Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 49

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 49)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by DaGizza
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:06, 28 July 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 Robert Menzies, remove John Curtin

As Australia's longest-serving PM (serving for eighteen years), I think that Menzies probably had more of an impact on Australia than Curtin. Menzies even was considered a possible replacement for Winston Churchill.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Menzies did not have a particularly big legacy for such a long-serving leader. I guess he was more of a continuity figure that one who made major changes. Neljack (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Search for Menzies or Curtin in the archives. We've discussed this before. Cobblet (talk) 01:17, 17 June 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 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:59, 31 July 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 Baltimore

The fact that it is the largest independent city in the United States guarantees its vitality at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Of the 50 biggest metropolitan areas in the Americas, Baltimore and the Inland Empire are the only ones not on our list. Historically an economically vital American seaport, modern Baltimore still has a bigger GDP than a third of the American cities on the list. A much more important city than Calgary which was just recently added. Cobblet (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  20:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support for the city's size and historical significance.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:43, 1 August 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 Architecture of Africa

This list needs to be more balanced in region. The lack of this article evidently demonstrates the problem.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This article appears to be a list of different styles rather than an explanation of a specific pan-African style. I feel that each style should be added individually in accordance with current practice if it is deemed vital enough. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Presidentman. Still not a fan of Sub-Saharan African music traditions, African art and especially African literature. The continent is too big and diverse and we wouldn't add the equivalent for any other continent. Gizza (t)(c) 13:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

European architecture & Asian architecture are currently redirects, however there's an independent article on African architecture. Also African architecture is, to Malerisch's mind, vital (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_Ancient_Roman_architecture)--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If you follow the discussion in that archive, you would notice that my view has remained fairly consistent over the past few years since I had my doubts about African architecture back then. Gizza (t)(c) 14:42, 11 July 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.
Not removed 1-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:26, 30 July 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 The Sound of Music (film)

Like I said above, I actually like this film. How can you not fall in love with 16 Going on 17, but including it on this list is a joke.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I feel that many of these nominations from this user are from a refined cinematic and artistic perspective, and not necessarily from the POV of the average reader. I agree with the nominator that "It's [The Sound of Music] no Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey", but it still remains very popular today. There was an entire 2-hour special on ABC devoted to its fiftieth anniversary as well as modern-day televised adaptations in both the US and the UK. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Presidentman and the discussion below. Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

OTOH, that is a valuable perspective to have, and one that is sorely missing from so many of the discussions on this page. Here and elsewhere on the list, I think one has to strike a balance between what is well-known to the public and what is important to specialists in the field. Wikipedia is used by both kinds of people. Cobblet (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • To address the point above, in the context of my nominations I am coming at it from the position of how important a film was in shaping the medium. I am not against popularity, hence why I have not nominated Gone with the Wind, Casablanca and Star Wars for removal, and I nominated Stagecoach for addition below. They are more populist works than artistic works, but they remain key works in the medium. The Sound of Music was immensely popular but so was Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park etc. Where do we draw the line? On the other hand I have nominated critical darlings like The Mirror, Un Chien Andalou and Breathless for removal, because despite being revered I don't regard them as key works in cinema. I think we should be trying to bypass box office success and critical reverance and focus on key, landmark films. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with both points. However, I feel that if films such as this one were removed, it would tilt the "balance between what is well-known to the public and what is important to specialists in the field" in favor of the latter rather than the former. When adjusting for inflation, The Sound of Music is the fifth-highest grossing film of all time. I think at that point you have to consider a film so popular that it necessitates inclusion transcending whatever value it may hold to the genre as a whole. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:17, 30 June 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:45, 1 August 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 Jehovah

Might as well open this since two others have suggested the swap with Yahweh.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Iamozy (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It's still commonly used today (see e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses or this online hymnal). Plus, it has an important historical usage no matter how incorrect it is. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Jusdafax 18:30, 9 July 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 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:08, 2 August 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 Patrick White

There is now only one writer from Australia, Banjo Paterson. Patrick White is "widely regarded as one of the most important English-language novelists of the 20th century" and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1973.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Iamozy (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are more important Australian Nobel laureates missing like Howard Florey. Also J. M. Coetzee who is now an Australian citizen is listed. Gizza (t)(c) 03:01, 9 July 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:08, 2 August 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 H. P. Lovecraft

The fact that he is now considered to be one of the most significant 20th century writers in horror fiction guarantees his vitality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Clearly influential and vital. Jusdafax 07:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Iamozy (talk) 16:12, 2 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:08, 2 August 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 Maya Angelou

The facts that this person was instrumental in Civil Rights Movement and contributed substantially to the autobiography genre by deliberately attempting to challenge the common structure of the autobiography by critiquing, altering, and expanding the genre guarantee her vitality. Adding her also reduces the list's racial and gender biases.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

This will be my last edit to this page unless that disgusting racial slur is removed from the nominator's comments. We have tolerated this user's ignorance until now but this is a new low. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Cobblet. The term is neither offensive nor discriminatory, just read [1] & [2], and you'll agree with me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
RekishiEJ, it's very concerning that you still don't get it. The word when being used by someone who is neither black nor a woman has a completely different connotation to how it is being used in the links you provided. We want the vital articles project to be welcoming to both people of colour and women (for that matter every person in the world in theory). Using that word or any similar language towards any subset of people which dissuades these people from positively contributing here and throughout the rest of Wikipedia will not be tolerated. Have a look at Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. This is fundamental Wikipedia policy. Repeatedly using derogatory language can get you blocked. You should know this since you've been here for so long but this is your final warning. Gizza (t)(c) 11:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to express my agreement with the comments of Gizza and Cobblet. I thank the former for removing the offensive language and trust that we will thus not lose the excellent contributions of the latter here.
RekishiEJ, that you appear unable to understand that the offensiveness of a word can vary according to the speaker and the context (e.g. when a member of the group concerned uses it) leads me to question whether you can the competence necessary to edit here, as frankly does your often extremely superficial rationales in support of sometimes ridiculous nominations. I take no pleasure in saying this, but I feel that it must be said. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion the terms "colored", "negro" & ""negress" should be regarded as non-offensive, since there are still plenty of Afro-Americans arguing that "negroes" is a better term to describe African Americans than "blacks", and core members of NAACP regard the term "colored" non-offensive and non-discriminatory.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't care whether you think they should be regarded as non-offensive. What we care about is that they are widely regarded as offensive by African-Americans. Neljack (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Really? Elderly Afro-Americans tend to regard the term "Negro" non-offensive. See negro--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No doubt some do, but it is indisputable that many - almost certainly most - African-Americans find that word - and the others you referred to - offensive. That it why they are not in common usage. And it is why, having been given a final warning, you will likely be blocked if you use any of them again. Neljack (talk) 10:31, 24 July 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 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:29, 2 August 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 Clark L. Hull

There is now 26 psychologists on the list. Daniel Kahneman is probably the next to be added. Hull, a behaviourist psychologist, is important as a historical figure, but his theories are currently out of fashion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Is it really not a reason? Surely true theories are in general more important than false ones, unless those false ones have had big effects on the world. I think we do tend to take this approach. The great majority of the scientists on the list are known for scientific breakthroughs, not false theories. And we don't, for instance, have Becher or Stahl, despite the importance at one time of the phlogiston theory. Neljack (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support mainly because psychologists are over-represented and Hull isn't in the top 20. In principle, I believe proponents of outdated and pseudo-scientific theories can still be vital. But they must have historical importance or current popularity at a scale to be influential and relevant. Gizza (t)(c) 09:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  11:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support per Gizza. --Iamozy (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just because his theories have been disproven is no reason to remove him. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:35, 11 July 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.
Not added 1-5. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:02, 28 July 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 Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi

From the Legacy section of the article I clearly know that the article is no doubt crucial at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too obscure to be vital. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose no reason given for inclusion --Iamozy (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 21 July 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 consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:32, 2 August 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 Elizabeth Fry

One of the first notable social activists of any kind. Her advocacy and recommendations for prison reform were influential throughout Europe; she also worked to improve the plight of the sick, the insane and the homeless in Englnad.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

FWIW, she's also been on the 5-pound note since 2002, although a new bill featuring Churchill is coming out later this year. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 4 June 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:36, 2 August 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 What's Going On (song), add What's Going On (Marvin Gaye album)

There are many famous soul songs (like "Respect" on the list), but What's Going On is also as a theme album, soul music's first "art" album. It has been voted as one of the greatest albums of all time, just like Sgt. Pepper.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Iamozy (talk) 12:57, 2 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:38, 2 August 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 Breathless (1960 film)

An influential film of the French New wave, so essential for discussing the French New wave, but a vital film topic? We don't have Bonnie and Clyde (New Hollywood). We don't have Room at the Top (Brit New Wave).

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remove La Dolce Vita

In the same boat as Dr Strangelove: a key work of 60s film, but not as revered and as influential as Fellini's 8½.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support One Fellini film is enough. (Again, compare the authors that have more than one work listed.) Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Very well-known film, even if not that influential cinematically. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. Oppose very influential in the larger cultural context, if not necessarily in cinema. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 30 June 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 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:40, 2 August 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 Housekeeping

Basic human activity.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Arnoutf (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:40, 2 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:12, 3 August 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 Joan Miró

One of the most important representatives of surrealism.[3].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. support Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gpapazian (talk) 10:53, 3 August 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.

Criteria for adding writers to the list

I had proposed to add Tom Clancy, but no one sanctioned my proposal. I think it's weird since Tom Clancy has contributed significantly to military fiction by re-defining and expanding it, he should be vital at this level. In fact, all writers who have contributed substantially to a particular literary genre/format, e.g. by making it much more popular to readers, making more later writers willing to publish such books/works, challenging, re-defining, expanding or diversifying it are vital at this level and should be added to the list. And all writers who are more influential, or at least as influential as J. K. Rowling, e.g. Terry Pratchett, should be vital and included in the list as well. What do you think?--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about Terry Pratchett but I do know that he's nowhere nearly as influential as J.K. Rowling, author of the best-selling book series in history (450 million to 70 million for Pratchett's) which became the second-highest grossing film series in history. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, he was awarded multiple times (incl. World Fantasy Award—Life Achievement, which J. K. Rowling never received), and once got knighted. Also in the 1990s he was the most popular fantasy author in the UK. These facts show that Pratchett is no less vital than Rowling. However, I do agree that Discworld is less popular than Harry Potter.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
What's more, any writer who invented a new literary genre/subgenre or literary format should be added to the list as well. Hence Robert E. Howard should be added for his invention of the sword and sorcery subgenre.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:12, 7 August 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.

