the biographies on the English Wikipedia are about women. Cobblet (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research Cobblet. Did you make a note of other information like whether the percentage of women is lower in ancient history than modern (which is what one would expect) and possibly lower in non-Western countries than Western? Anyway there are vital women from many areas still missing from the list. I've thought of proposing some but am unsure about when and how to propose them (swaps or straight adds).
We generally guard against recentism though we do list people that only became prominent since the mid-2000s like Lionel Messi, Rafael Nadal, Manmohan Singh, Usain Bolt and Barack Obama (while Kofi Annan, the Williams sisters and Vladimir Putin became notable only a little bit earlier). I think you can put forward a strong case for adding Angela Merkel. Chancellor of Germany since 2005 and regarded as de facto leader of the European Union for most of this time. Credited as being a stabilizing force for the continent during tumultuous economic period. Merkel has been ranked as the most powerful woman for nine of the past ten years by Forbes. And the only people consistently above her in the Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People over the past five years are Obama and Putin who are listed. Gizza (t)(c) 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
IMO Merkel is clearly vital – that her name has never even been mentioned once on this talk page until now says a lot about our priorities. Other women from the 2000s I'd point to are Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, J. K. Rowling and Marit Bjørgen. From the 1990s I think Anna Wintour, Diana, Princess of Wales and Anggun have cases to be made for them. Only Marit's been proposed before.
I have a list of about 60 women for whom I believe I can make a decent case (and have already made it for Maria Montessori), and for whom I can find swaps to keep us at 2000 people. That would bring us up to 250 women, or in other words one in eight people on the list would be female. That's not asking for a lot, is it? It's not hard to find another 50 women beyond that who would also make interesting choices, but finding swaps for them is harder, and it's not like we've included all the deserving men on the list either. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
250 women seems reasonable. Do you think the reason we're low on women compared to Wikipedia as a whole is because this has a different distribution by vocation than the whole project? (not that I'm saying change the distribution of the VA/E/P, I think it's pretty good as is). pbp 21:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Really good question, and frankly I have no idea if that's the reason or not. I don't know if Wikidata analysis has been done on the distribution of biographies by vocation yet. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be fascinating to find out how many modern biographies (1800-present) listed are of a particular nationality. I'm too lazy or busy to do this right now. My guess for the top five would be the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia (not sure of the precise order apart from the US and UK leading). Then probably Japan, Spain, Italy, China and India for the top ten though the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway might make it in the top ten too. It is difficult to look at nationality specifically for earlier periods of history though we can still classify people by empire or well-defined parts of continents. Gizza (t)(c) 13:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that information although I do know that the most populous country without a political leader listed is Kenya (Jomo Kenyatta has a good case) and the most populous country not represented by anyone at all is Cameroon (I couldn't find a Cameroonian biography I considered vital). Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with having a specific quota for men and women. That will just cause controversy as we are forced to eliminate important male articles for less important female articles. Instead, I prefer to take a case by case basis, looking into sections where there could be a few important women, but those women must be equal in importance to the men in that section. Adding women just to reach a quota amounts to a watering-down of the list. I do believe there should be more women on the list, such as J.K. Rowling. I will simply decide based on which woman is nominated. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with your points and have no wish to propose a hard quota. The point of the numbers was to illustrate how this list is more biased towards men than Wikipedia is as a whole. Before I propose adding a large number of women to the list I wanted to explain why I think this is necessary and see what others thought about this. I consider Sojourner Truth a rather marginal choice but nevertheless people are willing to defend her. I think there are plenty of women who have even stronger cases to be made for them. Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your logic. The list does have too few women. We just have to add some one by one, perhaps swapping women for less important male articles. Perhaps some famous female world leaders could be added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, women are still underrepresented on an objective basis. Well as objective as you can get. Everyone has biases. I don't know how far we can go until we will be adding woman because they're women and not purely because of their accomplishments but we're not there yet. Gizza (t)(c) 11:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Cobblet and User:DaGizza What do you guys think of Jane Jacobs? She's one of the top figures in urban planning and urban studies and we don't have a figure for it which can diversify the occupations and add a woman as-well. GuzzyG (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Never thought of her. I looked at several women social scientists (Ruth Benedict, Harriet Martineau, Marija Gimbutas, Mary Leakey) and ultimately felt Melanie Klein, Karen Horney and Zora Neale Hurston were the three with the best cases; YMMV. And surely there are many female activists more influential and better known in the English-speaking world than Jacobs – Alice Paul and Millicent Fawcett for starters; and from the rest of the world one could look at some of the Nobel Peace Prize winners from the last 25 years, Rigoberta Menchú, Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Malala Yousafzai – I think Sirleaf has the best case among all of them. I also think there's a better example of a well-known woman who's prominent in a so-far-unrepresented field: Julia Child. Cobblet (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Harriet, Mary and Zora were on my potential list in my head. I'm not too sure about Alice or Millicent (Alice out of the two), Malala's too recent (maybe), i thought Sirleaf was on the list and i'd definitely vote her in a instant, first elected female head of state of a continent and if we have recent women like J. K. Rowling on the list then recentism should not apply to Ellen, not so sure about Rigoberta/Shirin/Wangari though, may be too regional. I was in favour of adding a chef and Julia i feel would be a good representative if we go that route. The biggest omission on this list though is Diana, Princess of Wales, by faaaaaaaar. Hugely popular activist, historically important, song commemorating her is the highest selling single or second behind White Christmas, the only non 21st century household name not on this list that's not a entertainer in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree Princess Diana's vital; other female humanitarians I'd support adding are Elizabeth Fry and Clara Barton (but we should also add Henri Dunant). Cobblet (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of politics, there are some vital female political figures currently not on the list: Empress Suiko, Queen Seondeok of Silla, Soong Ching-ling and Soong Mei-ling. Empress Suiko is quite well-known in Greater China, Queen Seondeok was the most famous queen regnant in the history of Korea, Soong Ching-ling was the Mother of China, Soong Mei-ling was the Mother of the ROC Air Force.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem supporting the addition of a pre-Shogunate Japanese leader but am not sure Suiko is the best choice (and I would not call her well known outside Japan). I did consider Seondeok but again I question how well known she is outside of Korea. Ultimately I think the most culturally significant female royal from East Asia not on the list is Yang Guifei. Song Qingling should not be the next political figure from 20th-century China to be added and her other sisters are not vital. Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

People from the Islamic Golden Age: a case study on the completeness of the list

Latest comment: 8 years ago451 comments23 people in discussion

Some people seem surprised that I'm very picky when it comes to proposals adding more people to the list, even though we're still below the quota by 17. I want to show how there are many people who are very significant in their discipline or time period that we haven't yet included, and as an example of that, I've decided to examine how well we cover the Islamic Golden Age. This used to be a weak spot on the list, especially in terms of people who were not political or military leaders, but we've made significant progress, having added Al-Biruni, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Geber, Khadija bint Khuwaylid and Aisha over the last couple of years.

Have we done enough? Look at the following people (just intellectuals for now – I'll discuss political and military leaders further down) who aren't on the list, sorted by number of page views over the past 90 days. I don't use page views as an absolute measure of vitality (any two-bit celebrity today will beat these page views easily), but when comparing people belonging to the same culture and historical period, I find it a useful way of seeing at a glance whose importance stands out.

  • Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, also known as Rhazes (20,176 page views): polymath especially known for his contributions to medicine. Britannica flat-out calls him "the greatest physician of the Islamic world" which is a bold claim with Avicenna, Geber and al-Zahrawi to contend with, but perhaps not unjustifiable – for example, he was the first person to note the difference between smallpox and measles. I'm not surprised he's missing since we got around to adding two terribly important physicians only recently.
  • Al-Farabi (19,163 views) and Al-Kindi (17,692 views): the two most distinguished figures of Islamic philosophy before Avicenna – the Arabs considered Al-Farabi the greatest philosopher after Aristotle and Al-Kindi the father of Arab philosophy. Both wrote on a wide variety of subjects and played an important in preserving, disseminating and building upon the work of the ancient Greeks.
  • Al-Jazari (14,509 views): the most famous of Arab inventors (next in line would probably be the Banū Mūsā brothers with only 3214 views), noted for his intricate designs of machines and automata.
  • Maria al-Qibtiyya (13,102 views): the only one of Muhammad's wives besides Khadija bint Khuwaylid to bear him a child.
  • Rabia Basri (12,908 views): the first of the Sufi mystics, and the only one of four women listed in The Muslim 100 not on our list. The only other notable women of the period who weren't wives or daughters of Muhammad I could find were Al-Khansa (3953 views), one of the greatest Arab poets, and Arwa al-Sulayhi (3276 views), Queen of Yemen for over 60 years (known as the "little Queen of Sheba") and the only significant example of a female Arab ruler in Islamic times.
  • Abu Hurairah (12,447 views): one of the most important narrators of hadith, #10 on The Muslim 100 and the only one in the top ten not to appear on our list.

These are all the people I could find with over 9000 page views during the last 90 days. Other people that nearly met this threshold of 100 views/day were Ibn al-Nafis (8981 views), Al-Jahiz (8604 views) and Attar of Nishapur (8381 views). There are still a number of interesting figures whose biographies get even less attention, e.g. Yunus Emre (6934 views), the first great figure in Turkish literature; Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi (4092 views), the first astronomer to record observing the Andromeda galaxy and Large Magellanic Cloud; Imru' al-Qais (3807 views), the most distinguished of pre-Islamic Arab poets; Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād (3267 views), the best-known of Persian miniature painters and one of the few plausible choices to represent Islamic art, and Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (2570 views), pioneer of the study of the Arabic language and compiler of the first Arabic dictionary.

I'll let everyone decide for themselves how many of these figures they deem vital. Personally I'm only strongly inclined to add Rhazes and al-Farabi.

That was intellectual history. While our coverage of Muslim political and military leaders of this period is better, there are still some notable omissions:

  • Mahmud of Ghazni (48,136 views): the first of Muslim invaders of India, and as brilliant a patron of the arts and literature as he was a warrior. His court entertained such luminaries as Al-Biruni and Ferdowsi, author of Shahnameh which is even on our level 3 list.
  • Alp Arslan (17,476 views): second Seljuk sultan whose victory over Romanos IV signaled the decline of the Byzantine Empire, and whose vizier Nizam al-Mulk (6571 views) was one of the most capable political administrators in Islamic history.
  • Tariq ibn Ziyad (16,151 views): Moorish conqueror of Spain – Muslim rule there would endure for another 500 years.

I also came across figures like Al-Mansur (10,809 views) and Al-Ma'mun (10,418 views) who I don't think are particularly vital. The Barmakids (3755 views), the great viziers of the Abbasid Caliphate mentioned in the Arabian Nights, seem more interesting to me but the page views would suggest others don't share this opinion. Of the list above, I think the first two definitely make good additions, while Alp Arslan could be swapped with Tughril (3575 views) and Tariq with 'Abd al-Rahman I (6143 views).

So this is how our coverage of the Islamic Golden Age looks: we have many key people but are still missing quite a few, and there is no way we could include every person that has the slightest claim to being vital. I personally think we should consider a net addition of four people and they're all from this one cultural region 800-1400 years ago. Who knows how many people closer to our time we still don't have? Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I briefly mentioned Al-Kindi once too. This will take time to research and discuss. Hopefully I'll get the time in the next couple of days. Gizza (t)(c) 13:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding some of these guys. If we go over 2,000, we can just cut some more sportspeople. pbp 13:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of all pop culture sections in People, modern music has taken the smallest hit. There are 27 Rock musicians, nearly all from only two decades (60s and 70s) and two countries. For comparison there are 15 soccer players spread from the 1940s to 2015 and from all over the world. Gizza (t)(c) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I had to pick four, I would choose Rabia, Al-Razi or Al-Kindi (hard to decide), Muhammad of Ghor and Tariq. I'm less certain with the intellectuals than political and military leaders. Muhammad of Ghor is the foremost symbol of early Islam in South Asia and is revered as a hero in Pakistan and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. Assuming there are no other Islamic conquerors of Iberia listed, Tariq should be listed as his conquests lead to the only instance of long-term Muslim rule in Western Europe. I'm guessing he gets low views because Spain and Portugal are no longer Muslim so nobody really reveres him in a patriotic sense but 500 years of history and influence is enough IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 10:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)+

Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari is currently not included in the list, despite the fact that he was a Persian polymath who wrote all of his works in Arabic and contributed to tafsir and fiqh a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2016 (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 Meera

No doubt User:DaGizza can explain her significance better than I can, but she's a highly popular mystic poet of India. Her biography gets more hits than Tukaram's or Tulsidas's and we list both of those figures as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Much more vital than the obscure and forgotten Bhavabhuti if space has to be made in the future. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Meera is indeed more vital than Tukaram whose influence and popularity is confined to western India. In addition to her well-known poetry, she became a symbol for pacifism among people like Gandhi and a women's rights icon for Indian feminists later on. In spite of this, Tulsidas is definitely more important than Meera though both writers should be here. The critical reception section in his article can explain his importance better than I can. A Renaissance Homer. He would be in the top ten of most important Indian people of all time. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:DaGizza. While we're on the subject of Indian writers, can I get your opinion on some modern English-language writers in India? I'm specifically wondering whether R. K. Narayan and Sarojini Naidu are worthwhile additions. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about English language writers from India before. R. K. Narayan is more famous of the two. Arundhati Roy is a famous modern writer but she's not vital yet. I also notice that Salman Rushdie is listed so this area isn't unrepresented at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 10:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2016 (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 Valentina Tereshkova

The fact that she is the first woman and civilian to have flown in space means that she is crucial at this level, just like Yuri Gagarin.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that she is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support At least as vital as Amelia Earhart]. Cobblet (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 07:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
Not swapped Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2016 (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.

