Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

People

Comedians

The following discussion is closed. Please 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 de Funès

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support to make the list more global --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. I cannot support this addition, although potentially worthy, without a proposed swap of a lower-priority topic or until we get the total VA/E articles list under 10,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
2. Oppose per Dirtlawyer1. Jusdafax 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I must oppose this addition for now. It is far too easy to add worthy topics, and far too difficult to remove lower-priority ones. We need some discipline, folks, and we need to get the numbers under control before we gear up for wholesale additions again. That's what got us into this numbers mess in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone think of a swap for Louis to give him a fair chance, he has much support, even the opposes say he's potentially worthy. I was thinking, a swap with Jerry Seinfeld? any better ideas? adding him would also help make it more international which people often think is a good idea. Carlwev (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• For someone from the same era I'd go for Sid Caesar. Incidentally, the comedy section of the list is now the section I think suffers most from having too many Americans. Could easily lose a few more. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2013 (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.

Politicians and leaders

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Politicians and leaders, 469 for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Black Hawk (Sauk leader)

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 16:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Black Hawk was a minor American Indian ally of the British during the War of 1812. While an interesting footnote to American and Canadian history, he did not have the same sort of dramatic historical and cultural impact of Metacomet, Sitting Bull or even Geronimo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. What makes him notable is that he shifted from an ally to the main INdian opponent of the American government in the 1930s. The Black Hawk War had the same impact on the subsequent Indian policy for the plains tribes as King Philip's war had for the east coast tribes. Blakk Hawk's war basically was the result of the Indian Removal policies of Andrew Jackson. I would say that the exact same reasoning you used to argue for keeping Metacomet applies to Black Hawk. Ceryainly more important than Geronimo in terms of historical impact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Maunus, my comment was carefully phrased; Geronimo is more widely remembered and has had a greater cultural impact than Black Hawk; to this day, American boys doing something physically dangerous often shout "Geronimo!" However, your argument that Black Hawk was probably more historically consequential is correct, and Geronimo is not included on the VA/E list. Among North American Indians, Metacomet, Sitting Bull and Tecumseh remain on the list, and I strongly support keeping all three of them. Black Hawk gets the hatchet when we're prioritizing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Black Hawk war" - 210,000.
• "Black Hawk" — 1,050,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be the bird of prey though, no?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Metacomet

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - Per Igrek. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Metacomet's war with the New England colonists has a dramatic impact on how the colonists perceived and dealt with the American Indians, and ultimately on how the Indians were treated by the U.S. government during the 19th Century. Metacomet may be obscure, but he damn sure is important in the context of North American history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• We should remove some of the obscure leaders and add the well documented Native American groups, Iroquis, Cherokee etc. Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing obscure about these. And we can include the ethnic groups as well - its not one or the other. We also include both the US and a bunch of that particular nations political figures.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Carl, we can't include every British Empire colonial war, otherwise the history sublist would be overwhelmed. Metacomet is included as a representative of the more important North American Indian leaders, and I think he serves that purpose well, together with Sitting Bull and Tecumseh. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am looking at this topic differently, I am also wondering if the article on King Philips War, is more important/as important, and should be included instead/as well? Carlwev (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Metacomet" — 39,400. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Spearthrower Owl

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support per my discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Spearthrower Owl?" Now, that's obscure. Putting aside the fact the Spearthrower Owl is not a household name, which as I have argued elsewhere should have very little to do with whether we include a topic on the VA/E list or not, there is virtually nothing known about this subject. Everything archeologists think they know about this Mayan king/chieftain, they have learned from a very small handful of stone glyphs. Heck, they're not even sure if all of the glyphs refer to one guy or several. What we don't know about Spearthrower Owl would fill volumes. This appears to have been a trendy news topic when the VA/E list was originally compiled, and there is very little real evidence to support the subject as a "vital" or otherwise significant topic. We have numerous other American Indian leaders whose history and significance are well documented and understood; we don't need to reinvent one from the mists of time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Spearthrower Owl" — 475. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Emiliano Zapata

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. -- User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - Per DL1, so long as he is added to the Revolutionaries, rebels, etc. sublist. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose He's already on the Activists list, folks pbp 19:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Already included on the Revolutionaries, rebels and activists sublist, which is where he should be. Let's close this thread. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per pbp--V3n0M93 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Emiliano Zapata" — 391,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I am generally amenable to adding Zapata, but I would prefer to do it as a swap if possible. Also, although it's unclear to me if Maunus intended Zapata to be clustered with the Native American leaders or not, it strikes me that he would be more appropriately grouped with the Revolutionaries, rebels, etc. sublist. Let's have some more discussion on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any preference as to where he is added. Perhaps Latin American leaders/politicians would be best with Benito Juarez and Porfirio Diaz and Simon Bolivar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, please forgive us if we don't all have a list of 10,000 entries perfectly committed to memory as I assume you have? Is that why you oppose the removal of redirects? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative swap: Add Emiliano Zapata, Remove Willie Mays (baseball player)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - I think we should try to avoid these types of apples to oranges swaps. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per Gabe. Also, Mays is widely regarded as one of the top all-around players in history. I can't support his removal under any circumstances. Jusdafax 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. OpposeHe's already on the Activists list, folks pbp 19:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Zapata is already included on the revolutionaries/rebels sublst. Let's close this thread. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose per pbp. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think swaps are working better than straight adds, in general I think leaders are more important than sports people. I think sports people are more bloated than leaders. Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• I believe there are too many sportsman and not enough, leaders. Swapping a sportsman for a sportsman does not improve the list a lot. Swapping a leader for a leader, does not improve the list a lot, we are forced to remove important leaders but find the least important among them. Leaders are generally more important than sportsman. Carlwev (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I think the solution would be to put a cap number for sports people and then prune down to the agreed upon number.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sports people frankly needs to be tac nuked. We should start at 0, then add people until we get to 100, then stop adding pbp 17:29, 3 July 2013 (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.

Writers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Writers, 237 for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Tukaram

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

---

Support !votes:

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support' parochial interest only, no vital global context or reach. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

1. Oppose, popular Indian spiritual poet and religious figure. --Igrek (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Tukaram" — 69,500. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (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.

Philosophers and Religious Figures

The following discussion is closed. 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 Shen Yue

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 7 July 2013 (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.