I have a more generic question about the balance between different groups. It appears to me that the “Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (153 articles)” as a group is under-represented compared to “Musicians and composers (171 articles)”. As a result we are missing several vital names in economics / social science front. Even if we balance these 2 groups by giving each group 162 spots each, we get 9 more names in Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists group which would allow the inclusion of vital names like: Peter Drucker, Daniel Kahneman, Philip Kotler, Franco Modigliani, Michael Porter, John Ralston Saul, Amartya Sen, William F. Sharpe, Muhammad Yunus

On the Musician list the below subgroups seem to be over-represented and may be considered for trimming:

  1. American folk and country (8 articles)
  2. Blues, R&B, and soul (9 articles)
  3. Jazz (14 articles)

- Arman (Talk) 03:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me then summarize it in a proposal format. The proposal is to take out 9 names from Musicians and composers (currently 171 articles) and add 9 new articles in Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (currently 153 articles) category to make both categories balanced at 162 entries each. More specifically I recommend to remove:

  1. George Gershwin
  2. Charlie Parker
  3. Otis Redding
  4. Joni Mitchell
  5. Cole Porter
  6. Jerome Kern
  7. Tyagaraja
  8. Hector Berlioz
  9. Anton Bruckner

And add:

  1. Peter Drucker
  2. Daniel Kahneman
  3. Philip Kotler
  4. Franco Modigliani
  5. Michael Porter
  6. John Ralston Saul
  7. Amartya Sen
  8. William F. Sharpe
  9. Muhammad Yunus
Support
  1. As nom. - Arman (Talk) 08:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Agree with Thi. I feel we should examine each of these singularly. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - One by one, not a mass swap. Jusdafax 20:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm not ready to remove Berlioz or Bruckner. Gershwin and Parker seem also important. Some famous jazz musicians are still missing: Count Basie, Coleman Hawkins, Ella Fitzgerald, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Ornette Coleman. I would remove Vangelis first. --Thi (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think first we need to decide if we agree on the proposition that the musician list is currently over-represented compared to Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists. Of course every name on the musician list is important and famous, but here the question is whether for an encyclopedia a famous musician is more vital or a scholar who originated / lead / transformed an entire field of study like management or marketing or finance. Arman (Talk) 01:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The only suggested addition I think I'd be willing to support without further explanation is Amartya Sen. And I should point out Yunus was brought up a while ago. To Thi's suggestions I would add Bessie Smith and The Velvet Underground – these are artists who can legitimately be said to have made a transformative impact on the history of music, and are much more likely to be known to the average reader than any of the suggested economists/social scientists. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
What I am suggesting to address here is a very apparent systematic bias which is so often associated with Wikipedia. Music industry is, after all, an entertainment industry. Compared to that Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists (a broad group which also includes economists, business and social thinkers) contribute more profoundly to our life and livelihood. Furthermore, appeal of a musician often tends to be restricted to a specific language, society or era. But a fundamental contribution to a body of knowledge remains relevant for entire mankind for all times. Unfortunately because of the systematic bias in Wikipedia popular topics like "musician" can have higher number of entries on lists like this than more academically important topics of Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists. It is not surprising though that a proposal to fix a popular bias will be rejected due to "popular" sentiment against it. - Arman (Talk) 02:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
In a general sense, I support a reduction in musicians and an increase in philosophers and social scientists including economists. But I don't support every single removal and addition choice here. I don't believe anybody has opposed the motivation behind this proposal, only the detail.
Some of the suggestions are quite good which I could support but overall they introduce other biases. All of the economists proposed compiled their most significant work in the second half of the 20th century and are therefore very recent. They're also all male. That aside, IMO the most vital missing economist is Friedrich Hayek, considering that he heavily influenced two leaders on the list (Thatcher and Reagan) along with several others in the field. Modigliani is not vital as the MM theorem is not close to vital and even the efficient-market hypothesis isn't on the list. Likewise with Sharpe and CAPM (although CAPM itself has a stronger case to be added). They are no more important than other originators of key financial and economic models like Fischer Black, Myron Scholes and Stephen Ross. Michael Porter has at least created and contributed to many frequently concepts in economics as opposed to one, which makes him a stronger choice. Gizza (t)(c) 12:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Great. I, too, am not particularly fascinated by inclusion or exclusion of any specific name. To see if there is a possible consensus that these 2 groups should be balanced, can we vote that notion first? Then we can have two separate polls - one for the addition of the 9 social scientists and another for choosing the exclusion names from the musicians? Arman (Talk) 01:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there tends to be a bias towards popular culture topics on Wikipedia and that this is an issue in the list. I would be inclined to support some of the proposed removals (but not all - I certainly wouldn't support removing Berlioz, Bruckner or Gershwin), as well as some of the suggested additions (certainly Sen and Drucker). Neljack (talk) 07:59, 3 July 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:50, 4 August 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.

Rebalancing Poll

Let us first poll the notion: The group "Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists ( currently 153 articles)” should be balanced to “Musicians and composers (currently 171 articles)" in a way to make these groups equally represented.

Support
  1. as nom. - Arman (Talk) 02:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think the intellectuals presented above have a better claim to be on the list than the musicians that were simultaneously recommended for removal, so I'm not convinced this proposal is a good idea. I think the concept of "balancing" the two sections is a bit simplistic. There are many philosophers and social scientists on the list not listed as such, e.g. ancient polymaths like Pythagoras or Avicenna, a sizable fraction of the religious figures, writers ranging from Han Yu to Wollstonecraft to Umberto Eco, agitators like Sayyid Qutb, even political leaders like Lenin. OTOH I believe the only musician not listed as such is Hildegard of Bingen. Overall, I'd say we've made a great deal of progress in adding important intellectuals to the list. While I'd like to see more people outside the Western intellectual tradition included on the list, the suggested additions (with the exception of Yunus) don't really help in that sense. I think more meaningful discussions can be had if additions and removals are proposed on an individual basis. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - also per Cobblet. Jusdafax 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

If this poll gathers sufficient positive responses as per norm on this page, we can then have two separate polls for the inclusion and exclusion of the names from the two groups (i.e. 9 topics to be taken out from musician group and 9 topics to be added to the social scientist group.) If we fail to get the positive poll results here, we'll maintain the status quo. Inclusion and exclusion to these lists will still be considered by individual merit of each topic. - Arman (Talk) 02:16, 5 July 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:15, 7 August 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 a fair number of films

Film might just be slightly over-represented, considering that film was nonexistent for the majority of human history.Gonzales John (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It is impossible for WP to cover that portion of 'human history'; so logically it must cover what it can. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Actually, I'd be in favor of adding another 5 or 10. Jusdafax 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Many people may agree with the statement but the proposal is very, very vague. How many is fair number? The general trend over the last few years has been to remove films so the easy pickings are slowly going away. You have to compare it with other sections. Yes music and literature have been around for a longer time but the number of specific musical works from the last 100 years and the number of books from the last 100 years may be similar to the number of films listed in the last 100 years. Gizza (t)(c) 00:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We currently list 36 films; a "fair" number to remove would be around 6 to 11. We list more films than paintings and sculptures combined, and they are more important than movies.Gonzales John (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, my point is that film is relatively unimportant especially when compared to architecture, books, sculptures, etc, all of which are essential to the human race and have been with the human race for quite a longer time than movies.Gonzales John (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with a lot on what you say Gonzales. I proposed film itself to be removed from the Level-2 vital list because it is the only specific art form listed but it failed.
One thing to note however, is that film in essence is just theatre using modern technology. Humans have been acting and role-playing for as long as they have been drawing, telling stories and making songs. Most of pre-modern theatre has not survived because it could not be recorded, copied and distributed as easily as film. It's the same with music where most of the genres, musicians and songs listed are modern and were composed after the invention of musical notation or sound recording even though folk songs were probably dominant for most of human existence. Visual arts and architecture are fortunate in the sense that they are more likely to survive and be preserved over millennia. Literature has survived over thousands of years in literate societies or cultures where oral preservation was very strong but was also lost in parts of the world without these characteristics. My view is that film shouldn't be looked at on its own as part of performing arts as a whole. This doesn't mean I don't support removing some of the weaker films listed though. `Gizza (t)(c) 11:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that 30 films would be a good number, considering that it's a 20th-century genre, unlike art and architecture which get fewer than 40 examples each. But I don't know enough about film to feel comfortable proposing any more removals myself. Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should aim for 30. I work on film articles, and ideally we should aim for ground-breaking key works. I enjoy The Sound of Music as much as the next Julie Andrews fans, but what is its legacy? It's no Citizen Kane or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Betty Logan (talk) 13:48, 30 June 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:46, 4 August 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 Un Chien Andalou

Likewise, highly regarded but hasn't really shaped the medium.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:37, 4 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:47, 7 August 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 Hermeneutics

Now that we have statutory interpretation, is it fair not to include this article, which is closely related to that vital legal topic?

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Has nothing to do with judicial interpretation. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:39, 8 July 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.
Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:47, 4 August 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 Creator deity

We already have Creation myth (Level 4) and Deity (Level 3). While not every Creation myth has a Creator deity, the important information about every Creator deity is covered by a Creation myth. I think the overlap is sufficient that we can drop one from the Vital articles list. Additionally, although Creator deities are a common feature in many world religions, they are not always deities that are central to the religion itself (particularly in polytheistic religions).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Creation myth is not synonymous with creation deity, and in my opinion both are vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:10, 19 July 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.
Not added 1-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:17, 7 August 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 sports drink and milkshake

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sports drinks are useless. --Thi (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sports drink is as vital as energy drink IMO, which was recently removed per discussion. Milkshake even less so. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose not vital subjects --Iamozy (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 11:19, 11 July 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.
FAILED
1-5, neither removed Gizza (t)(c) 12:24, 5 August 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 Old English

Not necessary, loosely connected to English but not used anymore.

Support
  1. Support as nom JerrySa1 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that this is English Wikipedia guarantees Old English's vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gpapazian (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 09:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Remove Middle English

Not necessary, loosely connected to English but not used anymore.

Support
  1. Support as nom JerrySa1 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that this is English Wikipedia guarantees Middle English's vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gpapazian (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Middle English isn't "loosely connected" but very much connected obviously. Gizza (t)(c) 09:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

If we're under quota pressure one day, we could consider replacing these with History of English but I don't think we're there yet and there's probably many more languages that could be removed before. Gizza (t)(c) 09:25, 3 August 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.
Not added 3-6. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:02, 8 August 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 Asperger syndrome

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support, we list some slightly less common conditions, over 30 million people world wide and is thought to be underdiagnosed, more people have this than the listed Down Syndrome, for example, according to articles.  Carlwev  19:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems to be pretty common these days. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose but I would support adding Autism Spectrum Disorder, swap for Autism --Iamozy (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It would seem very odd to add Asperger syndrome when the DSM has just removed it as a diagnosis - autism, Asperger syndrome and a couple of other diagnoses have been merged into the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Therefore I support Iamozy's proposed swap, though I note that the article is actually at Autism spectrum. Neljack (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Iamozy and Neljack. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, support Autism spectrum. --Thi (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per all the above, support adding Autism Spectrum Disorder. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:02, 8 August 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.
Nomination withdrawn in favor of proposal listed below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:53, 4 August 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 Niña

We have El Niño, why not La Niña as well?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One is enough. Cobblet's suggestion also works. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I'd recommend swapping El Niño for El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which covers both phases of this weather cycle. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I also think this would be a good idea. Their vitality heavily depends on their relationship with each other. --Iamozy (talk) 14:32, 4 August 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.
Not added 2-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:06, 10 August 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 Ralph Vaughan Williams

Some of Vaughan Williams's works are among the most popular pieces of classical music by British composer.[4] He was important for development of British music and one of the most notable symphonists of 20th century.[5][6][7][8] I found him on my paper encyclopedia, which consists of 5000 articles.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - A vital composer, per the nomination. Quite surprised this composer is not on the list. Jusdafax 21:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Lacks the groundbreaking impact of someone like Webern, Ligeti or Messiaen. While I love RVW as much as the next person, only an idiot would compare him to Shakespeare, and he's not even the next British composer I'd add to the list (probably Henry Purcell would be the best choice). Twentieth-century English classical music is very well represented with both Elgar and Britten on the list. Outside of the UK, I suspect Carl Nielsen's symphonies are probably more frequently heard nowadays than Vaughan Williams's. Cobblet (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I have to agree with Cobblet that RVW was not particularly ground-breaking. He was a mid-rank composer of a sort that could easily swell this section of the list to 100 if we included them all. In terms of English composers we don't have, I would rank Purcell and even William Byrd ahead of him. Neljack (talk) 07:27, 11 July 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.
Swapped 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:03, 10 August 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 Dashakumaracharita, add Kathasaritsagara

The 11th century Kathasaritsagara is significantly more famous and influential than the 8th century Dashakumaracharita. Kathasaritsagara also contains early recensions of the Panchatantra in Book 10; and the Vetālapañcaviṃśati, or Baital Pachisi, in Book 12. Even Baital Pachisi itself seems to be more notable than Dashakumaracharita and has generated greater number of derivative works. The inclusion of Dashakumaracharita over such more notable works is very surprising - current article on Sanskrit literature does not even mention Dashakumaracharita.