Swap: Remove Robert Fisk, Add Gertrude Bell

Frequently awarded Middle East correspondent versus architect of the modern nation of Iraq – Bell's historical impact is far more significant. (Among British journalists William Howard Russell and David Frost seem more important to me than Fisk.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition. Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Removal. Robert Fisk is the most awarded foreign correspondent on earth, and has interviewed Osama bin Laden three times, hence he is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition. Unfortunately Gertrude Bell has been suffering from the attention of propagandists in the middle east who seek to inflate and invent. Her alleged "historical impact" need to be seen in that context. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal. Fisk is a major force in journalism today, a knowledgeable and readable reporter of great merit. No opinion on addition. Jusdafax 17:09, 19 December 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.
Not added 1-2, 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2016 (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 Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov and Lavrentiy Beria

Now that someone wants to add Himmler, I suggest that these three persons be added as well, since they are all crucial victimizers of the Great Purge, only less vital than Joseph Stalin.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale given. Saying that someone is crucial does not make them so. Cobblet (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Yagoda and Yezhov pbp 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Of the three, the only one with a case of being vital is Beria. Not every perpetrator of genocide is vital because as with every part of the list, we have to be selective. Gizza (t)(c) 11:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm with DaGizza. All three of these men is too excessive. pbp 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
No, all of them are indeed vital. Though Yezhov was the greatest villain of these three persons in the Great Purge, Yagoda and Beria are crucial in the atrocities of Stalin as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@RekishiEJ: If you think all three of them are vital, how many people involved in genocide worldwide do you think we should have? Keep in mind the quotas we have for people and everywhere else. And why not Talaat Pasha? Gizza (t)(c) 07:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
People who are main victimizers of the Armenian Genocide, the Great Purge, the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide and the Rwandan Genocide.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-2 after 60 days, not added Gizza (t)(c) 13:48, 30 January 2016 (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 Margaret E. Knight

An American woman who has been called the most famous 19th-century female inventor.

Support
  1. As nom. Wikipedians will find it vital if they have read both this article and paper bag.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Dozens of inventors are ahead of her. Cobblet (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose She didn't even invent the paper bag but just a somewhat useful design. Not that inventing the paper bag makes someone vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:45, 7 January 2016 (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.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2016 (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 History of North Africa

Though having only three language editions, this article is still vital since North Africa has unique culture, and it does not consist only of Egypt.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support North Africa is a well defined region and the North African countries other than Egypt collectively deserve a history article. Gizza (t)(c) 11:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Fritzmann2002 18:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I was thinking about proposing History of Morocco. Africa only has 5 history of country articles compared to 14 for Europe, Morocco seems pretty significant, equally or more so compared to say History of Netherlands or Romania which we have. Thinking about these history of regions articles, we have some like Scandinavia and Middle East, but a time ago many many region articles themselves were removed; regions and history of regions needs some thought, as to which to include and which not to.  Carlwev  17:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that if a particular country or region is strategically crucial, then its history is crucial as well. Hence, history of Singapore should be added, just like history of Israel.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I oppose adding histories of any city, even those that happen to be city-states. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

In general I like the idea of adding regional histories, especially in Africa where most modern national boundaries are just accidents of colonialism. I prefer History of West Africa over History of Nigeria for example, and to a lesser extent I also prefer History of North Africa over History of Morocco. (I have no problem keeping History of Egypt though.) Also I think these regional histories will be of more interest to a general audience than articles on a specific historical entity in the region. Hausa Kingdoms is another article I wouldn't mind swapping for History of West Africa; and despite having suggested adding Ajuran Sultanate in the past I now feel it would've been a better idea to add something like History of East Africa, if such an article existed. (BTW, if I had known about the Kilwa Sultanate back then, I think that too would've been preferable to Ajuran or any of the other Somali sultanates.) But they don't always exist: History of East Africa actually redirects to East Africa#History and History of Southern Africa redirects to History of Africa. Seems kinda weird to only list histories of North and West Africa. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I have proposed adding History of West Africa. pbp 02:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
If we add this, do we still need North Africa during Antiquity? I'd definitely support a swap but I don't think we need both articles. Cobblet (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Didn't know it was listed. I would support removing that now that this proposal will succeed. Gizza (t)(c) 13:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No votes in 30 days, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 08:57, 28 January 2016 (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 history of the Americas

This article is more vital than history of North America and history of South America. In fact, the phrase "North America" has various definitions, which is sometimes confusing.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gob Lofa (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Won't cover anything that North America and South America already do but in more detail. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 18 December 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.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 01:46, 15 February 2016 (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 Muslim conquests

No doubt it's vital, since it substantially changed Near East, Middle East and North Africa. For instance, Egypt was both Arabized and Islamized due to Muslim conquest of Egypt.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support You could argue that if Mongol invasions and conquests is redundant to Mongol Empire, Muslim conquests could be redundant to the early Islamic empires and Islamic Golden Age. However, an overview article is probably useful in this case. Still very relevant in 2015 compared to the Mongol conquests, which although having a stronger impact at the time, lost most of its significance within a few hundred years. Gizza (t)(c) 11:59, 18 November 2015 (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.
1-2 in 60+ days, not added Gizza (t)(c) 13:51, 30 January 2016 (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 Muslim conquest of Egypt

I think that it is more crucial, at least as crucial as Muslim conquest of Persia, since Arab conquest of Egypt both Arabized and Islamized Egypt, as many Arabs migrated to Egypt and more and more Copts got Islamized after this conquest. Arab conquest of Persia only Islamized Persia and made Persians use Arabic script to write their mother tongue.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by Arab–Byzantine wars. Cobblet (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 13:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

This proposal has one of your stronger rationales Rekishi. The Muslim conquest of Persia resulted in a change in the majority's religion but not language while the Muslim conquest of Egypt resulted in a change of the majority's language and religion which is obviously significant. I guess the reason why Persia was added ahead of Egypt was because the former had its empire (the Sasanian) completely overthrown while the Byzantines ruling Egypt at the time suffered large territorial losses but managed to survive. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
result-Swapped 5.5-0.5 Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2016 (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.

Swap: Remove Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Add Western Sahara

I believe an article on the disputed region is more important to have than a partially recognized state that controls the region. Western Sahara also gets twice as many page views.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  6. The addition. The fact that Western Sahara is the most populous territory on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories means that it's crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal. Partially recognized sovereign states are no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Strong support, mentioned before here but never really been opened. Western Sahara appears to be the name of the region regardless of who controls or claims it. Western Sahara appears in more languages too, and it's what it's named as in all Atlases and maps that name it anything, from what I've seen. It's consistent too as China and Taiwan have two opposing governments which claim the whole of China, but we want to include articles about the places/regions, not parties who claim said regions. We do it with Taiwan, so we should here too. (Although it's a little confusing as some terms are used interchangeable sometimes.)  Carlwev  11:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize that it's the same region? Western Sahara refers to the region regardless of who owns, rules or claims it. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic refers to one party or government that claims and currently controls a fraction of the land and population of Western Sahara since the 1970s. It's like listing separately both Taiwan the land and the Republic of China, the government of Taiwan; which don't even have separate articles on Wikipedia. The Taiwan case has much more population and a longer history too, but we don't list that or any other similar case twice. This proposal is still going to go forward in its current tally count anyway, I just wanted to point out.  Carlwev  12:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

But SADR presently only rules a small portion of Western Sahara, though it claims sovereignity over the entire Western Sahara, which means they are not the same.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2016 (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.