Scientists and related

The following discussion is closed. 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 Stanley Schachter

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Neal E. Miller

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove David McClelland

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Actors

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Entertainers for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Tom Cruise

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support As nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. And the Academy Award for best couch-jumping Scientologist goes to... pbp 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - Cruise we can lose. Jusdafax 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose – the world's one, authentic movie star of the last quarter of a century. No-one else since Hollywood's golden age comes close. Betty Logan (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Cruise was nominated for the Razzie Award twice for worst actor and in several other categories. I don't think any other actor on our list can match that. He never actually won an academy award, even though he was nominated three times. He is famous for representing an All-American Image, and for being an important member of scientology rather than for being a good actor. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the cult is more of a side attraction, he is still vastly more notable as the world's biggest movie star. Critical acclaim and awards are one measure of an actor's importance, but film is more than just an artistic medium: it is also an industry, and commercial success is a hugely dominant factor for anyone who works within it. We could spend all day naming better actors, but no-one of the last fifty years has come even close to replicating his box office achievements as a performer. If you talk about film you have to talk about Hollywood, and the concept of the "movie star" has been central to its business model since the silent era, and there is no avoiding Cruise in that context. Betty Logan (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Opposing for now, the modern actors has almost been stripped to it's bare bones. If you take Cruise away I can only see Tom Hanks and Kamal Haasan, the only ones left under 60 and only just, we need some people to represent modern cinema too, and there's no one left. I'd say go for the actors in disguise within comedians, or the dancers instead. If we aren't putting people in based on their oscars, we shouldn't take them out based on their "Razzies" seriously?!? Enid Blyton, was slated and even banned from libraries and schools etc for her bad writing or grammar or something, do we remove her? well she still managed to write 800 books and sell 600Million+ copies. Carlwev (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I really don't think we need more than one representative of the last 50 years, Tom Hanks will do. We are currently trying to represent about 30 different sports with 100 people - why should actors have more? Tom Cruise has a place withing the top 100.000 but in the 10.000 I just don't see enough room. Look at the math and computers section, we will need to make additions there, so we have to cut people to the essentials.

@Betty: Tom Cruise as a representative of "movie star" is a local phenomenon. He has never quite reached that status in continental Europe.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah he's unheard of here, Hollywood doesn't really sell here in France and the UK, we're all watching Kenneth Branagh and Gerard Depardieu, errr no. The Razzie is meaningless, it has to be given to someone of status to get attention, if it were really given to truly the worst actor, it would be given to someone from ridiculous films like piranha 3DD, or Lesbian Vampire Killers. We only need one actor from the last 50 years?!? but we have about 40 actors from the 50-60s and only 1 2 or 3 from the 1990s and 2000s give it some balance. We're not exactly asking for 40 1990s actors and strip down to 3 golden age actors, so we shouldn't strip the other way either. Carlwev (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The box office figures indicate he is more than just a local star: he starred in the top grossing films (worldwide) of the year on three occasions (1986, 1988 & 2000). In addition to that, he has placed in the top 10 in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996 (two films), 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2011. Apart from the Mission Impossible films none of those were sequels/franchises either, so no easy scores like Harry Potter movies. 1988 was Rain Man; could you imagine a movie about autism being the year's top grosser today? That's major star quality by any yard stick... Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• @ Carl: We don't have to have 40 actors from the 50s and 60s. Don't you think we should cut the actors' list? Are we watching Cruise and does Hollywood sell here? Yes, it does. That doesn't mean he has the same star status in Europe, at least on the continent. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• @ Betty: Sales is just one factor among many. We have deleted actors, sports people and musicians before because their merits are only based on sales and perceived beauty.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• My last comments here I hope...For actors from the same time period 80s 90s 2000s we've already trimmed Stalone, DiCaprio, Branagh, Travolta, Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, plus Hoffman and Hackman who started a bit earlier through voting, and Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson, Denzel Washington, Sally Fields, Kevin Costner, Matt Damon? and Halle Berry??? and more before voting started, In addition to several directors of the same period, Zemekis, Peter Jackson, and any minute now Tim Burton. I know it was bloated but we've trimmed a lot, and other bloated sections have barely been touched. Everyone thinks they know movies and music that's what makes them pop culture and half this talk page is full of it. Threads about plants, psychologists, Maths or Hinduism don't get posted alot or get much feedback positive or negative when they are. Pop culture shouldn't be ignored but it's taking too much attention compared to other areas.
• Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, we have all put our views up for others to read if they want, the voting will decide if he stays or goes. I think none of us is going to change our mind on this in 5 minutes. I'd like it if he stayed, but I won't lose sleep over it, I'm trying to get more important topics like Reincarnation in. Carlwev (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you fail in this life, there is always the next... Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Morgan Freeman

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Basically agree with Carl.--Rsm77 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - He is one of the finest American actors who ever lived. Also, his career has spanned 42 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, - he has had a Deep Impact on American film-history and he is popular around the world, and, like Gabe already said, he is one of the finest actors out there. I don't see why you would hold it against him that he started his career at 40 - it's all the more amazing how he made it at that age. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose, he's popular internationally. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - a little comic relief: True Facts About Morgan Freeman--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per Gabe and Melody. This one is going nowhere, suggest speedy archival. Jusdafax 21:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• You know I like him. Although he's a decent actor, again like Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman, not hugely influential, I think Hoffman and Hackman are a bit more notable and they've gone already. I think there are more important actors missing, and I think we have removed more important actors already. I think his age is artificially pushing his image up for inclusion here. Reading his article before the 1980s he didn't do anything in Hollywood except for playing very minor roles, he did some OK stage acting acting but nothing amazing, and other non-acting jobs. A few medium Hollywood roles in the 1980s after he was 40, he wasn't really a big name until he was well into his 50s when he appeared in Robin Hood. His body of work is OK but not groundbreaking. Other younger actors (and directors) working today appeared in cinema earlier and have had more impact too. He has one Oscar but that was for a supporting actor in Million Dollar Baby, we have more substantial Oscar winners missing too. Carlwev (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• The article does need some work, it's only B-class. He won Obie awards for his stage performances, for example in Mother Courage and Her Children. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove William Holden

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support. As nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Musicians and composers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Vladimir Ashkenazy

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Big name conductor as well as pianist. Rothorpe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Per Rothorpe. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose tremendous influence on performance and interpretation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Correcting mistake, originally had this in the support column.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Lang Lang (pianist)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap: Remove Lang Lang (pianist) → Add Sviatoslav Richter

Lang Lang smacks of recentism, he isn't that good, and I wouldn't consider him vital as Richter who next to Horowitz is a God of 20th century pianists. Richter redefined style, his interpretations are praised, emotionally charged. Lang Lang is criticized way too often for bland performances and horrible technique.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Garth Brooks, Add Simon and Garfunkel

Support !votes

1. Support: pbp 16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support also Carlwev (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - essential. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. support remove but not add. --Igrek (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - US folk is already way overrepresented on this list and S&G are not vital, IMO. I've given my support for the straight removal of Brooks in the removal thread below this one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think that there is too much representation of US country, a genre which though massive in the US, does not have the same influence globally. For Dirtlawyer1's reasons I think Brooks is a good person to go. However, if we are planning to reduce the rock section some difficult decisions are ahead and adding S&G won't help matters. I would support a straight removal of Garth Brooks. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I have struck my previous weak support for this swap, and moved to a straight removal of Garth Brooks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Simon and Garfunkel are an improvement in terms of being a "vital" topic. However, I'm not sure if we wouldn't be better off just deleting Garth outright. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Unarchived premature swap. 6-2 is neither unanimous nor a 70% majority. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) S&G are not vital. 2) I think that if we are to add any folk acts they should be non-American for the sake of globalization (US folk and country is already well, if not overrepresented). For example there are several quite notable British and Irish acts that are currently not included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support straight removal. Rothorpe (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Garth Brooks