Support
  1. . As nom. - Arman (Talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:03, 10 August 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 2-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:05, 10 August 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 Gone with the Wind

I suggest swapping the author for the book. In 2014 poll Gone with the Wind was the second favorite book of American readers and it has sold more than 30 million copies worldwide.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. The book is both popular and influential in the U.S.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not really convinced we need both the book and the film. Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. The film is probably more well-known. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Neljack (talk) 08:00, 16 July 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.
Not removed 2-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:07, 10 August 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 Pet Sounds

There are many other classic rock albums. Listing The Beach Boys is enough.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support we don't need both the artist and the album. --Iamozy (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Cited by Paul McCartney as a major influence, and often listed as the masterpiece of Brian Wilson's career. Jusdafax 18:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This is rightly considered a landmark in 20th-century music. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose — "The Beach Boys" are pop culture icons, but Pet Sounds goes way beyond them. It is a veritable milestone in song composition, record production, and the LP format.--Ilovetopaint (talk)
Discussion
  • Most of Pet Sounds' historical and artistic significance is covered right in the article's lead:
[Pet Sounds] is widely considered to be one of the most influential albums in music history ... [it] is regarded by musicologists as an early concept album that advanced the field of music production, introducing non-standard harmonies and timbres, and incorporating elements of pop, jazz, exotica, classical, and the avant-garde. ... the album signaled an aesthetic trend within rock by transforming it from dance music into music that was made for listening to ... [bringing] expansions in harmony, instrumentation (and therefore timbre), duration, rhythm, and the use of recording technology.
When you combine every published list of "the greatest album of all-time", Pet Sounds sits at number one. Everything else that can be said about the album is already noted under "Influence and legacy".--Ilovetopaint (talk)
Then maybe we can remove the artist? I think it should be a rare case that there is this much overlap between a famous work and the artist that created it. --Iamozy (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
No, because the Beach Boys are a hugely iconic band, only one step below the Beatles. People mostly associate them with the "surf sound", which was itself a big deal in mythologizing American life in the 1960s and cultivating a musical identity for the state of California (which quickly diffused into a mainstream advertising image that lives on to this day). Pet Sounds represents Brian Wilson more than it does the group; there is absolutely no surf imagery on the album. Wilson was also responsible for defining other aspects of popular music achieved through his band. They are "one of the most critically acclaimed, commercially successful, and widely influential bands of all time." In short, the Beach Boys are vital.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:22, 2 August 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.
Kept 2-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:08, 10 August 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 Rashomon

Like Dr Strangelove, La Dolce Vita and Intolerance, Kurosawa's signature piece is The Seven Samurai.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support It doesn't seem to be on the list, but it does have the vital template on the talk page. Plantdrew (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose According to the article, the film "marked the entrance of Japanese film onto the world stage". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Kurosawa deserves two spaces on the list, in this case for pioneering the technique of filming an event from multiple perspectives, which continues to be used and widely known as originating with this film. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 6 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:56, 9 August 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 Nowruz

It's an ancient and mostly secular Iranian festival that is celebrated by more than 300 million people, from Syria to China, for over 3,000 years. Also, it has been registered on the UNESCO List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. -- Kouhi (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Kouhi (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. I think adding Nowruz along with Persian art, Persepolis, Shahnameh, etc. makes our coverage of Persian culture and civilization sufficient for this list. Gizza (t)(c) 10:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  20:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Also Nowruz's range of celebration goes further west of Syria, up to parts of Turkey. Gizza (t)(c) 10:24, 30 July 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. --Thi (talk) 17:45, 19 August 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 James Abbott McNeill Whistler

James McNeill Whistler was one of most important and influential American painters.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Jusdafax 09:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Prevan (talk) 17:39, 19 August 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 1-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:51, 17 August 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 Tom Clancy

The fact that he redefined and expanded the genre of military fiction, making many people able to publish such books who had previously been unable to do so (retold from [9]) means that he is absolutely vital at this level. Not listing such an influential figure is a huge mistake.

Support
  1. As nom. In my opinoion, any writers who contributed or is contributing to a particular literary genre (e.g. action, adventure, Western, military, espionage, politics, legal, mystery, crime or romance) substantially should be mentioned in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose Not vital at all. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose In top 100,000 like Tom Cruise. --Thi (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I had proposed to add it to the list, however later it got failed due to insufficient supportive votes(cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_Tom_Clancy).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 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.
3-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:00, 11 August 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 Henry Purcell

One of the greatest British composers.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support better choice than RVW. Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose His influence was mainly limited to music in England. Closer in significance to the tier of composers that would include Domenico Scarlatti, Lully, Rameau, Couperin, Corelli and Telemann than the ones currently listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It is true that his influence was mainly limited to England. I suppose the same could be said of Elgar, whom we have, but them perhaps we shouldn't have him either? Neljack (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Neither the most influential nor the most prolific of Baroque composers. pbp 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Elgar can at least be said to have led a renaissance of British music, and on an English-language list maybe that's enough to put him ahead of people like Scriabin or Grieg. Meanwhile, the decision to include Gilbert & Sullivan over Weber or Donizetti, or Britten ahead of anyone from Spain or Latin America, can perhaps only be rationalized by this being a list for the English Wikipedia. IMO that's plenty of deference to British composers. Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any bias in favour of English-speaking countries. I had been wondering about the inclusion of G & S. Britten is undoubtedly one of the most important opera composers of the 20th century, but then so is Janáček, who we don't have and whose reputation is perhaps even higher these days. Neljack (talk) 04:20, 13 July 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) 08:48, 27 August 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 Carl Nielsen

A famous Danish composer. Mentioned in my 5000-article encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The least influential of all the composers suggested here. Cobblet (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A very fine composer, but not quite at the level of importance to warrant inclusion. I'm not convinced we need more 20th century composers. Neljack (talk) 07:57, 11 July 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.
Neither added 1-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:32, 15 August 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 Johann Friedrich Herbart

The fact that Herbart founded pedagogy as an academic discipline means that he is absolutely crucial at this level. Omitting him is a serious mistake.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too obscure to be vital. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Friedrich Fröbel

The fact that he founed the concept of kindergarten and coined this word in both German and English means that he is vital at this level. Omitting him is a serious mistake.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too obscure to be vital. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 10:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Pestalozzi, Herbart and Fröbel are no obscure, since all introductory books on pedagogy emphasize these men's contribution to Western education. The problem is if all proposals to add particular figures made and/or sanctioned by me are passed, the quota of 2,000 will be exceeded. The only solution to it is to expand the quota.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
You're telling the person who brought precisely these three figures to your attention in the first place. The problem isn't the quota; it's between your ears. Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 15 July 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 6-2. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:34, 15 August 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 Desmond Tutu

Been bandied about from time to time. Very influential man in the realm of social activism. We've got very little for religious leaders of any religion from sub-Saharan Africa. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support though I agree that he should be placed as an activist - he is undoubtedly one of the most famous and important social activists alive. Neljack (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support for his activism more than anything else per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 09:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support more significant than several people being removed right now.  Carlwev  11:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - His importance is more political than religious. In the anti-apartheid political arena, he is, however, much less vital compared to Mandela.
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:07, 30 July 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.
PASSED
Done, 6-0 pbp 13:56, 13 August 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.

Organizational tweak

At present, Christian religious leaders are subdivided into "Eastern/Orthodox" and "Western/Catholic". However, both sections include people prominent before the Schism (people from Western and Central Europe listed under Western/Catholic; people from Eastern Europe and the Middle East listed under Eastern/Orthodox). I propose that the people active before the schism from both East and West be pulled out into a new section entitled "pre-Schism". I also propose that the first 8 people listed under Christianity be categorized as "New Testament figures" pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 07:24, 31 July 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) 08:57, 27 August 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 John Forbes Nash Jr.

Known for his pioneering work on game theory. His lifelong struggle with mental illness and the famous Hollywood movie depicting his life has made him a legend.

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Arman (Talk) 09:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not that important a mathematician – this is like saying Oskar Schindler's vital because he did good things and had a good movie made about him. Nash is nowhere close to the level of Weyl or Paul Erdős or Norbert Wiener or André Weil. John von Neumann is the mathematician who made the most fundamental contributions to game theory – having him on the list is enough. Cobblet (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 6 August 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 consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 15 August 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 Honolulu

Largest city in Oceania outside of Australia and New Zealand. Metro population of almost 1 million.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too much overlap with Hawaii. Nearly 70% of people in Hawaii live in the Honululu metro area. Gizza (t)(c) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per comments below. Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agree with Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Honolulu is definitely not the next American city I would add to the list; that would be Baltimore. (Of the 50 biggest metropolitan areas in the Americas, Baltimore and the Inland Empire are the only ones not on our list.) The US Census Bureau defines Honolulu's metro area as essentially coextensive with the entire island of Oahu, which is home to two-thirds of Hawaii's population. Note that we currently don't include capital cities that contain most of their country's population, and some of these are more populous than Honolulu (Kuwait City, Doha). Cobblet (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I proposing it as an Oceanian city (not an American one), of which there are only six. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
And why do we need a seventh Oceanian city? And why Honolulu over Adelaide, especially when we list Hawaii but not South Australia? Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Honolulu is pretty geographically isolated, so it's a hub for the entire Pacific region (basically the only large city between California and Japan) in a way that Havana could be considered a hub for the Caribbean. Perhaps Adelaide should be added as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
27th busiest US airport and 39th busiest US port hardly qualifies Honolulu for major hub status. Most air and marine traffic between North America and Asia takes a great circle route across the North Pacific and does not come anywhere near Hawaii. Cobblet (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
By Pacific region, I meant the Pacific Islands. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:43, 15 June 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.
Not added 1-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:38, 15 August 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 UEFA

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose even FIFA isn't listed. Gizza (t)(c) 12:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose UEFA Champions League is already listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

There's too much overlap to have both UEFA and UEFA Champions League, but would a swap be a good idea? --Iamozy (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

IMO, UEFA Champions League is more vital than UEFA itself. As DaGizza noted above, FIFA isn't listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd support adding FIFA. pbp 17:31, 8 August 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.
Not Removed 2-3. --Thi (talk) 10:01, 22 August 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 Pong

I think that Tetris is a good example of old video games and this article is probably not as vital as History of video games (not listed). Games are some kind of toys and for example Barbie was removed.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Pong is the first sports arcade video game, hence it is absolutely vital at this level. The fact that Barbie was removed can not be the reason why Pong should be removed since this removal was not acceptable, as Barbie is extremely popular among girls on earth, except for girls in the Middle East.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Pong is not just an old videogame, it individually represents the beginning of arcade games and first-generation video game consoles. Pong is an iconic and essential piece of video game culture. --Iamozy (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Iamozy. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 6 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:40, 15 August 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 Barbie

Barbie is a cultural icon around the world. Its introduction was transformative in the toy industry in terms of advertising and name recognition. It is estimated that over a billion Barbie dolls have been sold worldwide in over 150 countries, with Mattel claiming that three Barbie dolls are sold every second. It is the most prominent figure in the world of toy fashion, and has even crossed into the world of high fashion. Barbie has been the subject of sociological study and countless controversies/lawsuits and media projects (film, TV, video games, music, studio art).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. moderate support While I agree Barbie is important, I am not sure it should be the first toy to be added (and we may need to expand the toy category). Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. The article on doll does not deal much with Barbie, hence the rationale behind the removal does not stand.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Not quite as widespread as Lego but still up there. The fact that it is controversial like McDonald's makes it more vital IMO if anything. I believe the gender gap here and on Wikipedia more generally was one of the reasons why Barbie was removed while obscure sci-fi characters and shows were kept. Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I know that Barbie was removed 3 years ago with the claim that it overlaps too much with Doll, already a vital article, but Barbie is much more than a doll, and it's importance far surpasses that of a simple toy. Note that there are 79 Wikipedia pages in the Barbie category alone. --Iamozy (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the toys category (9 articles in total), is rather underrepresented considering that games has 29 articles - of which 4 sublevels for video games. Among toys Barbie is indeed among the most influential dolls and I would not object adding it. But to be honest, I would probably add other toys before Barbie (such as model train, model car or meccano. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 29 July 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.
1-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:44, 18 August 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 Meccano