Swap: Remove Punjab, Pakistan, add Punjab (region)

Since Punjab redirects to Punjab (region), meaning the toponym Punjab usually refers to the region including Punjab, Pakistan and Punjab, India, history of Punjab not only encompasses history of the region which is now the Pakistani province of Punjab, and though the number of geographical articles in the list still does not exceed the quota there are many articles corresponding to vital cities not included in the list which are more vital than the article about the province, I think that the swap should be made.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 15:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Tentative support I've thought about the Punjab situation for a long time. Punjab, Pakistan by itself is a very large region by area, history and population and arguably deserve its own place here but it is more important to learn about the Punjab region as a whole. Punjab, India is now only only about one-third of the original Indian Punjab which also includes Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. None of these articles are listed so Punjab region will capture all of them so to speak. Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 04:24, 20 February 2016 (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 Chaoshan

An interesting and vital topic, since Chaoshan's traditionally most popular topolect, Teochew dialect best retains both phonology and lexicon of Old Chinese and Teochew people in the Southeast Asia are more economically powered than other Chinese people. Also there are some people studying Teochew culture.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Shantou's on the list and this is enough. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Also redundant to Guangdong. Adding regions of regions should be avoided with only a few exceptions (there is Sakha Republic and there might be a few listed islands that fit this). Otherwise we will be adding Maine, Aceh, Awadh, Yorkshire and countless other articles. Gizza (t)(c) 11:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

The fact that Shantou is indeed vital that does not mean Chaoshan should not belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Shantou and Chaoshan when Xiamen, Ningbo, Wenzhou, Kaohsiung and Quanzhou are all not listed? Please try harder. The fact that you put no critical thought whatsoever into your proposals does not mean the rest of us have to do the same. Cobblet (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, Teochew dialect is probably more vital than Chaoshan but the most vital Chinese dialects missing are Xiang Chinese and Jin Chinese. Gizza (t)(c) 08:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2016 (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 Guggenheim Museum Bilbao

The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a tremendous example of modern, contemporary art/architecture. From the article: "The museum was the building most frequently named as one of the most important works completed since 1980 in the 2010 World Architecture Survey among architecture experts." Also ranked one of the 12 Wonders of Spain.

Support
  1. As nominator.--DJB3.14 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support As contemporary works of art and architecture go this is probably one of the most significant and recognizable. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2016 (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.
3-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 07:22, 14 February 2016 (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.

Swap: Remove Guantanamera, Add Bachata (music)

As suggested above, it may be better to replace that song with a music genre from South America. I first thought about Tango music, but Tango is already included, and may be redundant.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cambalachero (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support add although I think both Cha-cha-cha (music) and Merengue music are as important if not more so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cha-cha-cha is also not a bad idea. Gizza (t)(c) 01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. This is a tremendously important song culturally to Latino Americans.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think we have enough Latin music genres as it is, considering that our coverage of African or East Asian genres is practically nonexistent. Cobblet (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Why is the term Salsa music vital as opposed to Salsa (dance). Similarly, I think Cha-cha-cha (dance), Merengue (dance) and Bachata (dance) are culturally important sort of in that order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, failed Gizza (t)(c) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (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 Oye Como Va

Support
  1. Support as nom. It seems to me that this song is arguably as important as Guantanamera.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support A defining piece of music in classic rock, well defines Latin rock CatcherStorm talk 19:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Would much prefer adding Carlos Santana instead. Cobblet (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 02:53, 31 January 2016 (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.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 03:58, 20 February 2016 (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 Hotel California

Support
  1. Support as nom, considered by Rolling Stone as one of the greatest songs of all time, very defining and well known in classic rock. CatcherStorm talk 19:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, while an iconic song from the Eagles, its not historic, like most of the musical pieces we list here, and La Marseillaise, which i will propose adding.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Classic rock is well covered. If we have to add another song, it should be from an unrepresented genre. Gizza (t)(c) 03:58, 20 February 2016 (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.
1-2 after 60 days, not added Gizza (t)(c) 13:57, 30 January 2016 (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 concept

No doubt it is a crucial philosophical topic.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose interesting choice but no rationale when the article's vitality isn't evident at all. Gizza (t)(c) 13:57, 30 January 2016 (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.
No votes in 60 days, not added Gizza (t)(c) 14:01, 30 January 2016 (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 Armenian Apostolic Church

The fact that it is the first national church on earth guarantees its vitality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per the previous discussion although this has been renominated quite quickly. Gizza (t)(c) 10:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support easily the most influential institution in Armenian history. --Երևանցի talk 08:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per the previous discussion less than six months ago. Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. The fact that this list covers more vital Christian topics than vital Islamic ones does not mean that it covers Christianity sufficiently. Both religions are not adequately covered in the list. So to addres the Islamic issue we should add more Islamic topics as well, rather than reject this proposal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had nominated this for addition before, but later it failed (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive_43#80_Add_Armenian_Apostolic_Church).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No votes in 30 days, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 13:46, 30 January 2016 (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 roasting and barbecue

These two articles are as vital as baking and grilling, yet unlike the latter two ones, the former two ones are not listed, which sounds quite weird.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support barbecue as per previous discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Barbecue is a mess, but it apparently inspired this proposal. Grilling and barbecue (according to the barbecue article) refer to different techniques in the US and the UK. Then there's a discussion of different regional styles in the US (where there are strongly held regional opinions about what makes a proper barbecue). And then there's a section on how barbecue encompasses 4-5 different cooking techniques. Roasting might be good to add, but barbecue is very disjointed and doesn't seem to cover a fundamental cooking technique. Plantdrew (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 12:26, 10 February 2016 (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 Berkshire Hathaway

Largest conglomerate in the world with significant influence and history.

Support
  1. Support as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Doesn't really have a corner on any one industry, nor is it particularly old. pbp 01:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Warren Buffett's already listed. Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose very redundant to Warren Buffett. Gizza (t)(c) 03:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2016 (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.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 12:26, 10 February 2016 (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 BP

Most significant Oil and Gas company in the world.

Support
  1. Support as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Where you get the "most significant"? We already have bigger oil companies on the list. pbp 01:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I stand by my opinion that Standard Oil is the only oil company of major historical significance. Cobblet (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2016 (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.
No consensus, no votes in 60 days Gizza (t)(c) 10:43, 28 January 2016 (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 Cultural assimilation

No doubt it's vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support we have many articles on the stratification/segregation side of things but none on assimiliation. This is a good choice. Gizza (t)(c) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (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.
1-3 after 30 days, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:25, 24 January 2016 (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 Pandanus tectorius

This plant should be added to the list, since it is vital in some cultures, e.g. in Chinese medicine and cuisine of Kiribati.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not even the most vital species of Pandanus which is already listed. And FWIW, it is absolutely not vital in Chinese medicine (which itself isn't on the list to begin with, although acupuncture is). Cobblet (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose But not quite per Cobblet. I'm inclined to rate it as the most vital species of Pandanus if I had to pick just one, but why should I do that? I'm not going to argue that Pandanus deserves a place on the vital list. Plantdrew (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2016 (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.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 02:53, 28 January 2016 (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 Melon

This article is absolutely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Redundant with Cucurbitaceae. Cobblet (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. We've got watermelon and muskmelon which account for all of the sweet large fruits with a hardish rind and soft juicy center that most folks would associate with the term "melon". The "melon" article covers plants with a common name including the term melon, but some of them are bitter rather than sweet and/or don't have the hard/juicy melon texture. Plantdrew (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 03:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Melons are any plants belonging to Cucurbitaceae having edible and fleshy fruit, hence they are not the same.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Didn't say they were. Cobblet (talk) 08:55, 22 December 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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2016 (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 Cestoda

The tapeworm (which redirects), common parasite, can infect humans, in fact, the article states that all vertebrates can be infected by at least one species of cestoda, and over 1000 species have been described to date. Article present in about 57 languages if I count correct.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support At least it's more vital than botfly. Cobblet (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:46, 15 January 2016 (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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2016 (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 Apterygota