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: --Rsm77 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - per DL1. Jusdafax 01:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I am supporting the stand-alone removal of Garth Brooks, after having previously expressed my "weak support" for the proposed swap of Simon & Garfunkel for Brooks. Brooks has sold a lot of records, but there is very little original, influential or significant about Brooks music. He is a "pop" country artist, and has had nothing like the lasting national or world-wide impact of country artists like Patsy Cline or Johnny Cash, who were true innovators within the genre and influenced music across a much wider spectrum than just country. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Guillaume Dufay

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. oppose:No reason to add. Not that influential. European rennaissance music already well represented. Not really globalization - find some figures from non-Western traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Maunus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Maunus --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Frederica von Stade

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - Jusdafax 01:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Alla Pugacheva

Support !votes

1. Support: In general, I don't think artists more notable for sales than influence should be included, but especially if they only have regional fame. Sure the former Soviet Union is a big area, but there are plenty of other big areas not represented. For example we could have Teresa Teng for East Asia, but there isn't room on the list for these kinds of artists. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Rsm77. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
3. support per Rsm77, not vital. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Bedrieger (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support pbp 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, see below. --Igrek (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• For my opinion, East Europe and Russia are underrepresented and we should have popular performers from others regions that have regional fame also. --Igrek (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• She's pretty big and been around for about 45 years. Someone has made a sublist called non-English singers, there's not many names in it. Who should appear in such a list if not people like this. Her audience/market may be just as big as US or UK rock/pop artists, just not an English speaking audience. We are including here and there people who are not very well known to accommodate "globalization" or diversity. But now we are trying to remove non English speaking people who are well known and have large sales as well to back it up too. I mean she appears to be the biggest modern Russian/Soviet musician, it's not like we have loads of Russian pop stars. For diversity someone added Fela Kuti to the vital 1000 not 10'000, 1000, I didn't agree with that. Fela appears in 24 languages, Alla in I think 67 languages. I would remove Fela Kuti from the 1000 for your stated reasons but I don't really agree with this removal, although I don't think she is rock solid, I don't think we should remove people just because they don't have a huge English speaking following, but a following of people of other languages. Thank you all the same, let others keep voting. Carlwev (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• (1) I wouldn't remove Fela Kuti from the 10,000 for my reasons because he has influenced other musicians as a pioneer of Afrobeat. (1000 is a bit of a stretch though). Maybe it's just a bad article, but I didn't get the sense Pugacheva had had much of an influence. (2) When you talk about the sublist of non-English singers being short (6 people) right now that doesn't include 7 in non-western traditions and 3 in Latin. Plus Kraftwerk often sang in their native German. (3) I will admit that the number of languages the Alla Pugacheva article appears in is a point in her favour. (4) We should probably look at making some serious cuts to Rock, but I'm not quite sure where to start.--Rsm77 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Off topic comment: I too would not try to remove Fela Kuti from the 10'000, he probably has a place here. I will try to remove him from the 1000, way too much of a stretch. If we want to list the top 10 most vital musicians ever. If you list the most vital musician from each continent, unfortunately you do not end up with the most vital musicians, you remove people that are vital because they happen to be from the same continent as Elvis or Mozart. And add lesser musician in their place because there happens to be no Mozarts from their region. I think Africa may be under presented at the 1000 list I would like to add Ethiopia, 1000s of years of history and over 90M people, not Kuti. I think Alla is a pretty good non English speaking musician to have, I oppose removal. But I'm not adamant the article is the most exceptionally vital article we should definitely have, if consensus removes her so be it, if she goes she goes. Carlwev (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Vladimir Vysotsky

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, we have four French singers, there should be room for Vysotsky on the list per WP:WORLDVIEW. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Prefer if this was a swap, but removals are still happening in decent numbers Carlwev (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

#Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Les Paul add The Dubliners

Support !votes

1. Support: Outside of the US Les Paul is known as a guitar maker, not as a musician. Currently all of the 11 articles in the folk section are Americans and half are country musicians from the 1950s and 1960s. Replacing Les Paul with the Dubliners, one of the longest living and greatest groups of the folk revival period, and a representative of a European folk tradition would be a good start on correcting that bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - Highly vital as a musician, and as an inventor or co-inventor of the electric guitar and multi-track recording. Removing Les Paul does an extreme disservice to the integrity of the vital 10000 list, in my view. Jusdafax 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Jusdafax. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

@Jusdafax Then add him to another section - he is not primarily known as a musician - particularly not a folk or country musician. His main influence is in rock music - so maybe add him there. Here he is just taking up space on a topical list where Americans from the 1950s and 1960s are already overrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Les Paul should be moved to the inventor-section, some think we don't have enough inventors on the list anyway. Melody Lavender (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• To excerpt and enhance my comments from elsewhere: Les Paul had a big series of smash music hits with three number one songs, with one of them, 'How High the Moon' in the Grammy Hall of Fame. He has his own permanent exhibit in the Rock Hall of Fame. Genres in the late 40's - early 50's were mixed up, so he is termed "country" for lack of a better placement. Les Paul was highly influential as an innovative guitarist. Now yes, he also has a huge rep as an inventor, with the electric guitar and multitrack recording arguably to his credit. Wow! But he can't be listed twice, can he, with the bloat we have on the list at present. Inventor or musician? Hmm. So let's leave this alone; it ain't quite right but is the best we have. Jusdafax 02:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Look: Les Paul is not a top selling musician, that argument doesn't hold, with three "smash hits" to his credit hundreds of musicians have a comparable Grammy record. We don't even have half the artists who have gotten Grammy lifetime achievement awards, and we also don't have most of the others that have permanent exhibits in the Rock n Roll hall of fame. Finally Grammies and "halls of fame" are marks of importance that hugely favor American artists. And also we don't usually go by sales, but by influence. Les Paul is simply not vital as a musician or composer and his stylistic influence on any music genre is zilch. He is known today only because of the guitar that carries his name, and through his sound engineering inventions that we still use. His exhibit at the Rock hall of fame is also with other sound engineering pioneers - not with the artists. He should be moved.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Move Les Paul to inventors

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support,--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Let's not tinker here. Jusdafax 21:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• He is clearly not known either as a country or folk musician, so he is definitely misplaced in this section. For Jazz he doesn't have a chance either even that is there area where he is known as a musician. His only lasting fame is as an inventor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Or maybe he should be under "Instrument makers" with Stradivari pbp 21:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets not tinker here? Why do you want to keep an American on the list who is not even known as a folki or country artist? But you won't include a single non-American artist because the list is to big? This is crap reasoning - and the utterly parochial American bias of this ridiculous list is beginning to reek to the high heavens. I am not going to participate in this ridiculous American hit parade any longer. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Maunus. Les Paul and Mary Ford sold 6 million albums in 1951 and had 16 top-ten hits by 1963. Also, many of his innovations to recording techniques (overdubbing, tape delay, phasing effects and multitrack recording) are on par with the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix. He was every bit the significant musician as he was an innovative luthier. We need increased participation and your input is highly valued. Most of my threads havn't gone the way I wanted either; its the nature of this quite democratic process whereby our !votes hold more weight than our rationales. I hope you reconsider your continued participation regardless if your threads go the way you want. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add The Dubliners