The fact that this model construction system is quite popular, influencing the careers many people chose guarantees its vitality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the most popular model construction toy Lego is already listed. So is construction set. Meccano is redundant to these articles. If another modelling toy has to be added, it should be one which uses very different materials like Play-Doh. Gizza (t)(c) 09:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per DaGizza. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per DaGizza. --Iamozy (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per the above. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 18 August 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.
Not added 1-5. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:41, 15 August 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 toy piano

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose definitely not vital when there are real instruments missing like electronic keyboard. Gizza (t)(c) 00:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per DaGizza. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose no reason given for why this would be vital. --Iamozy (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Easily covered by regular piano and by electronic keyboard, which we ought to have. pbp 15:34, 4 August 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 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:56, 17 August 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 Bandy

Seems to me if we are discussing who the most vital NASCAR driver is, or whether 14 tennis players or 5 F1 drivers is too many, an article like Bandy is probably vital. Article says it is the second most played/practiced winter sport in the world, after ice hockey. It is played across many countries in Europe, Asia and North America, it has existed since the 1800's, with similar games being played in Russia as far back as the 10th century. It's is played within several leagues/events of its own and also in the Asian Games, is gaining recognition in the Olympics, but has not been included yet.  Carlwev  11:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 4 August 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 7-0. --Thi (talk) 10:06, 22 August 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 Play (activity)

Universal activity that is critical for normal human physical, mental, and social development. Play has a role in everyday life in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and seniority. It can be incorporated to home and work life, and is often used as therapy. It has also been observed in animals.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support  Carlwev  14:53, 10 August 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 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:57, 17 August 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 Bankruptcy

Basic concept of business; surprised not on the list.

Support
  1. Prevan (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. More important than credit card for instance. Gizza (t)(c) 09:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  7. support Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 6 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:01, 17 August 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 Autism for Autism spectrum

The autism spectrum is used to describe the range of symptoms that include those previously diagnosed as Asperger syndrome, PDD-NOS, childhood disintegrative disorder and autistic disorder. The DSM-5 in 2013 canceled autism disorder as a separate diagnosis and homogenized it under autism spectrum disorder, with severity measures within the broader diagnosis. The DSM-5 text states “Individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnoses of autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder”.

These changes were made to increase diagnosis precision. Therefore, it would be most accurate to indicate the vitality of autism and all related disorders under the "Autism spectrum" article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 6 August 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.
Swapped 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 28 August 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 El Niño with El Niño–Southern Oscillation

Covers both El Niño and La Niña. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a single climate phenomenon that periodically fluctuates between 3 phases: Neutral, La Niña or El Niño. The swap would cover the vitality of both weather phenomenons and the accompanying atmospheric component.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:03, 13 August 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.
done 5-0 support,  Carlwev  08:25, 14 September 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.

Move Steve Wozniak (level 4) to Inventors and engineers

Steve Wozniak is currently in the Computer scientists section. However, Wozniak made few contributions to computer science (which covers topics such as algorithms, foundations of computing, machine learning, etc.). Wozniak instead spearheaded personal computing, so Inventors and engineers would be a better-fitting title. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. Support Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:24, 10 September 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) 01:42, 25 September 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 Giorgio de Chirico

The father of metaphysical painting and a major influence on the Surrealist movement.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While clearly important, more of a painter's painter than vital to the public at large. We can only list that many painters. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 22 July 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 support besides nom, No consensus. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 25 September 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 Edward Hopper

This American artist is known worldwide as the painter of urban loneliness. [10]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 July 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, 3-2. --Thi (talk) 08:07, 3 September 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 Alice Munro

North American writer to replace Margaret Mitchell. Novelist Jonathan Franzen wrote once that Munro "has a strong claim to being the best fiction writer now working in North America."

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support always comes up in English classes at the University, and often in short story collections. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. The fact that her work has been described as revolutionizing the architecture of short stories means that she is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Neither as groundbreaking as Juana Inés de la Cruz or Gertrude Stein nor as widely read as Maya Angelou. Those are female writers I'd support adding. Cobblet (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I would support adding Gertrude Stein. In terms of female writers, there are a number of Native American women writers that are excellent, like Leslie Marmon Silko. We need to cut down the emphasis on technology to make room for more shakers and movers like these. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:08, 10 July 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 consensus, no comments after 60 days. Prevan (talk) 15:14, 20 September 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 Stanisław Lem

Since his books are as influential as, maybe more influential than Robert A. Heinlein, and his SF books are of extremely high level, this person should be added to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. To represent the non-English language SF and modern Polish literature. --Thi (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too many SF writers listed already. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 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.
2-3, not added. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 25 September 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 Terry Pratchett

Since his books are of high level and extremely popular among adults, he should be added to the list.

Support
  1. The alleged bias in favour of science fiction writers in this section can be easily overcome by adding him to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Weak support. Pratchett is the second best selling British author of all time, behind Rowling. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We don't need more fantasy writers either. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Reluctant oppose His books are tremendously entertaining and undoubtedly popular. However, I wouldn't consider them "vitally important" as literature. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:21, 30 August 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 consensus. --Thi (talk) 08:16, 3 September 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 Carl Maria von Weber

An influential composer, vital article in general encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose As Cobblet notes, 19th and 20th century classical composers (and particularly German romantic composers) are already well-represented on the list. Weber is important, but I'm inclined to think not quite as important as the other romantic composers we have. His piano music and symphonies are not heard very often these days. Der Freischütz remains popular, as does his woodwind music, but ultimately I'm not convinced that he warrants a place. Neljack (talk) 07:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Yes, an important pioneer of Romanticism in German music, and someone I've considered adding for a long time. On the other hand, we already list several other German composers of the Romantic period. Compare our coverage of Romantic art and literature: German romanticism in art is completely unrepresented (if push came to shove I'd take Caspar David Friedrich over Anton Bruckner) and pioneering figures in literary romanticism like Chateaubriand and Germaine de Staël are IMO more important omissions than Weber. Honestly, 19th and 20th-century classical music is already more comprehensively covered than the other arts of the time. Cobblet (talk) 18:16, 9 July 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. --Thi (talk) 08:16, 3 September 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 Jean-Baptiste Lully

An influential baroque composer.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The French baroque composer with the strongest claim to inclusion is Rameau. Neljack (talk) 07:52, 11 July 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.
PASSED
Added, 7-0 pbp 15:17, 20 September 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 Jim Henson

American puppeteer, artist, cartoonist, inventor, screenwriter, songwriter, musician, film director, and producer. Created The Muppets and Sesame Street, which ran 20+ years. Founded The Jim Henson Company (entertainment company), the Jim Henson Foundation (art philanthropy), and Jim Henson's Creature Shop (special/visual effects workshop). Henson's Muppets have been in wide-release films, TV shows, video games, theme parks, comics, web series, music, and featured as actual celebrities on talk shows. Henson created The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth, and Sesame Street international co-productions outside the US. In 2001, there were more than 120 million viewers of all international versions of Sesame Street, and by 2009 they were seen in more than 140 countries.

Henson's characters have been culturally significant, including an HIV-positive character, incorporating traditional sceneries and puppets in foreign productions, and publicly-supported in many countries to combat illiteracy and expose children to different cultures. Shows were aired in Israel and Palestine, China, South America, Africa, and 22 Arabic countries, and characters were often given traditional names and appealed to a regional sense of identity. The influence of these programs were the subject of many scientific studies that reported an increase in viewers' understanding and knowledge in all areas, especially information about their social and natural environment.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support for redefining his field. Prevan (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support and don't forget Farscape, either! Jclemens (talk) 14:18, 20 September 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.
Removed 5-0. --Thi (talk) 08:17, 3 September 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 Juan Sebastián Elcano

The story of the first circumnavigation of the Earth is told in the article of Ferdinand Magellan.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I am not convinced that it is necessary to have both Magellan and Elcano. Neljack (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 13:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 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.
2-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 06:48, 10 September 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 Sun Myung Moon

Founder of the Unification Church I kind of feel like we need an Asian Christians on this list. Prominent, though highly controversial, figure. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The unification church itself is not even considered vital, let alone their founder. Arnoutf (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose On par with L. Ron Hubbard (not listed). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Arnoutf and Presidentman. Tutu may be vital as a social activist but Moon isn't by any stretch of the imagination. The patron saint of the Philippines, Lorenzo Ruiz, the only major Christian-majority country in Asia, is a better choice and doesn't suffer from recentism. Protestantism is insignificant in Asia. Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 31 July 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 5-0. --Thi (talk) 08:14, 25 September 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 Hermann Weyl

One of the 20th century's most important mathematicians.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Prevan (talk) 16:11, 19 September 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.
FAILED
Failed, 3 oppose votes without 2/3 support after 30 days. Prevan (talk) 15:17, 20 September 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 Leonidas of Rhodes

Michael Phelps just broke his record for most individual titles over multiple (4) Olympics. I don't quite think he qualifies for this list, but i think its worth mentioning that possibly the oldest sports record has just been broken. Leonidas seems to have upset the apple cart in his own time, as Phelps is now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose not vital enough, nor any evidence that this figure was significant to his field outside being mentioned in passing by a few Greek writers for medaling in a few Olympics 2000+ years ago. Prevan (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Prevan. --Thi (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Prevan. --Iamozy (talk) 22:42, 16 September 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
Failed, no discussion for nearly 60 days, no comments with a 2-3 failed ratio after 30. Prevan (talk) 15:16, 20 September 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 Dale Earnhardt

NASCAR or stock car racing isn't represented at all (AJ Foyt doesn't count). Arguably the most famous stock car racer of all time, legacy is clear in his career as a seven-time champion and his death and the significant safety changes that happened because of it.

Support

  1. Prevan (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I would rather add Richard Petty if I were to add a NASCAR driver. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'd rather not add anybody pbp 15:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion Comment Stock car racing is fairly much limited to the USA (and to some extent Canada). In the few other countries it is done, it is not considered anywhere near the most important racing class as far as I can see. Formula1 is to some extent (and tennis is definitively (and also a sports with both male and female contestant)) a more important sports in the global context. That said, we might indeed consider whether motorsports (as that should be the larger category) is served best by 5 formula 1 drivers and 1 driver who did many US dominated forms of motorsports (AJ Foyt and this includes stock car). I could imagine that we either expand the section and/or remove space allotment to F1 drivers). However, adding a driver who has competed in non-global/US dominated disciplines would not have my preference. Perhaps we should look for someone like Valentino Rossi who is generally considered to be the greatest motorcycle racer of all times. Arnoutf (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that Foyt is much more well-known for being the four-time winner of the Indy 500 (U.S. equivalent of F1), while Earnhardt's fame is solely based on NASCAR. That being said, as I have noted above, Earnhardt would not be my first choice if I were to add a NASCAR driver. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But do we need 2 drivers from US dominated racing categories? Arnoutf (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the Indy league is very much non-American-dominated. Note the amount of non-Americans on List of American Championship Car winners and cf. List of all-time NASCAR Cup Series winners which requires no notation of nationality. The Indy 500 has had 26 non-American winners versus zero for the Daytona 500. As to whether or not we need two U.S. drivers, I feel that at least one from NASCAR is needed, and as I have noted above I would choose Petty over Earnhardt. Foyt should be judged on whether or not he is one of the most vital open-wheel drivers. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that Petty would be a better NASCAR choice than Earnhardt if we are to have one. I tend to think that both Stewart and Prost could go - five F1 drivers is excessive, in my view, and they are the two least vital. Neljack (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem with Petty is that he dominated the era when NASCAR competitiveness was almost non-existent, he always had the best equipment, and there was 40-50 races a year, so his stats are "greatly" inflated. Earnhardt on the other hand, dominated an era which there was significant competition, and he didn't always had the best equipment, especially early in his career. That's why Earnhardt is considered Petty's equal despite having significantly less wins and top 10s finishes, not to mention a shorter career. @Presidentman: another look? Prevan (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm well aware of the differences in the two eras, but you're oversimplifying. Your analysis disregards other drivers from Petty's era such as Cale Yaleborough or David Pearson, who are still considered some of the greatest drivers in the sport's history. In an supposed "era when NASCAR competitiveness was almost non-existent", both managed to win 3 championships each in direct competition with Petty. I think Earnhardt is Petty's equal, but I'd still prefer Petty to be listed. You don't get called "the King" for nothing. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:10, 19 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:13, 3 September 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 Alain Prost

There is too many Formula One drivers on the list.