This subclass used to contain all the wingless insects, but nowadays it just contains Thysanura (which includes the silverfish and is listed), Archaeognatha and the extinct Monura; Collembola (listed), Protura and Diplura have been moved elsewhere and are sometimes elevated into their own classes. Apterygota no longer looks like a vital taxon to me.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Frankly I'm not even sure we even need Pterygota, the subclass containing the winged insects. None of the intermediate taxa that go between the class Insecta and orders like Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera look particularly vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2016 (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 Medical procedure

It's just a list of anything a medical professional might do in the course of interacting with a patient. Types of medical procedures like diagnosis, therapy, surgery, etc. are vital; the umbrella article is redundant with medicine.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support agree with nom. Just a list, redundant to medicine and the main procedures already listed. Doesn't add anything.  Carlwev  10:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 11:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (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.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 07:24, 14 February 2016 (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 thermochemistry and green chemistry

Both are as vital as photochemistry and environmental chemistry, however currently they are not listed.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Photochemistry is already listed; green chemistry is just a buzzword. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 14:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Sorry, I proposed the wrong one. I wanted to propose thermochemistry, but nominated the wrong article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd still oppose that; it's redundant with heat and enthalpy. Cobblet (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2016 (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 ocean acidification

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Effects of global warming should be covered by the parent article. We have no room to list subtopics. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose acid rain is the more well-known environmental problem and that's not listed because it is covered by air pollution. This is covered by water pollution. Gizza (t)(c) 12:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
    1. Acid rain is already listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2016 (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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2016 (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 computer file

No doubt it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. While a bit of that is covered in File system, it's Computer files which are the fundamental topic in data storage - all the rest (including the file system, disk drives, and whatnot), is just there to hold the file. Rwessel (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. Can support this as a swap with file system too. Gizza (t)(c) 02:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
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 wiki

As Wikipedia implements wiki, and wiki is now becoming more and more popular, it should be listed here.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Per Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_27#Remove_wiki. Already removed 6-0. No wiki other than Wikipedia itself is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 8 January 2016 (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.
Mean added 5-2; geometric and harmonic means not added 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2016 (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 mean, geometric mean and harmonic mean

They are as vital as arithmetic mean.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support mean. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support mean. Gizza (t)(c) 08:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support mean.  Carlwev  09:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support mean. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose geometric and harmonic means. Coverage of them in mean ought to be sufficient. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Mixed support replacing arithmetic mean with mean, oppose adding geometric and harmonic means. Rwessel (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2016 (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.
Teresa of Ávila added 5-0, John of the Cross not removed 3-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2016 (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.

Swap: Remove John of the Cross, Add Teresa of Ávila

Both were notable Carmelite reformers and made important contributions to Spanish literature; but given the dearth of female Catholic figures (even though Catholics as a whole are well represented), the presence of another male Spanish saint in Ignatius of Loyola, and the greater overall popularity of St. Teresa (her biography gets about twice as many views and historically there was a short-lived movement to make her the patron saint of Spain), I think she's a slightly better choice for the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition St John of the Cross is one of the most important figures in Spanish literature. When this is considered together with his religious work, I think he is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion. I agree that St Teresa is a figure of comparable importance. Given the under-representation of women both in this area and generally on the list, I certainly support adding her. Neljack (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support addition per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support We are very close to the person limit of the section (1995/2000 as of March 8). I don't think we should be doing straight additions at this point in most cases. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2016 (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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2016 (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 Aleister Crowley

The list certainly needs more than one occultists and Crowley is perhaps more important than Helena Blavatsky.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator.--The Traditionalist (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Very strong legacy in the occult and NRM. Gizza (t)(c) 02:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. He is very influential and the most likely the go-to name in the public for the occult, although that may be a downside. I'd probably rather go with Rasputin or L. Ron Hubbard though. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. A highly influential Westerner, as the lead of the article says.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2016 (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: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

First democratically elected female head of state in Africa, Nobel Peace Prize winner, one of the more accomplished Liberian politicians, The Economist said of her "arguably the best president the country has ever had.". Probably the biggest influence in African politics by a modern female head of state.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support We have a lot of genocidal dictators on the list of modern African leaders and while mass murderers undoubtedly attract a great deal of notoriety, adding people like Sirleaf would help balance out our coverage of that continent's political history. Also we have no female African leaders apart from some royals of Ancient Egypt and Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba. Why people as obscure as Rainilaiarivony should be ahead of Sirleaf is a mystery to me. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2016 (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.
Puduhepa added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2016 (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.

Swap: Remove Thutmose II, Add Puduhepa

Puduhepa was a Hittite queen and one of the most influential women of the ancient world. She was renowned for her diplomacy skills with Ramesses II of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia. She played a key role in the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty which is the world's oldest known peace treaty that has survived. The Eleanor Roosevelt of her time. Puduhepa's reign marked an era of stability and peace for the Hittite and neighbouring empires. During her peak she began to influence legal matters and the religion of the Hittites as well.

Thutmose II is one of the weakest pharoahs listed. Nothing really happened during his reign. His father Thutmose I did much more for Egypt by expanding the civilization's reach into Nubia and Canaan while Thutmose II's wife Hatshepsut created many trade networks and building projects (both of them are also listed).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition; as Cobblet notes Thutmose II isn't on the list, so he can't be removed. Neljack (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Addition; as the lede of the article says that she was one of the most influential women in the Ancient Near East she was vital at this level, also the list's scope needs to be more diversified in gender.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC) RekishiEJ (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC) fixed a little
  4. 'Support the addition. Open to who would be removed, given that Thutmose II is not on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support addition. Cobblet (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Note that there are no Hittites listed which is surprising. Of the nearby ancient civilizations, the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Akkadians/Babylonians, Sumerians and Persians are definitely more vital than the Hittites and deserve more articles but the Hittites should at least have equal coverage to the likes of Dacia, Sheba and the Kingdom of Aksum. Also I support the addition more than the removal and only proposed the removal because we are approaching the quota limit. Gizza (t)(c) 02:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thutmose II isn't listed – Thutmose I and III are. Cobblet (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
My bad. I should've paid closer attention. In that case, I think Shoshenq I is the least vital of the Egyptian leaders on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
3-2 after 60+ days Jusdafax 04:35, 17 April 2016 (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 Diana, Princess of Wales

No doubt a vital humanitarian, princess and celebrity. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Not quite the first celebrity who donated her image and time to charitable causes (although still a pioneer in this respect), but she did it better than anyone. Cobblet (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support 100% yes, one of the most well known humanitarians whose death caused worldwide grief. GuzzyG (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I question whether her actual impact was as great as her fame. I don't deny the significance of her work for humanitarian causes, but I think others have made a greater impact in that area without having the same fame. Neljack (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Her obvious fame and tragic death make this a plausible nomination, but in the end can not be considered vital, in my view. Jusdafax 17:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd be interested in hearing which other people User:Neljack's thinking of. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I feel the same way about Diana that I do about JFK (who I proposed for REMOVAL from the list sometime ago; it failed). JFK and Diana are significant primarily as martyrs; their concrete political achievements aren't particularly numerous. pbp 17:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I used to agree with that; but perhaps the scandal surrounding her death distracts us from seeing Diana's true legacy. My impression is that prior to her, there were wealthy people who devoted themselves to philanthropy; there were politicians who used their power to bring about social reform; and there were celebrities like Danny Kaye who would perform for charity; but as far as I can tell Diana was the first person to demonstrate the effectiveness of simply using her image and ceremonial position (few would describe Diana as a politician) to bring visibility to social causes that needed it, and it seems to me that she brought a new dimension to the standards of social responsibility for the rich and famous. I feel like since the 90s there's been an explosion in the number of actors and athletes who have followed her lead. I'm no historian on the matter, but perhaps that's proof of her legacy, which I think is unique and deserves more credit than some of the other people in this discussion have given her. Cobblet (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days Gizza (t)(c) 12:34, 7 March 2016 (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 archive and oral history