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, not vital. --Igrek (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - marginal. Rothorpe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. - Per Rothorpe. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• May I ask why you are opposed to add what is probably the single greatest and best known Irish folk orchestra to a list that currently includes only American musicians?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Joan Baez

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. I suggest we cut elsewhere, like in the rock section. Baez was also an important activist and an icon of her time. The article appears in countless languages and even several dialects that have their own wikipedia.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Melody. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per Melody. Jusdafax 21:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I want to remove her to make room for non-American artists in the folk section. Baez' influence is intimately tied to Dylan's and she is mostly known for playing cover's of his songs. He own influence on folk is extremely limited.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • She has received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award - and lifetime achievement is a pretty good criterion for vitalness. Also, among other awards, she has won the John Steinbeck Award for her contributions to society "In the souls of the people".--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we can't include everyone who has received a lifetime achievement award. Also Grammy's are mostly national - and non-American artists receive Grammys in their own countries. If we were to go by the American Grammy's lifetime achievement awards we would certainly not be able to do anything about the overrepresentation of American artists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Fairport Convention

Support !votes

1. Support: - User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Not now, when we are trying to cut the list down, not expand. Jusdafax 22:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Inessential. Rothorpe (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I can't believe that there are no vital non-american folk musicians or orchestras - so I would really like to request that the opposers make one or two suggestions of non-American artists to add to the Folk list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Turlough O'Carolan

Support !votes

1. Support: Vital Irish folk composer of the 18th century.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Not vital. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Billie Holiday

Support !votes

1. Support: Not a single woman in Jazz section + Billie Holliday is more vital than several of the people in the section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Maunus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support I've thought about nominating her myself. Not always a fan of straight adds, but will vote to remove Fats Waller to balance things up. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - per Rsm77, this is a swap for Fats Waller. Holliday is indeed vital. Jusdafax 22:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support pbp 14:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Holiday's personal performance style has been often imitated, but rarely equaled. She is one of the two or three greatest female blues/jazz artists ever, and here inclusion will improve the VA/E list. As everyone has followed my comments knows, I am emphasizing removals and swaps until we get the VA/E list under its limit of 10,000 articles, but I am going to make an exception here because Maunus, GabeMc and Carl have nominated multiple other musical artists for removal, several of which appear to be on their way to being successfully removed, and I am going to treat this add as a de facto swap. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Fats Waller

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, I have been considering to nominate him for some time. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Not really in the big league. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support - Had some hits but not truly vital for this list. Jusdafax 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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

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

---

Remove Quincy Jones

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - There are too many producers on par with him that we won't be including, e.g. George Martin, Barry Gordy and Phil Spector to name just a few. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - per Gabe. Jusdafax 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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

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

---

Remove Joni Mitchell

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital for Rock. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - On a list and in a field in which women are arguably under-represented, this is a bad call. One of the first big female stand-alone stars in rock. Innovative guitarist with unique tunings, strong composer and genre bending artist. Cut elsewhere, please. Jusdafax 22:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. Women are way under-represented on this list and there must be a better choice for removal than Joni. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Leaning toward support removal. almost Carlwev (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry did I vote to remove an American... SHE IS NOT EVEN A ROCK MUSICIAN AND NEVER WAS FFS. And she got her "unique tunings" off of EUROPEAN FOLK MUSICIANS!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Aram Khachaturian

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support -- "Sabre dance" and what else? seriously, can only name one thing he's composed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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

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

---

Remove Marvin Hamlisch

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital and recentist. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Sure, while we're in a mood to cut secondary American musicians, let's get it done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Salvatore Cammarano

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Clearly not vital Carlwev (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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

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

---

Remove Henry Mancini

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 16:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support -- not vital. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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

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

---

Add King Crimson

Support !votes

1. Support Progressive rock is completely underrepresented. Randomuser112 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose But rock in general is completely overrepresented. I would consider "Progressive rock" a rather narrow (both geographically and temporally) subgenre that cannot count on representation. And we have Pink Floyd already, which i wouold consider the only truly vital name for that genre - much as Nirvana is the only vital name within grunge. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (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.

Sports figures

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Sports figures, 178 for complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Boris Becker

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

How many tennis players do we really want in the end? 10? that might be too many. Is Boris Becker in the top 10 most vital tennis players ever, including both male and female? He does have notability for being one of the youngest winners at 17. Carlwev (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Willie Mays (baseball player)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I call him vital. Jusdafax 22:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Sócrates, Add Gareth Edwards

Support !votes

1. Support. So many football players and no rugby players. Gareth Edwards is often considered to be the greatest rugby player of all time. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose support remove oppose add. Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

With the list being cut down and this swap (my proposal) gaining no support, perhaps it should be archived. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Lasse Virén

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support: pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support,per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support we need to cut in this section. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - We gotta trim, too many runners. Jusdafax 09:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Won gold medals in the 5,000 and 10,000 meters at consecutive Olympics. That's pretty darn impressive. He was also a damn fine marathon runner for his generation, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Vis-a-vis DL's comment, I think we need to prioritize how many 5K, 10K and marathoners should we have on this list? I think having more than three for any distance is too many pbp 13:57, 29 May 2013 (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.

Dancers

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gaétan Vestris

Support !votes

1. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlwev (talk • contribs)
2. Support pbp 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I don't know much about dance, but I can review the articles and use my judgment on who looks less vital. I think we have slightly too many dancers, and they are all of 2 forms, while other forms of dance we actually miss the dance forms themselves, like Flamenco. If anyone has greater knowledge than me any guidance would be welcome. Carlwev (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Arthur Mitchell (dancer)

Support !votes

1. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Explorers

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

---

Swap: Remove John Glenn, Add Buzz Aldrin

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, this swap improves the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support remove not add Not vital by a longshot. Being the first American to do something is not notable in itself. Being the first human to do so is.
4. Support remove not add. Gagarin was first. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Glenn was the first American to orbit the Earth, but what was Buzz first at? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose bad swap pbp 01:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Both are vital and ought to be included. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Neil Armstrong has been added to the vital 1000 in that case I think Buzz at least deserves the 10'000. Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth? If USSR didn't get there before the USA would we be listing the first russian, or in either the first Chinese in orbit, probably not. Glenn is trumped by Yuri Gagarin. In any case Aldrin seems more vital than Glenn to me. Carlwev (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I didn't think nationality was a huge deal. Glenn was not the first human to orbit the Earth, just the first American. We aren't listing the first Chinese in space or Japanese or European. Buzz was closer to being the first man on the Moon than Glenn was to being the first man in space, Buzz was only set foot down a few minutes or seconds after Armstrong. We list both of the 2 man team who climbed Everest first. Do we list the first American who climbed Everest? I can understand the point of view though, and I know Armstrong was commander of the mission Aldrin wasn't. I can see it both ways. Carlwev (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• And yet no one can name the third member of the Apollo 11 team who orbited the moon a few times waiting for Armstrong and Aldrin to scoop up a few moonrocks and get their fix of hopping around down below. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carlwev - being the first American but the fifth human is not very vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 6 July 2013 (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.