Support

  1. --Thi (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Least essencial of the five. Prevan (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. pbp 15:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:16, 2 September 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. --Thi (talk) 08:34, 25 September 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 Pete Sampras

13 tennis players is too many.

Support

  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support: Should be down to 5-7 IMO. pbp 15:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree we have too many tennis players. While Sampras won a lot of Grand Slams, he benefited from playing in a weak era of men's tennis. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 06:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support not really a vital person. --Iamozy (talk) 14:36, 18 September 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:09, 3 September 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 Richard Petty

Per above discussion on Earnhardt, consensus seems to add Petty as the NASCAR representative on the list.

Support

  1. Prevan (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support If we can have 4-6 F1 drivers, surely we can have just one NASCAR driver considering NASCAR has a higher annual attendance than F1. As stated above, Petty is much more deserving than Earnhardt as #1 in championships (7), all-time wins (200), Daytona 500 wins (7), wins in a single season (27), etc. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 09:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per Presidentman. Neljack (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 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 support,  Carlwev  10:27, 22 September 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 The Wind in the Willows

The most famous book of Kenneth Grahame. "The evergreen tale from the riverbank and a powerful contribution to the mythology of Edwardian England. -- Endlessly recycled, in print, cartoon and cinema, the ideas and images of Kenneth Grahame's masterpiece recur in the most unlikely places." (The Guardian)[11][12].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 06:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Prevan (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. --Thi (talk) 19:16, 9 September 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 It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back

Rap music is currently represented only by Tupac Shakur. Public Enemy[13] has released only few notable albums, but It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back was very influential. In many rock magazines it has been voted as one of the greatest albums of all time.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:03, 16 July 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 Gizza (t)(c) 00:45, 10 September 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 Japanese art, Buddhist art and Christian art

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Japanese art. Important non-Western tradition. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Christian art. We already have plenty of articles related to Western art, and this article is nothing special beyond just discussing Western artworks with Christian-related subjects (of which we have six individual examples listed). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Also oppose Buddhist art per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. No, many non-Westerners are Christians as well
  2. Oppose Ukiyo-e is the most significant Japanese art movement and is already listed. Buddhist art is covered by Chinese and Indian art. Cobblet (talk) 15:59, 14 July 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.
FAILED
No consensus, no comments after 30 days. Listed over 60 days. Prevan (talk) 15:11, 20 September 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 The Mirror (1975 film)

Highly regarded, as many films are, but I don't think it's been as influence as some of the other films on the list and it isn't as revered as much as something like Solaris (1972 film).

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  10:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Filmmakers have rated The Mirror as one of the 10 best movies of all time. --Thi (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Thi. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  • @Thi I am sure they have, but there are many films, hundreds even that have been rated as one of the ten best ever. Just look at Sight & Sound to see how many films there we don't have here. Being rated among the 10 best ever doesn't seem to be a tight enough criteria in itself. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The Art films sublist consists of two articles. Tarkovsky is the most influential Russian filmmaker since Eisenstein and The Mirror is his key work. Tarkovsky is one of the greatest filmmakers and The Mirror one of the most beautiful films of all time. In this list it is comparable to D. W. Griffith's The Birth of the Nation, Ingmar Bergmans The Seventh Seal and Stanley Kubricks 2001. --Thi (talk) 20:56, 1 July 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.
4-3, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 01:54, 25 September 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 Dr. Strangelove

Brilliant film, one of my favourites, but it simply hasn't shaped the medium on the same scale that something like 2001: A Space Odyssey has. If we were recommending films to watch I would include it (probably more so than 2001), but I would stop short of calling it essential.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not the first film I'd remove. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose we need a comedy film. Prevan (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Prevan. If we're going to remove it, another comedy should replace it. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 18 August 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.
Neither added Gizza (t)(c) 07:02, 3 September 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 Cinema of Russia and Cinema of Hong Kong

Since nowadays cinema of Russian Federation and Hong Kong cinema (especially action films) are influential in the West, and cinema of India is the parent article of Bollywood, all three article should be added to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Russia pbp 14:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cinema of Russia and Cinema of Hong Kong. We already have Cinema of the Soviet Union and Cinema of China. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. Cinema of Hong Kong is more influential than that of Taiwan, Macau or Mainland China, and cinema of China does not mention history of Hong Kong cinema. Also post-Soviet Russian cinema is quite influential in the West, which is mentioned in the lead of the article cinema of Russia.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Hong Kong cinema is represented by Bruce Lee and Wong Kar-wai. I can support swapping Soviet cinema for Russian cinema but there's no need for both. Cobblet (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Hong Kong: pbp 14:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
Japanese cinema is represented by Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, etc., however cinema of Japan is still listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to say that Japanese cinema's been more influential than HK cinema, but you're welcome to propose removing Japanese cinema if you disagree. Cobblet (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
No, if you read the lede of the article about Hong Kong cinema you'll know that for decades, Hong Kong was the third largest motion picture industry in the world (after Indian cinema and Hollywood) and the second largest exporter, and its action films influenced European and American ones a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
And if you actually were from HK and watched HK film, you'd have something more substantial to say about the subject than regurgitate a paragraph you read on Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a Taiwanese, and Taiwanese cable movie channels often broadcast Hong Kong films, meaning they are quite popular in Taiwan, hence it is crucial for many residents in Taiwan.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
So you're familiar with what it means to be a 井底之蛙. Don't be that guy; it's embarrassing to watch. Cobblet (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
But nowadays Hong Kong action films influence Hollywood a lot, and Hong Kong is the second largest film exporter, don't these two facts mean that Hong Kong cinema is vital at this level?--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
A lot of genres have influenced Hollywood – that is no argument for adding specifically HK film. As for your second "fact", not only is it not what the article says (was, not is), but there's also no citation for that statement. Can you please go work on your critical thinking and reading skills before rejoining this discussion? I see no point in talking to you when all you ever do is regurgitate what someone else said (especially when you can't even do that properly). Cobblet (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Though Hong Kong is no longer the second largest film exporter, the fact that it once was means that Hong Kong cinema is no doubt crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 12:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Added the word "largest"
The discussion above is closed. 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 - 5-1 support 2 months  Carlwev  02:05, 8 September 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 cream

We have butter but not cream, which is illogical since cream has been frequently consumed as well.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support, not hugely important, but maybe just makes it, seems better than blue cheese or Mozzarella, which we have.  Carlwev  05:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not a fundamental culinary ingredient the way butter is. Cobblet (talk) 16:14, 8 July 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
No consensus, no comments after 60 days. Prevan (talk) 15:13, 20 September 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 Champagne

There doesn't seem to be consensus to add varieties of coffee, ice cream or soda to this list, but do we feel the same way about varieties of beer and wine? I'm nominating what I consider the most widely-known variety of wine to test this.

Support
  1. pbp 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too specific. But maybe we can add sparkling wine --Iamozy (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

With the removal of lemonade and energy drink, 13 of the 20 drink articles listed are related to alcohol, which is already very high. Alcohol seems over-represented compared to non-alcoholic drinks and other recreational drugs. Is champagne any more vital than cappuccino, green tea, cigar, cocaine, MDMA or hookah? Gizza (t)(c) 01:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Cappuccino, green tea, cigar, cocaine, MDMA should be added to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Why not hookah which is the most common recreational drug/drug taking method in many parts of the Middle East and adjoining areas? It has its own subculture unlike some of the drugs I mentioned. Gets more page views too. Gizza (t)(c) 04:28, 10 July 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
No consensus 2-3, no comments after 30 days Prevan (talk) 15:10, 20 September 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 Bundesliga, Nippon Professional Baseball

Second (NPB) and sixth-largest (Bundesliga) leagues by attendance (more than La Liga, UEFA Champions League or either auto racing league). Additionally, Germany and Japan are traditionally major powers in their respective sports (association football and baseball).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. All.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support we've been under quota in this area for awhile and both leagues are more valuable than local sports like bocce. They're comparable to the other sports tournaments and leagues listed. We should also add Wimbledon but at the same time remove a few tennis players. Gizza (t)(c) 10:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Serie A should probably come before the Bundesliga, and NPB is a big competition but is not on the level of MLB. I don't think we should just go by statistics in determining what are the most important sporting competitions; they do not necessarily capture their historical and cultural significance. Nor do I think we should have lots on the list. Neljack (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    1. Nowadays some Japanese persons became MLB players and later succeed there after they had achieved acertain degeree of success in the NPB (e.g. Ichiro Suzuki & Masahiro Tanaka), hence a new indicator measuring an MLB player's hitting achievement was born : hits combined in NPB/MLB. This assures NPB's vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Attendance figures might not be the best way to compare the popularity of different leagues – that's constrained by the size of the stadium/venue. TV/broadcast audience would be a better measure but global statistics for each sport are not so easy to come by. Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 15 June 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.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:50, 9 September 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 educational toy

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Educational play is extremely important to child education and development. The Wiki article might suck, but this is a very basic and vital topic in the recreation section. --Iamozy (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose more of a category than an actual topic which is still not vital. Something like play (activity) is more informative. Gizza (t)(c) 09:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per DaGizza. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:58, 4 August 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.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 02:03, 25 September 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 train & model car

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Simply not vital enough to merit inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Jclemens. --Iamozy (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 02:03, 25 September 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.
FAILED
not added, 1-5 pbp 14:56, 20 September 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 G.I. Joe

Support
  1. As nom. It is no doubt vital since: (1) some comic books, television animated cartoons, movies and video games are based on this product (2) its development of the product led to the coining of the term "action figure" (3) Its appeal to children has made it an American icon among toys.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 09:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Action figure would be the much better add. pbp 16:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per pbp. Jclemens (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Though this article was removed from the list without any opposition (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_17#Remove_G.I._Joe), this removal was no sensible since the rationale "Unknown outside the US." was no true, as some television series and movies based on G.I. Joe are widely known outside the U.S., e.g. G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1985 TV series).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 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) 01:57, 25 September 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 figure

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose a model figure is just a type of scale model, which we already have. --Iamozy (talk) 16:46, 4 August 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.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 05:27, 18 September 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 water gun

Support
  1. As nom. It is no doubt vital since many boys play water guns (me too!).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose no cultural or historical relevance. --Iamozy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Iamozy. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:50, 4 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:16, 3 September 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 Ancient Olympic Games

I thought we'd discussed this at one point but I can't find it in the archives. Event was held for centuries and presaged the Modern Olympics (and most other athletic competitions). pbp 05:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 05:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support the current list of sports is skewed towards the modern, which is inevitable but some historical balance is needed. The Ancient Olympics is a much better inclusion than chariot racing, which nearly made it through. Gizza (t)(c) 11:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support if we are including many many modern Olympians of many disciplines, some moderately low down, this seems quite important.  Carlwev  15:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:39, 24 August 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:14, 3 September 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 Productivity