Both are fundamental terms in historiography, yet they are currently not in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose oral history – too close in scope to oral tradition which is listed. Would be OK with adding interview. Cobblet (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose oral history. --Thi (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add collective memory and periodization

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale given either time. Cobblet (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 23:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. I had made this proposal before (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive_43#Add_collective_memory_and_periodization), however later it failed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2016 (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 North Africa during Antiquity

Now that History of North Africa's on the list, this seems unnecessary.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:08, 17 February 2016 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 +days Gizza (t)(c) 08:17, 5 March 2016 (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 West Bengal

This article is less vital than Bengal, which is larger but currently not on the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just like South Korea is more vital than Korea (see Level 3), West Bengal is more vital than Bengal. Bengal is now just a linguistic region where people speak the Bengali language. But Bengali language is already listed making it redundant. Gizza (t)(c) 04:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

This situation is different to Punjab. In the case of Punjab though, I think ideally both Punjab (Pakistan) and Punjab region should be included. Pakistani Punjab is a significant and large province and the region as a whole is significant. None of the modern Indian states of Punjab are vital as they have been divided into smaller entities. Adding Pakistani Punjab and Punjab region is easier than adding Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and the nowadays smaller Punjab (India). This contrasts with Bengal where it is only divided into one Indian state and the nation of Bangladesh. Gizza (t)(c) 04:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Near East and Far East

These are vital terms, however they currently are not included.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Both terms are deprecated. Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This page is for vital articles, not vital terms. A list of 10,000 vital terms in a dictionary or glossary would look very different to this list. Gizza (t)(c) 23:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

No, they aren't. For example, Ancient Near East and Russian Far East are frequently heard.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Both articles say they're deprecated (in favour of Middle East and East Asia, both terms that are listed), and this accords with my experience as a native English speaker. The fact that certain variants are used in specialized circles does not contradict this fact about the parent terms. Cobblet (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2 after 60+ days Gizza (t)(c) 07:06, 11 March 2016 (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 Sochi

The facts that this city is one of the few sub-tropical cities in Russia, it is Russia's largest resort city and that it hosted the XXII Olympic Winter Games and XI Paralympic Winter Games in 2014, as well as the Russian Formula 1 Grand Prix from 2014 until at least 2020 mean that it is absolutely vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Removed recently. If anything more on Russian geography should be added it should be the republics. Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 09:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. The fact that it hosted the XXII Olympic Winter Games and XI Paralympic Winter Games in 2014 means that it is vital at this level. By the way, in my opinion, cities which once hosted Summer or Winter Olympic Games, or World Games are no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Why? Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Since by hosting this kind of world sports games, a city becomes better-known outside local residents, or even foreigners. For instance, I didn't know that Sochi exists before it hosted 2014 Olympic Winter Games.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, name recognition alone is not sufficient for vitality. And if you hadn't even heard of Sochi I'll bet you haven't heard of most of the ski resorts that have hosted Winter Olympics in the past – there are much better-known resort destinations not on the list. So what if, say, Phuket or Cancun haven't hosted an Olympics? They receive a lot more international visitors and are much more important to the economies of their respective countries than Sochi is to Russia. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 12:14, 23 March 2016 (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 Animal Farm

We have Nineteen Eighty-four, but not Animal Farm, which is as influential as the former, which is strange.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No compelling reason to list a second novel of Orwell's when plenty of famous authors do not even have one work of theirs on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Having Nineteen Eighty-four and George Orwell is sufficient. Animal Farm is one level down. Gizza (t)(c) 09:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. However, Animal Farm's quality is no worse than 1984.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The same is true of "Shooting an Elephant" and Homage to Catalonia. We omit many excellent works of literature and art from the list. Cobblet (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
But Animal Farm is also highly influential since the CIA has used it to promote anti-communism, which is not George Orwell's true purpose. He just wanted to promote anti-Stalinism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Animal Farm is more vital than 1984, since both literary critics and George Orwell himself consider the former better than the latter.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2016 (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 Conga

Bongos and claves are just as important percussion instruments in Cuban music and I don't see how any of these are particularly vital. If we need another drum-related topic I'd suggest drum kit; and other types of percussion could use some attention, such as gong, tambourine, thumb piano, rattle (percussion instrument), clapper (musical instrument) (claves are a type of clapper) or the recently removed slit drum which is not really a "drum" at all.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support drum kit sounds like a good idea. Central to both jazz and rock music. Gizza (t)(c) 08:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  06:03, 16 April 2016 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 12:25, 23 March 2016 (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 "La Marseillaise"

Support
  1. This may have been an oversight. of great historic importance. i added this after first considering adding "all you need is love", which is highly notable for its worldwide broadcast, but i think this song, which the beatles riffed on, is truly iconic of revolution, at least as much as the internationale.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think it's a good idea to be adding specific national symbols. Compare the flag of France, just as iconic of the French Revolution and widely imitated by other countries; probably more influential in its own way than the Marseillaise. I've long been of the opinion that we should remove The Internationale from the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2016 (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.
No Consensus Gizza (t)(c) 10:31, 8 April 2016 (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 separation of church and state

No doubt it is vital, however it is not included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm very surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Redundant with secularism. Cobblet (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 04:23, 7 January 2016 (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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2016 (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 Smoking (cooking)

Both a traditional and modern technique.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Aeonx (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Like pickling, a major food preservation technique used worldwide. Much more vital than casserole or entrée. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support (I feel a little uncomfortable saying I support smoking)  Carlwev  11:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I prefer adding frying first. Individual frying techniques themselves such as sautéing, deep frying and stir frying are very notable. Gizza (t)(c) 12:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I too, think frying looks quite vital.  Carlwev  14:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2016 (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 Frying

Per above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2016 (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.
not added - 1-5 oppose - 10 weeks

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 pan frying, stir frying and deep frying

Of all frying techniques, these three are the most frequently used.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Why not just add frying, as in the previous proposal? Cobblet (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 07:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Frying was recently added and that should be enough, in my view. Jusdafax 22:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose  Carlwev  06:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

In my opinion, recently added frying is enough. Many other missing articles from food/cooking and in fact else where seem just as notable if not more.  Carlwev  06:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:26, 8 April 2016 (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 toast, baguette, croissant and doughnut

These foods are no doubt vital, since a lot of Westerners and non-Westerners consume them as either breakfast or snack.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Per last time. There has been previous discussion about whether they should be a minimum period time before a suggestion that was already made and failed was proposed again. The last proposal (identical except for no rationale at all this time) was closed less than 2 months ago. We may need to take a look at that proposal again. Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose since a lot of people also don't eat such things. What a pointless proposal. Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. I had proposed to add these foods to the list before, yet later it failed. (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_46#Add_toast.2C_baguette.2C_croissant_and_doughnut)--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Walmart added, Sam Walton removed 5.5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2016 (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 Walmart

Largest company in the world, world's largest private employer. Revenue (~US$500 bil) and equity exceeds that of most countries.