Business people

The following discussion is closed. 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 Meyer Guggenheim

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Mark Zuckerberg

Support !votes

1. As nom: recentism.GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Aristotle Onassis

Support !votes

1. As nom.GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Doesn't have much notability aside of his wife pbp 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - Not for a 10k list. Jusdafax 09:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Donald Trump

Support !votes

1. As nom.GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. pbp 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Dump Trump. Jusdafax 09:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support An encyclopedia would not lose much losing him Carlwev (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
7. support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

History

Unsorted history topics

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

---

Swap: Add Canaan, Remove Metacomet

Support !votes

1. Support Carlwev (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, good swap.--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Native American history severely underrepresented. Metacomet's role in King Philips war war was decisive for the future of all New England tribes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Maunus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose oppose add, support remove.Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

different sections, but both historic, Canaan is more vital, covers more area, more time, more events, in more languages. Carlwev (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• If he's main importance is that he influenced an "important" war...Surely then King Philip's War (that we don't have) has to be more vital than one of the leaders that took part in it. Carlwev (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Canaan

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ahh yes globalization, a historical non western region that lasted thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of people, several wars, not as vital by itself or compared to one historical leader who lived less than 40 years, fought one war and lost it, along with his life and the lives of 3000 of his men. Makes perfect sense. Carlwev (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• That comment was a bit rude and I want to appear passionate but not rude. I meant to say...I believe entire empires/regions like this that lasted thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of people, several wars to be good encyclopedia material. Only my judgment, though. I think there are many important history topics that span centuries or millennia and huge numbers of people, that are forgotten or left off in favour of other areas such as 24 paintings and 8 figure skaters to pick on a few. Carlwev (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2013 (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.

Geography

• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography

Basics

• Please see here for the current sub-list.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Americas

Support !votes

1. As nom. We already have North America and South America. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose pbp 21:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Carlwev. --Igrek (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I really thought and read about this first before making my decision. Where I would definitely have N ans S America first, like the 100 list. This list is 10000. Many named regions are covered by other named regions, it is a topic of discussion and a clear physical geography entity. The whole old world new world idea. It's indigenous population as a whole cut off from and almost completely unknown to the old world for centuries, the whole general colonization of the region by Europeans after Columbus came. Within a list as big as 10'000. Although yes we do have N and S I still think this topic does stand alone a vital topic, wikipedia users seem to think the topic was worth writing a long article for, giving it top or high importance, in several wikiprojects, and it appears in about 165 languages, which is high for a region article. It's more than just a meaningless region term. There are some areas I think get less attention and are less vital. We have Australia the nation as we should, The overlaps of Australia (continent), Oceania, and Australasia stand out a bit more as does Afro Eurasia. Large regions already covered by other articles can still be important. We have E and W coast of the US. We have N S E W and central Europe, but all seem important topics, I wouldn't remove them ONLY because the land is covered in another article. The stand out non vital topics in geography to me are the straits and seas, physical geography like Turan depression and interior plains etc. Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Cartographic censorship

Support !votes

1. As nom. I assume this is subsumed by Cartography. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Not a great article to have, I'm sure we don't have Censorship of Movies or Music etc Carlwev (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Topological map

Support !votes

1. As nom. This is just a type of map, which is already included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I would say the topic is covered better by Topology, which I presume we must have in math. Looking at Category:Map_types shows how many map types there are, flicking through, them there are several map types that look more important than this one. In any case, yes, I think we can lose this. Carlwev (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Virtual globe

Support !votes

1. As nom. We already have globe. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support thought of booting this before, good call. Computing term, more vital things missing in computing than this. Do we even have virtual reality? Carlwev (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Regions and physical geography

The following discussion is closed. 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 Argentine Antarctica

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support removing. --Igrek (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (vote moved from other section but clear)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

see also swap regions for cities

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

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

---

Remove British Antarctic Territory

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support removing. --Igrek (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (vote moved from other section but clear)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

see also swap regions for cities

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

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

---

Remove Interior Plains

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, the geography section is too big, there's almost enough material there to fill the 100.000 most vital articles list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Interior Plains is not used much, probably wouldn't appear in an encyclopedia as a stand alone topic. We already have Great Plains, probably not exactly the same meaning but enough overlap to make it redundant. All good info is at Great Plains which is in more languages. Interior plains seems to be more geology, but there are loads of far more important geology topics missing, this is far from being a vital geology article too. Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Turkish Kurdistan, Add Tibet

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Turkish Kurdistan is not a great article nor in a great number of languages, it's an unofficial term. In Turkish language it does not even have it's own article, it has a section within the Kurdistan article that English article Turkish Kurdistan interlinks to. We already have Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region, Turkish Kurdistan is not. We already have an article Eastern Anatolia Region which covers a very similar area. Tibet? I could go on about why we should have Tibet but I hope users already know. I am very surprised it isn't here. We have Tibetan Plateau in physical geography, but that is only about the climate, geology and wildlife, almost nothing about people, history, culture or religion. Tibetan Plateau is in no way a substitute for not having Tibet, and it doesn't even cover the same area anyway. We have a "regions" section in addition to a countries section, which is good place for it as it's definitely a region and we don't have to address it's status or non status. Tibet is a no brainer for me, I just hope I have selected a good swap for this though. Carlwev (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Turan Depression

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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

Bodies of water

• For the current sub-list, please see here.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Amundsen Sea

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Amundsen Sea" — 8,540. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Bellingshausen Sea

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose, Bellingshausen Sea is more inportant than Amundsen Sea. --Igrek (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Bellingshausen Sea" — 19,100. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Flores Sea

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --Igrek (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I was contemplating this one already and a few of the other small seas within SE Asian archipelago Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Flores Sea" — 15,400. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (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.

Swap: Add Jordan River, Remove Benue River

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Longer isn't always more vital, as I thought with the Thames. I always thought the Jordan River to be fairly important, but I'm not as sure with this one as I was with the Thames. I will propose it anyway as the support Thames got surprised me a bit. Jordan is mentioned in the Bible is some of the border beween Israel and Jordan, and like the Nile, although no where as big serves as the main water source in an otherwise baron area. The damming or potential damming or diverting of its water is part of the reason for the states hostility to one another. I think it's more vital than Benue, but is it that vital? would it be better to just remove Benue out right? I'll let people vote on both. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Benue" — 440,000.
• "Benue State" - 37,100
• "Benue River" — 19,700. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Benue River

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Benue" — 440,000.
• "Benue State" - 37,100
• "Benue River" — 19,700. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Liao River

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk&#124 contribs)} 23:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Liao River" — 20,400. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Kara Strait

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Kara Strait" — 3,280. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Koro Sea

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

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Koro Sea" — 3 330. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (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.