Important concept in economics

Support
  1. SupportPrevan (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Supportpbp 16:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Extremely important economics topic. Productivity is the only way that the average standard of living can improve.Rreagan007 (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:23, 3 September 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.
4-4, neither removed Gizza (t)(c) 11:21, 14 September 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 Meet the Press

I prefer general articles about journalism (History of American journalism).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd rather remove 60 Minutes if I were going to remove a news program. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The fact Meet the Press is the longest-running TV programme in U.S. television history guarantees its vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, longest-running TV show in U.S. history. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
News does a decent job of covering news broadcasting, and with the advent of online journalism I'm not convinced it's as vital as it used to be. Cobblet (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove The Tonight Show

Johnny Carson is listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support So what if it's the longest-running talk show? Do we list the world's oldest TV network or theatre company or opera house? Age by itself is hardly a good criterion for vitality. Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The longest-running talk show in the world, definitely more vital than All in the Family or Gunsmoke. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Jusdafax 18:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. All in the Family & Gunsmoke are vital at this level as well, since the former broke ground in its depiction of issues previously regarded unsuitable for U.S. network television comedy, e.g. racism & homosexuality, the latter is the United States' longest-running prime time, live-action drama, and American television dramas are the ones which are most popular in the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Seems vital to me, given it is still a very relevant show. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 06:49, 13 September 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.
4-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 05:52, 10 September 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 Oedipus complex

Rejected theory, not supported by empirical data.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support not essential as a theory or phenomena. --Iamozy (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. In addition, the lingering (historical) importance of the Oedipus Complex is mainly related to Sigmund Freud, and the complex is extensively covered in that article (which is a level 3 important article). Arnoutf (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strongly Oppose: regardless of whether empiricists have rejected the theory, this theory had a huge historical influence, including in literature, that goes far beyond science. We are not going to take out Freud or psychoanalysis even if these things have fallen out of favor. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per David Tornheim. Gizza (t)(c) 11:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Me too.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per David Tornheim. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

What suggests that Oedipus complex is a vital piece of information for an encyclopedia to cover? I don't think there really is a sound case that this theory shaped literature. What historical/societal influence are you talking about? Besides, there is far too much overlap if Freud and psychoanalysis are already in the list. --Iamozy (talk) 03:07, 11 July 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.
3-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:43, 10 September 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 Bald eagle

National animal of the United States, probably better-known than golden eagle (though I would argue to keep that article).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet (US centrism). Arnoutf (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose to US-centric. Only found in North America. --Iamozy (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

See Golden eagles in human culture. The golden eagle is arguably the only bird of prey that's culturally significant on a global scale. If the American flag or anthem or the White House aren't vital articles, being the national animal isn't a terribly convincing argument for vitality either. Compare Andean condor or African fish eagle which are culturally significant to the continents they live in, but are also not quite as globally notable as the golden eagle. (If I had to add another bird of prey to the list the Andean condor would probably be it – it's not a second eagle, and apart from its cultural significance, it's also known for being the heaviest bird capable of flight.) Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I could support this as a swap with eagle. Eagle, like hawk and vulture, is a common English word describing some types of birds but it is not a monophyletic group. The bald eagle always has very high page views (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Popular_pages). Even taking into consideration the high percentage of English Wikipedia readers hailing from the US, the numbers are impressive. We could also add Accipitridae or Accipitriformes. There are birds listed with a more limited geographic range and less cultural value. Gizza (t)(c) 13:59, 20 June 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.
PASSED
Added, 6-0 Prevan (talk) 15:00, 20 September 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 Aurochs

Extinct bovine, we list extinct mammals, mammoth and smilodon, (and previously the mastodon), they may be more well known, but they probably had less impact on early humans than the aurochs, the mammoth was hunted by early humans, but the smilodon was probably not overly significant compared to many other recently extinct megafauna. We also list Archaeopteryx interesting to evolution, and the dodo, the extinction posterboy, plus several dinosaurs. Three species of Aurochs are recognised, the longest survivng only went extinct in the 1600s in Europe but was previously widespread across temperate and Mediterranean Eurasia and North Africa. Used by humans for thousands of years since neolithic times until the Renaissance, one of the first animals to be domesticated in both Europe and Asia, some Taxonomists consider domesticated cattle a subspecies of the wild aurochs, some consider it a separate species, but it's agreed they are the ancestor of the modern domestic cattle, meaning they are hugely significant to early humans and the dircetion they went in. If we list several extinct animals and several interesting domestic animal breeds/types, the aurochs probably deserves a place, as its use had much more impact on human history, than recent dog breeds or the smilodon.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  05:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support aurochs are more vital than some of the obscure mammals we list like hyrax. There are other extinct species listed like moa and trilobite. I've had thoughts about adding species like the thylacine, silphium and woolly rhinoceros. Gizza (t)(c) 06:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:45, 17 September 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 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 3 September 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 Moscow Metro

While doing some archival work, I noticed that there was a proposal made once to remove the subway systems of Moscow, Paris, New York, and Tokyo: see here. The original proposal did not pass, but Paris and Tokyo were later (rightfully) removed.

That being said, in the original proposal there were 4 opposes: 2 based on, in one user's words, the fact that these subways were "very important parts in the development of their respective cities", 1 simply opposed to a bulk removal, and 1 with no explanation. However, both of the first two commented that the NYC subway was the more vital of the four proposed, and one supporter also only gave weak support to removing the NYC subway. As the original proposer said, "we don't need to list five rapid transit networks when no road network and only one railway is listed", and the latter facts are still the case.

Based on that evidence and skimming through the articles on both rapid transit and the Moscow Metro itself, I have concluded that Moscow Metro is not worthy of inclusion IMO.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Iamozy (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support there are important topics related to Moscow and Russia missing. Gizza (t)(c) 10:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since Moscow Metro is currently the busiest metro system outside of Asia, it is no doubt vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:07, 13 August 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, 2-5 Prevan (talk) 14:59, 20 September 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 Shanghai Metro and Beijing Subway

We currently list the London Underground and New York City Subway, but we're totally ignoring Asia. The Shanghai Metro has the second-highest number of stations (second only to NYC), it is the longest subway system in the world, and the second-highest ridership in the world, second only to the Beijing Subway. The Beijing Subway has the third highest number of stations, and it is the second-longest subway system in the world. Both of these lines are incredibly important in the recent urbanization of China.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't feel like we need more than 2 subway systems and believe that we have picked the most appropriate choices. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Agree with above. Two is enough and we already include the 2 most important. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose definitely understand the nom's POV to globalize the list but as above, I'm not sure if subway systems are more important than other public transport articles. We don't list any airports (Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Dubai International Airport, Hong Kong International Airport and Airports of London could all claim to be the biggest in the world depending on what you measure). We don't have even have auto rickshaw, a common form of transport in much of the developing world and even parts of Europe. Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per all of the above. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

So why do we list the London Underground as a vital article? It's not even in the world's top 10 busiest subway systems. This looks too much like Western bias to me. --Iamozy (talk) 14:55, 18 September 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 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:18, 3 September 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 meta-analysis

A frequently used research method.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support definitely an important research method. Systematic review may also be a good candidate to add. --Iamozy (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Is it important? Absolutely! Is it vital? I just don't see it... Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I had proposed to add it before, however later it got failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_37#Add_meta-analysis).--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:34, 17 July 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
Not added, 1-4 pbp 01:48, 30 September 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 Run–D.M.C.

Only one hip hop representative? Arguably one of the top 2-3 most influential acts in the history of hip-hop. Achievements speak for themselves.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Eminem, whom has been removed, is the only artist besides Tupac (who is already included) who I think a really good case for inclusion can be made about in regard to the hip-hop and rap genre.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose agree with Prevan that we should have more than one hip hop representative (there's plenty of low hanging fruit in the other music genres). Also agree with Godsy that Eminem would be a better choice. Gizza (t)(c) 00:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per both the above. Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. --Thi (talk) 06:46, 24 September 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 8-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:17, 8 October 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 Larry Ellison

A successful businessman and billionaire, but probably not crucial in this list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support there are thousands of islands owned by rich people. That doesn't make you vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support this list is limited in scope, so some people needs to be unfortately removed. Prevan (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support He simply has not had a huge social/cultural/political impact on the world or even the U.S. Not really a "vital" person to know. --Iamozy (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support  Carlwev  06:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support Leuxa (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Not just any old billionaire, he owns a major Hawaiian island. I'm saying he's vital for purposes of the list. Jusdafax 09:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - He managed to create one of America's largest technology companies, is the 3rd richest man in America (5th in the world), donates to a plethora of philanthropic causes, and owns arguably the best boat-racing team in the world. He's no George Washington, but all that combined is pretty significant. Gpapazian (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose his importance to the IT field is rather large, beyond what he's done with his money. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I would like to finally close this as passed, it's been open for almost 3 months, and it's actually been in a passable state more than once in that time, and could have been closed as passed. (I could have closed it as passed at the time of my support vote, but so could a few people and I'm as lazy and busy as the next person.) The last user who voted, Leuxa, only opened an account two and a half hours before voting here, which was the user's fourth edit out of six in total at the moment, all of them minor [14]. Doesn't necessarily mean anything in itself, but looks a bit odd. The user is voting the same as I am, so I could just leave it and pass the thread if I was selfish, but I thought I would bring it up, as it was discussed before. Is anyone bothered by this?  Carlwev  09:00, 7 October 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.
4-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:41, 14 October 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 Xi Jinping

Xi Jinping is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China.

Support
  1. Support as nom. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I think it is time to add him to the list. He has consolidated his power to such an extent that he is often called the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao. Neljack (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support He is one of the most powerful men in the world. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think it's way too soon to add him. He is still the current Chinese leader and we have no idea what the rest of his premiership will be like. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose He has only held the position since 2012. He has not reached "vital" status in only 4 years. --Iamozy (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Too recentist. Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 25 September 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.
passed 6-0 support, 21 days,  Carlwev  09:03, 7 October 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 Eight Deer Jaguar Claw

Semi-mystical figure in which little was written about, Moctezuma I and Moctezuma II can cover that era in Mexican history, as there is more information written on them, even if they came later.

Support
  1. Support as nom Prevan (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per Carlwev. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There just doesn't seem like there is that much information available on this person. His impact on history is unclear, and some even question his actual existence, making him a semi legendary/mythological figure. He is not the same level as mythological figures included like Robin Hood, or King Arthur. Or missing ones like William Tell. We have added Aztec, Inca, Mayan and Andean Civilizations to the 1000 list. To this list we added Quechua People a little while ago. I would prefer articles like this to represent the Americas. Other missing articles I like the look of more are Tenochtitlan, Toltec/Toltec Empire, Settlement of the Americas, Clovis culture, Mixtec, Nazca culture. Articles on sites, peoples, cultures, cities, civilizations, eras exist and could be more vital.  Carlwev  16:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer if something was added to compensate the removal. Probably Mixtec since it pairs well with Eight Deer. But I believe there should be multiple additions because Mesoamerica overall is still underrepresented. Gizza (t)(c) 12:16, 18 September 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
Not added, 1-1, after more than 60 days pbp 13:05, 15 October 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 Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette

Lafayette was a key figure to American War of Independence, French Revolution and July Revolution. He was an exponent of human rights and civic nationalism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gazaret (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Once the French Revolution turned violent, Lafayette pretty much turned against it and was eventually exiled so I don't see how he is that key of a figure in it. The July Revolution just isn't that significant, and as far as the American Revolution is concerned there are more important political figures unlisted such as Patrick Henry or John Jay as well as military figures such as Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben and Horatio Gates. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I'm torn on this one; been torn on it for a month. There are three arguments in favor of his inclusion: a) He had a significant role in both the American Revolution and the French Revolution, b) with the exception of Ben Franklin, he's the man most responsible for the Franco-American alliance, and c) At his death, he was remembered in a way no one in American history except Washington was. On the other hand, he wasn't anywhere the most important figure in either revolution, and I agree with Presidentman that guys like John Hancock and Nathanael Greene are more significant to the American Revolution than he (and if you're going to have 4-5 American Rev generals, which you shouldn't, you'd probably need to balance it out by also including Jean Rochambeau and a British general like William Howe). pbp 14:15, 31 August 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 support, 1 month,  Carlwev  10:23, 7 October 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 Philippines

The 12th most populous nation on Earth with over 100 million people. As the term Philippines refers to the islands in general the history goes back as far as they have been inhabited over 65,000 years ago. Ruled by several different kingdoms and empires up until the 1500s followed by three centuries of Spanish rule, a revolution, then a war with the US followed by about 50 years of American rule, was involved in the Second World War, then independence. We list the three main regions of the Philippines, four cities, two presidents, Corazon Aquino and Ferdinand Marcos in addition to the article about the Philippine Revolution and Philippine–American War. It seems to me the overview article about the nation/islands's history is at least deserving as some other nations we already include. The nation, has always been present in the 1000 list. The history article has between 1000 and 3000 daily pageviews, averaging at 1500, which is more than Aquino, US-Philippine War, and the revolution articles. (view), but less than Marcos.