Support
  1. Support as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support a swap with Sam Walton. Support a straight addition otherwise. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support add or swap.  Carlwev  13:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support as a swap only. Changed my position slightly. Gizza (t)(c) 23:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support swap only. Cobblet (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support swap only. Plantdrew (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This was removed a year ago. I didn't participate in that discussion, but FWIW I'd agree with User:Malerisch that I'd prefer listing Walmart over Sam Walton. Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2016 (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 Carnival

We need a festival representing Latin American culture. Other regions have two or three listed festivals so there is no reason not to include it. While Carnival isn't an exclusively Latin festival, it is in the Western Hemisphere where it thrives, especially the Rio Carnival which is the biggest and most famous in the world. Gizza (t)(c) 09:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Good idea. I've been thinking about Carnival for a while, I'm sure it's been mentioned before in discussions.  Carlwev  11:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2016 (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 Quechua people

There are no South American ethnic groups listed. Every other continent has at least two groups represented. The Quechua are among the most well-known in South America.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - I'd agree with the reasoning above in the nomination. Jusdafax 22:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This has been hinted upon a few times in the past (I could find it in the archives if you want) but I honestly think the ethnology section needs to become bigger. These articles are precisely the type of article you expect to find in an encyclopedia. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree: but it would be nice if we could establish some sort of criteria for what might constitute a vital ethnic group instead of taking the shotgun approach to this section as we previously have. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2 after 60+ days Gizza (t)(c) 12:32, 7 March 2016 (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 SWAT

Now that a lot of law enforcement agencies in the world have SWAT teams, e.g. LAPD, and a SWAT team is useful in riot control and violent confrontations with gunmen, this article is vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Not vital at all. So many legal topics are more important than SWAT. We've already talked about much better suggestions if you go through the archives. Gizza (t)(c) 01:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2016 (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.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:30, 8 April 2016 (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 honor killing

An interesting, and important thing which deserves to be in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose redundant to homocide and domestic violence. A better article that has been suggested before in this area is patriarchy (still not sure if it is necessary). Gizza (t)(c) 10:46, 2 March 2016 (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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2016 (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 referendum

No doubt it's vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support even though this is framed as a straight add instead of a swap, there are less vital articles in the politics section so I'll support this. I also believe that the current quota of 900 articles is not enough for social sciences. Gizza (t)(c) 00:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  11:21, 11 March 2016 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days for any of these proposals Gizza (t)(c) 08:08, 5 March 2016 (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 marines and amphibious warfare

In my opinion, these two articles are as vital as army and land warfare at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose amphibious which is one of many types of hybrid warfare not vital themselves. Let's stick to the basic types only. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add ground warfare

It is weird not to included this article while naval warfare is included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not included!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Airborne forces and paratrooper

Two article which are no doubt vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add special forces and special operations

These two article are no doubt vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Really? Nowadays special forces are more important than before. So are special operations.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Combat actions: Hand-to-hand combat, Close quarters combat, Fire and Movement, Patrolling, Ambush, Blitzkrieg, and Charge (warfare)

Request to add combat actions to War and military section. These are all important aspect of warfare and conflict.

Support
  1. As nom. -- Aeonx (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. All.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bulk addition proposals need really good rationales IMO. A better explanation of why all seven of these articles are vital is needed. Gizza (t)(c) 09:24, 30 January 2016 (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.
FAILED
Both 1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:33, 8 April 2016 (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 military exercise

No doubt this is as vital as military operation, since militaries conduct it to test a new strategy, ensure combat readiness and examine problems within them.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm very surprised that it is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Military operation is not vital, nor is it on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 12:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Add military operation

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 12:36, 7 March 2016 (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.
FAILED
Not added 1-3 Gizza (t)(c) 10:23, 5 March 2016 (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 occupational medicine and sports medicine

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose occupational medicine. Much more vital than the medical specialty is occupational safety and health. Cobblet (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 02:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2016 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days Gizza (t)(c) 07:15, 8 March 2016 (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 chemical structure

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We need more specific topics of particular interest, not more loosely defined umbrella articles. Chemical bond covers the physical basis of molecular structure; spectroscopy and crystallography cover how one figures it out. If you want to add something in this area, I believe I've nominated X-ray crystallography more than once before and I'd also consider NMR spectroscopy vital. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 07:52, 8 January 2016 (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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2016 (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 agricultural policy

Though no unimportant, this article still should be removed since it is no more vital than, say foreign policy or military policy, and to list all fields of public policy is unrealistic, because there are much more vital articles not included in subpages of WP:VA/E, such as Yuri Andropov, modernization theory, paratrooper and G Men.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support If I had to pick one specific aspect of government policy to add to the list it would be economic policy; it certainly wouldn't be this. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 07:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  16:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2016 (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 smartphone

Now that a lot of people use it, and this term has been mentioned many times by news media, it should be crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
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.
FAILED
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 08:15, 5 March 2016 (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 microblogging

Now that a lot of people use microblogging services like Twitter, maybe more often than blogging services like Blogspot, microblogging should be included in the list as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support An important trend in contemporary society. pbp 14:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by blog and text messaging. I don't see it as being any more vital than podcast or e-book or file sharing or cloud computing. Cobblet (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I don't think blog is vital either. Not the most important type of article. Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 28 January 2016 (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.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 11:55, 10 April 2016 (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 metadata

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale. Cobblet (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Should be covered by data and database. Gizza (t)(c) 10:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Data (computing), which is listed, is not currently very good but there should be a full section on metadata if it ever becomes a Good or Featured Article. Gizza (t)(c) 23:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2016 (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 Mobile device

Now that we've got smartphone as well as mobile phone, is there still a need for this overview article? I feel that even if we want a summary on mobile technology it should cover more than just hardware. Mobile technology or mobile computing seem to me like more appropriate choices, even if both articles are very rudimentary right now (but so is this article I've brought up).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support, had my eye on this for a while.  Carlwev  10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Vital? I'm typing this on an iPad, so it is to me. And the rapid expansion of this field indicates we should keep this article right where it is. The worldwide popularity requires no less. Jusdafax 21:25, 13 April 2016 (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.
FAILED
Both 1-3 and not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:28, 5 March 2016 (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 Cauchy–Schwarz inequality

This inequality is useful, since according to the lede of the article, it is considered one of the most important inequalities in all of mathematics.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Useful indeed, and I think it's better than the previous suggestion, but still not vital. Frankly, if this is the single most important math topic we've failed to list, we should consider trimming the math section. We don't go anywhere near this kind of detail in any other field of study. Yes, math is important, but so are many other things, as RekishiEJ is undoubtedly well aware. Cobblet (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 10:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Maybe limit of a sequence and limit of a function (the latter proposed for addition by me) should be removed, since though both are crucial in math analysis, the article limit (mathematics) summarizes both, and it is in the Level 4 list as well. However, there should still be more inequalities be added since they are crucial in math, just read the articles and you'll know that. By the way, the math sublist should go more detailed than the physical science sublist, since math is crucial as many disciplines rely on it, especially physics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC) fixed a bit 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I studied linear algebra in university – my education is not limited to reading Wikipedia articles. I'd actually be more inclined to remove Limit (mathematics) as that's essentially just a fleshed-out disambiguation page. I agree math is the basis for the physical sciences and having slightly more math topics is not a bad idea; but I find it hard to believe this is among the five most important unlisted math concepts (we're at 295/300 for this section). I'm sure you and I could come up with plenty of unlisted topics in analysis and linear algebra that are just as important (if not more so; e.g. how about continuous function?) as the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and I don't see why Cauchy-Schwarz should receive preferential treatment over the others. Cobblet (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Limit (mathematics) is currently listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Bernoulli's inequality

Though it is rated only Mid-importance by the Math WikiProject, the article is still vital since it is often used as the crucial step in the proof of other inequalities.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Random inequalities are not vital. Worse than Cauchy-Schwarz. Gizza (t)(c) 13:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2016 (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.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2016 (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 Arithmetic mean

Now that we have mean, arithmetic mean seems redundant. Mean provides a basic definition of the arithmetic mean, and a couple of prompt links to the arithmetic mean article.