Countries

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

---

Country and Sovereign state listed twice

Leave Country in geography and leave Sovereign state in political science

Support!votes

1. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Country is a (political) geographical concept, sovereign state is a political science topic. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Country and Sovereign state from Geography

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 22:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Country and Sovereign state from Social sciences, Politics and government.

Support !votes

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

It appears the list is orientated toward having things that are not places not in geography, having kinds of Physical Earth features at Earth science, that is river, mountain, ocean, dessert. But individual examples of them that exist as places within geography, Nile Everest, Atlantic, Sahara. There are many government body kinds of articles in Social sciences, politics and government. Like state, empire etc, so these kind of look better there. Country is not a place. I can see this both ways but am leaning slightly on way. We may need to discus the placement of City, Town etc later they're presently in geography. Core project a separate project, uses the same placement for country and city, as I am supporting here. Carlwev (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2013 (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.

Politically independent associated states

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cook Islands

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Niue

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I'm really wondering about these 2, what makes them more important than say, Jersey or the Channel Islands. Jersey is partly independent too, has more population, more hits more languages. And if that, what about another city say Bristol? also almost 1000 years history more views and languages, much higher pop. I don't know?

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

Parks and preserves

See Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Geography#Parks_and_preserves.2C_43 for the whole sublist of related topics.

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

---

Swap: Add Wellington, Remove Te Wahipounamu

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose, Brisbane and Perth are more important, Auckland (largest NZ city) is included. --Igrek (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• National park in New Zealand, we hardly have any New Zealand places, in fact we don't even have its capital city, this park was only designated in 1990 by clumping 4 parks together and giving it one name, hardly vital. Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• @Carl, maybe we should consider converting this to a swap of the park for the city of Wellington? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes OK I will Carlwev (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I propose to add New Zealand's capital city Wellington in the appropriate list, with the removal of Te Wahipounamu, a national park in New Zealand. The capital city seems much more a vital than a national park made in 1990, from a national or international point of view. Carlwev (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• I didn't see any other world-heritage-sites or national reserves in New Zealand on the list - did I miss something? Wellington should be added, but probably not at the expense of Te Wahipounamu. Melody Lavender (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Brisbane and Perth have since been added, Yes we have Auckland. Question still remains, what is more vital out of Wellington and this park. I still say Wellington. But that's just me. Carlwev (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Te Wahipounamu

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Discussion: Regions and country subdivisions

Do we really need 277 articles. The majority of the articles are not important at all. Some countries are listed with 10/20 regions while other are not at all. I don't think we need more than about 50 articles. We should decide what makes a region vital enough to be on the list. Any suggestions or ideas?--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

While I think we could shed 40-50, I do feel that Geography is fairly right-sized as a whole, and I am worried how the proposed cuts will affect globalization bias pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added some western regions to keep the balance. USA in my opinion is overrepresented, but I couldn't decide which states are the least vital. My greatest concern is that only few countries are represented. Obviously we can't add every country, so the best choice is to keep only the most vital and remove the majority of them. IMO we should leave the autonomous regions, the historically important ones and the supranational ones. The others can go. Considering the fact we already include an article about the country and perhaps at least one of its cities, I see no reason to include the majority of its regions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to some comments, I think this is a great idea, well over half or more could go, still need to look at them one by one. Some obvious keeps, many obvious boots, some half and half. More likely to keep autonomous regions, and culturally and historically significant regions. Less modern administrative only regions. We'll probably disagree on a few but all agree on most. I would also look at other areas, namely peninsulas, to reduce I would rather have/keep Korea and Scandinavia, but remove Scandinavian Peninsula, Korean Peninsula, Fennoscandia, Kola Peninsula. Had this section in the back of my mind for a while, but it involves so many articles I put it off for ages. I am also wondering how much we can gain from having Italian Peninsula, in addition to Italy? If we have ended up less global, like keeping US states but removing Sudanese states, If and only if we get under target, then I would look at topics from other areas that are probably more vital than administrative regions, such as Maasai people, to restore a better balance. But that's way in the future not now. I will review them one by one later when I have more time, busy at the moment, it's not going anywhere for the minimum 2 weeks anyway. Carlwev (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

We are having a discussion which articles to keep on the bottom of the page. You might want to check it out. These proposals were made before the decision to scrap the entire section so they are redundant now. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ethiopian regions: Amhara Region, Oromia Region, Somali Region, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region and Tigray Region

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Population (2007):
• Amhara Region 17,214,056
• Oromia Region 27,158,471
• Somali Region 4,439,147
• Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region - 15,042,531
• Tigray Region 4,316,988
• We have many counrtries and cities with populations less than 1000 000. --Igrek (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Nigerian regions: Anambra State, Borno State, Delta State, Kaduna State, Kano State, Lagos State, Niger State, Oyo State, Rivers State and Plateau State

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Population (2006):
• 1 Kano State 9,401,288
• 2 Lagos State 9,113,605
• 3 Kaduna State 6,113,503
• 4 Katsina State 5,801,584
• 5 Oyo State 5,580,894
• 6 Rivers State 5,198,716
• 7 Bauchi State 4,653,066
• 8 Jigawa State 4,361,002
• 9 Benue State 4,253,641
• 10 Anambra State 4,177,828
• 11 Borno State 4,171,104
• 12 Delta State 4,112,445
• 13 Imo State 3,927,563
• 14 Niger State 3,954,772
• 25 Plateau State 3,206,531
• We have many counrtries and cities with populations less than 1000 000. --Igrek (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sudan regions: Darfur and Kurdufan

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Kurdufan pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Darfur pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Population (2007):
• Darfur 6 million (2004)
• Kurdufan 3.6 million (2000)
• We have many counrtries and cities with populations less than 1000 000. --Igrek (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Turkey regions: Aegean Region, Black Sea Region, Central Anatolia, Eastern Anatolia, Marmara Region, Mediterranean Region, Southeastern Anatolia and Turkish Kurdistan

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support many of them provided that there are articles devoted to Anatolia and Kurdistan pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Both Anatolia and Kurdistan are on the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Antarctic regions: Argentine Antarctica, British Antarctic Territory, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Marie Byrd Land, Ross Dependency, Victoria Land and Queen Maud Land

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Volhynia

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Donets Basin

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Emilia-Romagna

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Apulia

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Lazio

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Piedmont

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Aquitaine

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Historically significant region pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Burgundy

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Historically significant region pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Brittany (administrative region)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

• #Oppose Historically significant region pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

This isn't the article about the historical region, it's about the modern one. I'll add a swap proposal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap:Remove Brittany (administrative region), Add Brittany

Support !votes

1. Support per discussion above. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 19:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Languedoc

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Rhône-Alpes

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Rhineland-Palatinate

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Hesse

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (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.