Support
  1. Support as nom  Carlwev  05:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added, 5-0 support,  Carlwev  18:25, 7 October 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 Dreyfus affair

One of the biggest scandals in modern times, it fractioned French politics for 15 years and left a significant impact on European politics and Zionism well into the 20th century. Key scandal that helped introduce the topic of antisemitism as a global topic, when it was mostly ignored previously, and still highly studied and written about, 120 years after the event occurred. Dreyfus_affair#Consequences_of_the_Dreyfus_Affair gives a good reason why this topic is vital.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. The fact that this event caused the birth of Zionism means that it is absolutely vital at this level. I had aspired to nominated it before, but Prevan proposed to add it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added, 6-1 support,  Carlwev  18:25, 7 October 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 Nanking Massacre

I noticed we don't usually list individual battles and events from war but this should be an exception. One of the most controversial military actions in history. Still the main rift in diplomatic relations between China and Japan. One of the main topics in Japanese nationalism (which also should be listed, considering how that directly led to World War II in Asia). Legacy is clear.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  17:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. History of Syria & history of sport are more vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:08, 7 October 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 support,  Carlwev  18:25, 7 October 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 Wounded Knee Massacre

Major event in the American Indian wars, but we already have American Indian Wars listed. We don't list the Battle of Gettysburg for the same reason, and that has a better claim for this list.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  17:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

attempted removing this before. Also, we have Sitting Bull. We don't have Sioux or Lakota people. I think Sioux would be a good addition. I think someone mentioned that Sioux is not one group but an umbrella term of several peoples of one area, like it was a bad thing, a reason to not include it. But then we have other such terms like Adivasi or even Inuit or Indigenous Americans are all said to be umbrella terms for numerous peoples of a similar cultures and area too. In history there are more umbrella such terms like Celts, and more.  Carlwev  18:14, 22 September 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.
PASSED
All four added, 7-0, 8-0, 5-0, and 8-0 pbp 13:16, 7 October 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 Tenochtitlan

Article states the city was the largest in the whole Pre-Columbian Americas at it's peak, very significant city to the Aztecs, their capital in fact for 200 years. As significant if not more than only 3 historical American cities we have Teotihuacan, Tikal, Tiwanaku. We may remove Eight Deer Jaguar Claw again, and there is a view that Pre-Colombian America is under presented.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  10:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. pbp 13:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support was thinking of nominating this myself. Prevan (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are several historical cultures/cities in the Americas and elsewhere on my mind, that I am not as sure of. Kanem Empire, Clovis culture, Nazca culture, Pandyan dynasty, Ethiopian Empire, Goguryeo, Toltec, and several more, what do people think of any of these?  Carlwev  10:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Goguryeo looks like a good addition. I think I proposed adding the Ethiopian Empire earlier but it was mass opposed. Gizza (t)(c) 10:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Add Jericho

(Yes it's inhabited today, but we list Timbuktu in historical cities, which is also a still inhabited city, but is much more significant historically). Jericho is often said to be the oldest continually inhabited settlement in the world, or at least a top contender, with over 20 successive settlements discovered going back to 9600 B.C. It is believed it may be the city with the oldest known protective wall in the world and was thought to have the oldest stone tower in the world too. One of the most significant historical cities, with history in the Holocene, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Hellenistic, Roman, Persian, Byzantine and Ottoman periods.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  10:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. I think we should add one of either Göbekli Tepe or Çatalhöyük too. Gizza (t)(c) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. pbp 13:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support why this isn't on the list is beyond me Prevan (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Agree, Çatalhöyük was also in my to do list, but I had forgotten about it.  Carlwev  12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Add Çatalhöyük

One of the most significant and known neolithic sites, or "proto-city" as it has been called. Good example of early human settlement. It appears as stand alone page/article/topic in several history books I have, even some that cover whole world history. May have been the largest settlement in the world at on time, if not one of the biggest, according to List of largest cities throughout history.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Per Carlwev Prevan (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Tell Brak and especially Uruk look significant too.  Carlwev  12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If we were to add another Near Eastern archaeological site after Çatalhöyük, I would prefer Göbekli_Tepe. It is about 2000 years older and arguably more significant. Gizza (t)(c) 10:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Add Cahokia

We have historical cities from most other parts of the world, why not the United States? Generally regarded as one of the largest pre-Columbian settlements in the United States. (FWIW, I've been considering nominating this for some time). pbp 13:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 13:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support To counter syestemic bias. Prevan (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support I would like to add Sioux as well from Native North American cultures.  Carlwev  18:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Agree with Carlwev on Sioux as well. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:50, 5 October 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, 6-0 support,  Carlwev  18:27, 7 October 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 Archaeogenetics

Term that was coined within the past 20 years and not widely used yet. Was added with no discussion when the list was first created years ago. Article doesn't explain its vitality, mostly original research. Such a niche topic should have a discussion at least.

Support
  1. Remove until convinced otherwise. Prevan (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support we could swap this with something like Human evolutionary genetics. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-5, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 08:51, 5 October 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 mashed potato & baked potato

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Why? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose unnecessary addition. --Iamozy (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose even less vital than french fries and potato chips, which we recently removed. Gizza (t)(c) 01:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Mashed potato and baked potato are vital at this level, since many cuisines have them. And for French fries and potato chips, I think they should be kept since there are quite popular (and unhealthy).--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:46, 27 September 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.
Bedding removed 5-0. Mattress not added 1-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:24, 8 October 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 or Remove Bedding Possibly add Mattress

Surprised bedding is on the list, but mattress is not. We already bed however, so bedding should be removed anyways if we decide against adding mattress.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. Oppose addition. I think having bed is sufficient. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support removal, oppose addition. Bed is enough. --Iamozy (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support removal, oppose addition. Bed covers it sufficiently. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support removal, oppose addition. Plantdrew (talk) 16:20, 22 September 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:26, 8 October 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.

The age of consent varies from country to country.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support Not the most vital thing in the category, but more important than several already included. Jclemens (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Weak support per Jclemens. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support. This is a crucial concept in human sexuality and law. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Is this more important then? Or is this the best article to have compared to potential others, including for example: Age of majority, The age of criminal responsibility, Emancipation of minors, Voting age, Legal drinking age, Sexual abuse, Child sexual abuse, Child abuse, Consent (criminal law), Consent among others?  Carlwev  06:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Is there anything that makes age of consent more important than other ages like voting age? Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 9 September 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. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:29, 8 October 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 action figure

Support
  1. Support As nom. The fact that plenty of men and boys enjoy playing action figures means that it is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 16:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Prevan (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:52, 17 September 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 9-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:32, 8 October 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 Black market

Vital economics concept with a significant global history, still relevant in today's culture.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support I thought about proposing productivity and black market but didn't because of the quota limit. Maybe we should discuss increasing the social sciences quota again. Gizza (t)(c) 08:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support: sure pbp 02:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 30 September 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 10-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:34, 8 October 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 University of Michigan

Yes it is a top university in the United States, but not ranked among the top 10 or 20 in the country. I also don't see how this university is considered as "vital" as other universities not listed in the United States with a similar reputation, such as University of Wisconsin, Georgetown University or New York University, the last two have a better claim on the list.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support. It is the least vital of the currently listed U.S. universities, and there are other U.S. universities more vital (Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt). Rreagan007 (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support --Thi (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  10. Support per nom. Gpapazian (talk) 04:10, 3 October 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, not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 14 October 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 Eurasian Economic Union, Collective Security Treaty Organization and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

Now that Russia and China are becoming influential, these articles are no doubt as vital as NATO and European Union.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. No, too recentist. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Jclemens. --Thi (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Recentism. Not as significant as either NATO or the EU. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:36, 8 October 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 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:42, 8 October 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 Maya script

Mesoamerica was one of the very few sites in the world where writing was invented independently with no contact from other civilizations. The Maya script is nowadays as important to archaeologists as Egyptian hieroglyphs and cuneiform, both of which are listed. I also think it's more vital than Devanagari for instance (keeping in mind that Brahmic scripts is included as well).

Support
  1. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 1 October 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 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:47, 8 October 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 Human trafficking

Important topic in the world today.

Support
  1. Support as nom Prevan (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support distinct enough from slavery, vital in its own right. --Iamozy (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Partially covered by slavery, however I still think it's important enough considering what's listed elsewhere like biographies.  Carlwev  15:13, 20 September 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 9-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:37, 12 October 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 Population

Key ecology concept, I can see this fit in the 1000 vital articles list, so i'm astonished it's not in the 10000 at least.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  09:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Gpapazian (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Population density, and world population are also interesting, but they may not be needed.  Carlwev  09:18, 30 September 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 10-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:51, 8 October 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 Acne vulgaris

Surprised this isn't on the list, most common and well-known skin disorder.

Support
  1. Support As nom Prevan (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per discussion below. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Very very common, the only thing this is guilty of, is not being a serious condition, but I don't think that's a reason to not have it. The common cold and allergy are listed in the 1000 and are normally not serious.  Carlwev  18:37, 23 September 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.
passed, 5 or 6 - 1 or 2, and 20 days,  Carlwev  17:03, 7 October 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 Scientific modelling and Physical law (or Laws of science) remove Open cluster and globular cluster from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences

Open clusters and globular clusters are already covered by stellar cluster. This is pretty redundant, whereas Scientific modelling and physical law are something quite primordial to physical sciences. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer. I have no strong preference between Physical law or Laws of science however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. Good suggestions. I prefer physical law because laws of science looks prone to become a list of scientific laws instead of a detailed article. Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support and +1 to Physical law Dandelany (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support the proposal to add scientific modelling and Physical law.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removals.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose but it's passed anyway, so...  Carlwev  17:03, 7 October 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, 8-1 support, 15 days  Carlwev  09:54, 7 October 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 Gravitational wave

With the confirmation of their existence, this has huge implications for astronomy and relativity in general.