Support
  1. As nom. Rwessel (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support - per nomination. Jusdafax 23:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  11:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2016 (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.
Quota for Society section raised to 920, quota for Biology section dropped to 1480 Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2016 (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.

Propose to alter the quota

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The quota of people should be raised to 2010-2020, that of history should be 685, that of arts to 660, that of society and social sciences to 920, that of biology and health sciences be reduced to 1450, since it is quite unlikely in the near future that there would be 1500 articles in the sublist of biology and health sciences. What do you think?.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose raising the People quota – there are easily 10-20 people on the list who I'm sure you could get consensus to remove if that's the amount of space you want to free up. Also oppose lowering the Biology quota to 1450 – I can live with a cut to 1475 but more would be unwise when there are so many potential additions that haven't been discussed. For instance: animal cognition, animal coloration, antibody, bipedalism, blood transfusion, brainstem, carnivorous plant, cell cycle, cerebellum, cerebral cortex, cerebrum, circadian rhythm, eugenics, female reproductive system, food web, larynx, male reproductive system, nocturnality, pituitary gland, tendon, therapy, thermoregulation, tongue. And that list doesn't include anything related to biochemistry or molecular biology. I would however support placing a quota of 900 on the organisms, or even a little lower – 900's where we're at right now and I don't think that section should get any bigger. (If anything we should have fewer articles on organisms than on society/social sciences, not more.) Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Then let's raise the quota of society and social sciences to 920 and lower that of biology and health sciences to 1480 first!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The only parts of the proposal which I can support right now is an increase of society to 920 and biology to 1480. Arts needs some interal adjustments IMO but it is difficult to know what the right overall number is. People shouldn't go higher. And we should wait for a while before increasing history again (there are some weak articles listed in history despite the big omissions that pop out of nowhere). Gizza (t)(c) 03:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I support raising society to 920 and dropping biology to 1480. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC) This proposal has sat around for a while. I will change the quotas at the end of the week if there's no further feedback to the proposal. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
support Society could do with some more GuzzyG (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No action taken Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2016 (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.

Intelligence officers and spies on the list

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

This list is currently somewhat narrow in its scope. Not only because it still does not list some vital historical events, but also because it still lacks many important persons. It even does not have any spies or intelligence officers (Vladimir Putin is the only former intelligence officer currently listed). This is ridiculous, since spies and intelligence officers have played an important role in history of warfare (e.g. Mata Hari and Richard Sorge). So I propose that at least Mata Hari, Felix Dzerzhinsky, Yuri Andropov, Richard Sorge, Mikhail Mukasei, Kim Philby, Melita Norwood, Rudolf Abel, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Kissinger and George H. W. Bush be included. If adding all figures I proposed would exceed the quota then let's remove some entertainment figures and groups.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoover's about the only one of those I'd feel comfortable supporting. pbp 02:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Really? Kissinger is as vital as Hoover, since many world leaders have sought his advice, and he is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
He's also a) not really an intelligence officer/spy, b) has already been removed from the list, and c) is by no means the next American or European political or military figure I would add to this list. pbp 23:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
If Putin counts then so does Cardinal Richelieu; you also didn't mention the contributions of Sun Tzu and Chanakya to the history of espionage. I wouldn't support adding any of the figures you mentioned – in each case I'm pretty sure you could find other people not listed who have clearly made a bigger impact on history. For instance, adding Kissinger or Bush Sr. doesn't make sense when we don't have John Quincy Adams, who not only served a term as president but is also often considered to be America's greatest diplomat of all time. Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The only one i'd support is J. Edgar Hoover, we don't really have law enforcement and barely have law represented, let alone spies. Cobblet why don't you propose a swap with Jimmy Carter with Adams? I still for the life of me don't understand how he is on the list. Also while we're here what do you think of these Edward Flatau, Jean-Martin Charcot, Oliver Sacks, William Tyndale and Montgolfier brothers? GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The Montgolfier brothers have come across my mind before. Gizza (t)(c) 03:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm waiting to see if Hillary gets elected. Charcot's a good choice (Flatau's pretty obscure though) but if people like Cuvier and Virchow aren't gonna make it I'm not sure he will either. And I would prefer adding scientists before science writers and communicators – we already have Carl Sagan and David Attenborough has been proposed before and did not pass. Tyndale is at least a better choice than Charles Spurgeon but in my view the real problem in our coverage of religious figures has been the general exclusion of women, which I've been gradually trying to fix starting with Mary Magdalene. (At this point, besides Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Siena and Olga of Kiev would be my other suggestions.) We've discussed the general lack of aeronautical pioneers before and the Montgolfiers are another good example of that. Again this is why I'm not keen on adding writers and popularizers of science – too many scientists and inventors who have made fundamental contributions are still missing. (BTW, I've come around on Valentina Tereshkova.) Cobblet (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I Would support a Hilary swap with Jimmy if she gets in. Yeah, i'm confused by some of the people not on the list and who didn't make it (Virchow, Cuvier, Princess Diana & David Attenborough). I am certain however that a aeronautical figure probably should be added, glad to see you come around on Valentina but i doubt she will get in (there's not many eyes on this side of Wiki unfortunately...) I really wish there was a 10, 000 people list, ah well maybe in a couple years. I will try and think of more people in the meantime. GuzzyG (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Then after making this list containing exactly 10,000 articles, let's make Level 5 list containing 100,000 articles!--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@GuzzyG and RekishiEJ: have a look at Template:Core topics. It's on the bottom of vital lists. It contains links to all core topic and vital articles lists, including user generated ones. You can make your own lists on your own user page. Some of those lists had a goal of containing the 100,000 most important articles in the encyclopedia. However, it seems that those big lists have failed to be fully created. I personally think it's impossible for a single human to compile a list of 100,000 vital articles. It would be very, very hard for a group of people like all of us to make one of that size. And it's hard for just one of us to make a high quality 10,000 list. Nobody has the knowledge, understanding and expertise in absolutely everything in the world, universe and beyond to do that IMO. Not to mention the persistence and time. Having said that, there's no harm in trying and proving me wrong. :) Gizza (t)(c) 11:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
It might be more realistic to make only a vital biography list of say 5,000 people. I've pondered over the idea of having two different vital lists for biographies and non-biographies. Other people have said that while doing apple and orange comparisons between the people and other sections, it appears that individual people are much less vital than the more abstract and collective topics in the other sections. Gizza (t)(c) 11:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_46&oldid=1137397628"