Arts

Literature

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Literature, 198 for a complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Chłopi, Add Snow Country

Support !votes

1. Support The writer of Chlopi, Władysław Reymont, is not on the list and the article itself only exists in three languages. I have a hard time believing it's vital. It would be nice to replace it with another novel that's not in a major European language though, so I have selected Snow Country (Japanese) which is the most famous novel by Yasunari Kawabata, another Nobel Prize winner, but who has had more of a worldwide impact than Reymont. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Being familiar with both works, it behooves me to mention that this is a tough swap. However, Snow Country is vital in modern Asian literature. Chłopi, while a significant and worthy work, is not as comparatively vital in the scheme of Eastern European literature.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I have read Snow Country but not Chlopi. I think it's worth noting that Snow Country is currently available in several European languages while Chlopi is out of print. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Duino Elegies; Remove Kipling's "If" or Rimbaud's "Season in Hell"

• Per discussion below, I would propose replacing either Kipling's "If" or Rimbaud's "Season in Hell" to add Duino Elegies to the list.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support. ColonelHenry (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, vital --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support I will propose If for removal --Rsm77 (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - Per Henry. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Without commenting on the merits of the work, I cannot support adding the Duino Elegies until we get the total number of articles listed on Vital Articles/Expanded below its stated limited of 10,000 topics. Alternatively, a swap could be proposed. We need to exhibit some discipline, folks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would like to propose Duino Elegies for inclusion as a Level 4 Vital Article in the Arts/Literature/Modern Poetry category...Currently, it is a recent FA (promoted today, incidentally). However, it is just as important in the context of influencing 20th century/modern poetry as Eliot's "The Waste Land" and has considerable currency in popular culture. I would venture to say in terms of its position on the cusp of Late German Romanticism and Modern Poetry, its deep mysticism, in its moments of existential despair and boundless enthusiasm, and its impact on culture then and now, it is more important and influential than most of the current listees: Yeats' Second Coming, or Ginsburg's Howl, and Pound's Cantos, and much more influential on modern poetry than Rimbaud's A Season in Hell or Kiplings sentimental "If-" ColonelHenry (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Colonel Henry, if you would like to propose a swap in favor of this work, by proposing a specific work of lower priority to be removed to make room, I would be open to considering it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Any one of the ones currently on the list that I mentioned above as being less important. I'd propose removing Rimbaud's A Season in Hell or Kipling's If, perhaps both of them, in exchange for it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Would User:Igrek and User:GabeMc offer some insight on why they would oppose this swap? Of the works that started 20th century modernism, we have two of the three: Eliot's "The Waste Land", Joyce's Ulysses--we're missing Rilke's Duino Elegies. Why should we not rectify this omission by getting rid of a sappy non-vital Kipling poem? Please reconsider. I have asked User:Dirtlawyer1 twice to reconsider because the reason for his opposition is moot (i.e. it was originally proposed as an add, now it's a swap).--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Duino Elegies" — 34,500. --Igrek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• So you can use google, what does that prove? In your rush to accept google as the grand oracle and final arbiter of all things (absent any substantive reasons), you neglect to mention the 65,900 for "Duineser Elegien", or 74,000 for "Duineser Elegie", or 154,000 for "Rilke+Elegien" or 71,600 for "Rilke+Duineser" at books.google.de, or pay much heed to the caution expressed at WP:GOOGLETEST. The world doesn't just speak English, and for someone who advocates a more global (i.e. less American/less English-language) presence at VA/E, your stance doesn't compute. Btw, other google books numbers: "Rilke" (the poet): 2,210,000 results, "Rainer Maria Rilke" About 783,000 results, Elegies and Rilke: 123,000 results, Duino and Rilke: 109,000. I doubt you even looked at the DE article much less realize that scholars and critics recognize that DE "might well be called the greatest set of poems of modern times". A book that has sold millions of copies in the US, and published over 20 complete English translations and hundreds of translated excerpts, by a poet that outsells every American poet doesn't matter. Do you have any reasons with merit or substance? Pray, tell how you find yourself disagreeing with scholars and critics that assert Rilke's importance? --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Add Eugene Onegin, Remove And Quiet Flows the Don

Support !votes

1. Support Eugene Onegin has a central place in Russian literature which And Quiet Flows the Don cannot match. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support I agree entirely with Rsm77's comments above. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Note for classification purposes that Eugene Onegin is a novel in verse. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• I am unfamiliar with these, but after reading through both the articles Eugene Onegin does seem more important than And Quiet Flows the Don. Carlwev (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Carl, if you want to get familiar with Onegin in an intimate way without reading it (I will warn that the English translations are horrible and I learned Russian just to read the original), there are videos of the Metropolitan Opera's performance of Tchaikovsky's opera adapted from Onegin's work from a few years ago on YouTube. The duel scene in Act II is tremendously poignant.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Google Books search results:
  
• "And Quiet Flows the Don" — 596,000.
• "Eugene Onegin" — 156,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I've used Google a lot and I know that its estimates for number of pages are wildly inaccurate. There are 90-something pages of results for Eugene Onegin and 40-something pages for And Quiet Flows the Don on Google Books if you click through to look that far. --117.55.68.144 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry, wasn't logged in. Anyway, not writing that on every mention of Google Books, so hope people see it here. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Rsm77...when people aren't familiar with the works (no Russian lit scholar would EVER say And Quiet Flows the Don was a more important and vital work than Pushkin's Onegin), and despite the logic of WP:GOOGLETEST and pointing out the fallacies of relying on google's error-prone algorithm, it's damn the facts, look at the google hits. In my judgment, if a hit count from google is someone's only reason for their vote, they don't have a reason. Hey, while we're at it, there's more Tom Clancy book sales than any of those dusty books by some bloke called Charles Dickens, therefore Clancy must be more vital. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Add Gulliver's Travels, Remove The Taming of the Shrew

Support !votes

1. Support No disrespect to the Bard, but he doesn't really need ten plays on the list. The Taming of the Shrew is one of his more minor works. I hope the case for Gulliver's Travels is clear. Firmly embedded in world culture. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support as per nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support, per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support, per nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Agree with nominators comments. Also a while ago before all this voting started, I myself removed several fictional characters, that were either terrible inclusions or redundant to their parent work. I removed Gulliver the character as I presumed the novel must surely be included already, but I never checked, and what do you know it wasn't; if I knew that at the time I would have carried out a swap then instead of a straight removal. I agree no one should have 10 works here. And even ignoring that, Gulliver's travels probably has had more impact and is more vital than Taming of the Shrew anyway. Good swap. Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "The Taming of the Shrew" — 441,000.
• "Gulliver's Travels" — 834,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove If—