Support
  1. Support Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support If not under astronomy, it should be added under physics.TR 16:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support In either astronomy or physics.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support. Why not? MartinZ02 (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sure it does... someday. But I just don't see it being vital within the next 10 years, even if it is cool and important. One will be able to get by in modern society without knowing about them for a while more. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
By that logic, one is also able to get by without knowing about Lagrangian points and the Nebular hypothesis. We're six short of the target for astronomy. If gravitational waves aren't good enough to make the cut, then what is? Because I was frankly surprised that they weren't already on the list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I think about 20% of the astronomy vital articles could be de-recognized and the targets adjusted downwards appropriately. I favor concepts rather than instantiations be VAs, and there appear to be far too many specific objects listed currently. Still, a decade is probably a good amount of time for the experiment to be replicated--We shouldn't be listing as 'vital' things that are novel and whose implications are still being worked out, regardless of how important. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It's as 'novel' and it 'implications' are being worked out as much as the Higgs boson is novel and its implications being worked out. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I'd vote to remove that, too. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
You'd vote to remove the HIGGS? Clearly your criteria for what's to be considered vital needs re-calibration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure it differs from yours. I'd move String Theory into philosophy & religion, for that matter, in that it has no testable hypotheses. My rationale is that 'vital' should not mean "trendy" or "current" but rather "indisputably important over time"--and I think a decade is a good duration for appropriate retrospection. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
So, why object to gravitational wave? The notion has been around for more than a century and the Nobel prize for proving their existence was awarded more than two decades ago.TR 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. The topic of gravitational waves is summarized by Gravity#Gravitational_radiation. The nebular hypothesis is similarly summarized on the planet article. I didn't see a summary about the Lagrangian point on the orbit article, so that appears to be in need of correction. Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyone like the idea of wind wave? I suppose we have tide though.  Carlwev  15:52, 28 September 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.
8-1 support, 29 days,  Carlwev  09:42, 7 October 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 Climate change

We list global warming here and in the 1000 list too, that article covers recent man made warming. Climate change covers man made and natural, present changes, and changes in the recent and far back history. Covering changes in human prehistory, ice ages and warm periods, to changes millions of years ago, with a number of causes, like sun activity, volcanoes, differences in orbit cycles, among others and caused by biological life processes, and it's effects on lifeforms. Significant to natural history, geology, biology, early/prehistory and modern day issues too. It does have information on recent human impact too, but only in one of many sections.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  04:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support more important than the numerous extinction events we added, which were often caused by climate change. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support --Thi (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose but I would support a swap out of global warming with the more general article. Jclemens (talk) 16:04, 18 September 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:59, 15 October 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 Caspar David Friedrich

The most important German Romantic painter. He is called as the Europe's first truly modern artist and his works are very famous.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Strikes me as more important than some of the painters we have. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:03, 28 August 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:59, 15 October 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 Amedeo Modigliani

Modigliani is famous for his original portraits.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Very important painter. More vital than some of the other included artists. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While clearly important, not on par with other important modern painters. We can only list that many painters. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Arnoutf says we can only list a certain number of painters. This is a valid point. How many should we have? I feel that currently we have too many modern painters (35) and should limit it to around 20. Some of the current inclusions are strange (Thomas Eakins?) given that Modigliani or Schiele are not included. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:25, 2 September 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:59, 15 October 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 Mark Rothko

One of the greatest abstract artists of the twentieth century.[15][16].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Clearly one of the most important artists of the modern age. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:55, 29 August 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:59, 15 October 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 Ilya Repin

Great Russian artist who made some iconic paintings, such as Barge Haulers on the Volga and Cossacks Writing a Letter to the Turkish Sultan. [17].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:32, 15 August 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:01, 15 October 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 Louis-Ferdinand Céline

This important French writer pioneered a new concept of the novel. [18].

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Prevan (talk) 15:19, 20 September 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:02, 15 October 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 György Ligeti

One of the most important composers of 20th century.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Looking at the avant-garde section of the composers list, we have Glass, Stockhausen and Cage. Ligeti seems to me more important than Glass and perhaps Cage, and more or less on a par with Stockhausen. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 11 July 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:03, 15 October 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 Jackie Stewart

Five F1 drivers is too many.

Support
  1. --Thi (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. pbp 15:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Greatest British driver of all-time. Most significant driver of his era, and the other three F1 entries are from a different time frame of racing, not to mention his significance in promoting safety in F1. He competed and dominated what was arguably the most competitive era of F1. I rank him above Senna. Prevan (talk) 17:49, 19 August 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 consensus after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:03, 15 October 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 Mario Andretti

Isn't he at least as important as dale, aj, richard and jackie? im not a big auto race fan, but his name seems the most iconic to me, at least.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support If Foyt is listed, so should Andretti. Both ranked equal to each other at their peaks, with Foyt being more dominant as a owner and in regards to Indianapolis, and Andretti was pretty much the only successful American Formula 1 driver and dominated all forms of racing. Prevan (talk) 17:52, 19 August 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.
Swapped 5-0 after 15 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:06, 15 October 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.

Replace 1976 Tangshan earthquake with 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

The legacy of the 1976 Tangshan earthquake is unclear. Yes it was a deadly earthquake, but China at the time wasn't really a "developed country", and many of its buildings was of shoddy construction, so that kind of natural disaster was bound to happen. It was a conscience that it happened towards the end of Mao's regime. The article claims it helped cause the end of the Cultural Revolution (without a citation), but the Cultural Revolution was near its end by the time the event hit, and for other causes. As for 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, 2nd-4th deadliest natural disaster (depends on the rank) in global history, and an event that impacted a number of countries, instead of one. Very similar to both 1970 Bhola cyclone and 1931 China floods are listed, and both of those have more unclear death tolls and global impact. Biggest humanitarian event for a natural disaster in history, and impacted the economy of several countries for years. I would consider that storm to be more vital than Bhola, Tangshan and the floods.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:09, 13 October 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 6-1 after 15 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:51, 15 October 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 Philately

I can't seem to find a reason why this topic is vital at all. We already have collecting, we don't need to go to specifics as we are only limited to 10,000 articles and the study of stamps is too niche of a topic.

Support
  1. Support As nom. Prevan (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  09:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support a hobby, to be sure, but a dying one. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

It's collecting and/or studying stamps. From a collecting point of view, many things can be collected, we have collecting itself, and we also have postage stamp as well. From a study point of view, many things can be studied too, and some have significant articles about said study, which seem more important than stamps. Many topics that are in the level 3 vital 1000 do not have their study article listed here. Just two examples of many, Fish and Bird are in the vital 1000, but we do not list Ichthyology or Ornithology here, and those topics seem more vital than philately. In fact we voted to remove ornithology a long time ago, as it once included, but wasn't wanted either. There may be level 2 vital 100 topics that do not have their study listed here either, I haven't checked a lot, but musicology and Religious studies are not here either.  Carlwev  09:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • If philately is removed, numismatics should probably also be removed. pbp 17:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • That seems reasonable. Collection of individual things seems to be transient and vary from generation to generation. Collecting Magic: the Gathering cards or Beanie Babies are certainly more relevant in recent memory, but I doubt anyone thinks they will have an avid collection ecosystem a century from now. Numiastics maybe less so than most, based on the length of time coinage has been around, but still somewhat superfluous to Collecting. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 15 October 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:11, 17 October 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 toy weapon

Support
  1. As nom. It is no doubt vital since many boys play toy weapons (me too!).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Simply not vital enough to merit inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 18 August 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 consensus after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:11, 17 October 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 toy soldier

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that "Military figures have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs, and have appeared in many cultures and eras" means that it is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Prevan (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd rather see Action Figure, as more expansive and inclusive, while mostly overlapping 'toy soldier'. Jclemens (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Jclemens. Gizza (t)(c) 08:52, 5 October 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.
Removed 7-0 after 15 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:55, 15 October 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 University of California, Los Angeles

We already have University of California, Berkeley which is ranked as the top public university in the United States. This one is not as prestigious, and from the same regional area that Berkley can easily cover. As I mentioned above. We are over quota in this area, with other topics such as economics has been mostly ignored.

Support
  1. As nom Prevan (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support:, then remove University of California, Berkeley and replace it with University of California pbp 01:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. Gpapazian (talk) 04:10, 3 October 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:13, 17 October 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 operation & military exercise

Both are absolutely vital at this level, however neither of them is included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support military operation. We have 3 articles under a heading of the same title, so I don't see how the general article isn't vital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose no reason like last time. They're very specific, niche military topics. Gizza (t)(c) 09:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose military exercise. Not as vital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. Why, militaries on earth use military exercises to examine their strength, test new tactics, weapons, etc.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC) changed the word "exercise" to its plural form 13:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose way too generic (former) and specific (later). Absolutely non-vital. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed to add them to the list, however later the proposals failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_46#Add_military_exercise).--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
We might have to discuss placing a time limit on how long somebody can re-propose a failed proposal if this continues. Especially if your rationale hasn't changed or improved. Gizza (t)(c) 09:23, 4 August 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 9-0 after 15 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:16, 17 October 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 Exploration of Mars

Our space section has nothing on Mars exploration currently. Rather than picking a single mission, I think an overview article is most appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Good find. That seems like a gaping ommission. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  09:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support —MartinZ02 (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  9. Support --Thi (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose


Discuss
  • Note that I have separately proposed to reallocate slots from Astronomy to Space, and am in parallel proposing topics representative of articles that should be, but are not, VA-4. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There are other articles of a similar nature, Exploration of the Moon (covered by other articles I know), Exploration of Jupiter, Discovery and exploration of the Solar System, or closer to home Exploration of the Pacific, Deep-sea exploration, Exploration of North America, Exploration of Africa. But that being said, I think this overview is reasonable considering what we devote to the Moon landings. (I have also been thinking about plain Exploration for lev 3, seeing as we list Space exploration and a list of explorers there? Exploration is in bad shape, but improving is the main reason for adding articles, exploration pretty vital concept, it could be a good article.)  Carlwev  09:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

All of that makes sense to me, and I'd be happy to support any of those nominations. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 10 October 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 after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:52, 27 October 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 Ted Hughes

I'm somewhat baffled by the omission of Ted Hughes from this list. He is regarded as one of the most important 20th century poets and arguably the most important British poet of the latter half of the twentieth century. He played a pivotal role in the development of modern poetry. There are a number of other surprising omissions, particularly Seamus Heaney and T.S. Eliot, but the lack of inclusion of Ted Hughes is, for me, the strangest.

Support
  1. Support As nominator. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support More focus may be placed on his wife but he is still one of the most important poets of the 20th century. GuzzyG (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

T. S. Eliot is on the list. [19]. --Thi (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah... under American writers... he was a British citizen who was born in America but had renounced American citizenship. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:07, 3 September 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) 23:23, 3 December 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 Robert E. Howard

The fact that he created the sword and sorcery genre and Conan the Barbarian, a fictional hero means that he is absolutely crucial at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sorry, but no, it doesn't mean that "he is absolutely crucial". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose inventing a genre is vital but Howard only invented a subgenre and there are hundreds of subgenres. Gizza (t)(c) 02:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    1. But he created Conan the Barbarian, and this fictional character is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:27, 25 September 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.
FAILED
Not added, 1-2, after 60+ days pbp 00:21, 24 November 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 William Miller (preacher)

Founded the Millernite movement, which is the direct forerunner of the highly-influential Adventist movement. Several religious movements, including the Bahá'í Faith and Seventh-day Adventist Church (18 million + members), can trace their roots to him and his teachings.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose still too obscure a figure to warrant being named as "vital" to an encyclopedia. --Iamozy (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:22, 21 September 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.

A few questions

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
  1. I've made a proposal to add both history of Pakistan & history of Bangladesh, however only the former got added to the list, with the latter having only two support votes (Cobblet only wrote "Support Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)", meaning he supported the proposal to add both). Cobblet created a text box with the following text: "History of Pakistan added 5-0; History of Bangladesh not added, 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)" (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_47#Add_history_of_Pakistan_and_history_of_Bangladesh), though, which is strange. May Cobblet explain why?
  2. A rule mentioned in this page explicitly states "After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and two-thirds support", but I've a question: if a proposal had been made on Jan. 30, 2016 and had two support votes and one opposing one on Apr. 19, and later it didn't get any support or opposing votes, then may it be closed as NO CONSENSUS on May 14 (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_47#Add_history_of_Syria)?--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    1. Yes, because May 14 is 105 days after the date of original proposal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
No consensus after 60 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:27, 26 October 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 Carlos Gardel

Latin music seems to be underrepresented, most famous tango musician of all-time.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. From the lede of the article I know that he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Vicente Fernández

Nothing on Mexican music, the most popular kind of Latin music. Probably the biggest icon in that field.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. From the lede of the article I know that he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:45, 17 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_49&oldid=1137397594"