Support !votes

1. Support It is very popular in the UK, but not very influential on poetry and not well-known outside the UK. Given the extreme shortness of the list, I don't think it has a strong enough case. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support likely will be removed in swap with my Duino Elegies proposal above, but it's sappy poem that aside from its sentimental value has little effect on the larger narrative of poetry, and little serious scholarly interest. It's a sentimental favourite, certainly...but largely as unimportant in the grand scheme of things akin to Joyce Kilmer's "Trees".--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I was thinking about nominating this and other poems myself. Both here on Wikipedia and in other encyclopedias, individual poems such as this, or poem collections, just don't seem to get much attention, maybe that shows they are not vital in themselves. Poets get attention, single poems like this not as much. Carlwev (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Add Madame Bovary, Remove A Farewell to Arms

Support !votes

1. Support Madame Bovary is one of the most influential novels ever. FWIW there is only one other French novel on the modern list currently (In Search of Lost Time). For Hemingway, removing AFTA would still leave The Sun Also Rises and The Old Man and the Sea which is more than enough when other huge writers are limited to one work.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, for globalization. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Madame Bovary needs to be represented. Period. On another note, I am saddened that we have The Sun Also Rises and not the more influential For Whom the Bell Tolls.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "A Farewell to Arms" — 130,000.
• "Madame Bovary" — 893,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Add Pride and Prejudice, Remove The Forsyte Saga

Support !votes

1. Support The case for P&P should be clear as one of the most enduringly famous novels in the world. What to replace is more problematic. The Forsyte Saga is much loved, but I don't think it's in the big league. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, I was thinking along the same lines. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Strengthens list, in my view. Jusdafax 16:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. I cannot name another critically acclaimed novel that remained anywhere near as popular 200 years after it was first published. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "The Forsyte Saga" — 1,990,000.
• "Pride and Prejudice" — 554,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Add Uncle Tom's Cabin, Remove The Good Earth

Support !votes

1. Support Uncle Tom's Cabin was the best-selling novel of the 19th century and hugely influential on slavery issues and race relations ever since. The Good Earth is not really in the front rank of classics and though it gains some notability for its cultural impact, this impact is nothing compared to that of UTC. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support, a classic book --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Note I am not nominating UTC for its literary merits, which are dubious, but for its cultural impact. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Again some may want to have both of these, but Uncle Tom's Cabin sure looks more important of the 2. Cultural impact should always be a strong factor in these decisions, as well as literary merits. Even though sales is not the most important factor, Uncle Tom's Cabin seems to be very high up in sales figures too. Carlwev (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "The Good Earth" — 165,000.
• "Uncle Tom's Cabin" — 851,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Add The War of the Worlds, Remove Childhood's End

Support !votes

1. Support Childhood's End is a fine novel and well-known within the genre, but The War of the Worlds has had massive influence both inside and outside the genre. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Some may want them both, but there's no denying War of the Worlds is more important than Childhood's End. Carlwev (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Childhood's End" — 31,100.
• "The War of the Worlds" — 104,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove A Wrinkle in Time

Support !votes

1. Support This seems well out of place on the list. It may be big in the US, but it's not even well-known the UK, and the fact the article only appears in four languages other than English (one of which is Simple English) suggests it's not well-known globally either. Certainly it's not up there with Alice, Narnia, and The Little Prince. I was thinking about a possible replacement candidate but couldn't decide. Little Women or Watership Down are more influential as children's novels or this could be somewhere to slot in the ever-controversial Harry Potter series. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support, not notable internationally. --V3n0M93 (talk)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Yeah, I've never heard of it in the UK and even after reviewing the article it doesn't appear to be a top tier vital book, considering what books are missing. All the other books you mentioned and probably more are more deserving of a place than this. I support this removal. Carlwev (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• When we are seeking 300+ cuts across every sublist, this should be a very easy one to remove. Please keep scouring the lists for more easy cuts, RSM. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "A Wrinkle in Time" — 24,500. --Igrek (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (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.

Music

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Music, 170 for a complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Nevermind, Add Grunge

Support !votes

• Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support If grunge was an uninfluential fad then why include Nevermind at all? It is better to have the more general topic than a more specific one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Grunge was a passing fad that hasn't really influenced anyone in about 15 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Grunge is not really worth including. --Rsm77 (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Nevermind

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support we don't have enough space for babies to chase dollar bills pbp 04:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• When Nevermind was on here before, Nirvana themselves were not, so I thought OK. Then Nirvana was added but Nevermind stayed. I am not proposing to remove Nirvana, but I consider them to be borderline. How influential are they compared to the missing Red Hot Chili Peppers or R.E.M. or Fleetwood Mac who's who's careers where 3 decades long, or 4.5 decades for Mac, compared to Nirvana's 7-8 years. Nirvana has lower sales. Influence? Nirvana probably wins that one but by how much, and that's POV anyway. That being said I don't think a band like Nirvana should have themselves and an album included when bands of similar stature don't get in full stop. Nevermind is by far their most influential and higher selling album, well i would have thought so anyway. But do we need both band and album? Only question is, should this be a removal or swap? I'm not sure, I think there are too many swaps and not enough adds being proposed, I'll have to alleviate that soon. But this one? I'll post a removal and a swap thread and see what wins, if any. Is Grunge important enough to be in, or is it too obscure a genre, we have Alternative rock and Heavy Metal already? probably more vital than one Grunge album though? Carlwev (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Influentiality is not measured in career spans. Many of the most influential names have very short periods of being hugely influential and then dissappear into oblivion for one reason or the other. BUt I do agree that it's better to have the general topic than the more specific one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap, Remove Revolver (The Beatles album), Add Revolver (firearm)

Support !votes

1. support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 04:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - I dislike these apples to oranges swaps. Also, we already have handgun, which subsumes revolver (firearms). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per GabeMc, would support removal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why add Revolver (firearm)? We already have Handgun. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Why keep this album? we already have Beatles, and Sgt Pepper, and I want to hold your hand, and All you need is love, and Lennon, and McCartney. In the long run, in terms of history of the whole planet, I believe specific examples of firearms are more important than specific examples of Beatles works. Firearms can be widely used by many people over large areas of land and of large areas of history, they help shape history, and change the mechanics of combat. Hand gun is a generic term revolver specific. We are keeping many specific alcoholic beverages rather than generic one, as we believe they give a reader better information this is the same to me. Carlwev (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Carl, are there any revolvers that are not also handguns or machine guns? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Revolver (The Beatles album)

Support !votes

1. support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support pbp 19:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap or removal best, Sgt Pepper already here, don't need 2 Beatles albums one should go, it's close which one, Sgt Pepper usually wins but not always. Revolver vital firearm article, handgun is a generic term, revolver is an example of a firearm. Carlwev (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is just going to end up devolving into a best Beatles album debate at some indefinite point. That being said, Abbey Road's the best. 71.97.74.141 (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Have we decided that classical composers may also have only one work included? How about writers? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 7 July 2013 (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.

Films

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Modern visual arts, 80 for complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Intolerance (film), Add The_Searchers_(film)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --Rsm77 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Betty. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• The Searchers was voted the seventh best film of all time in the 2012 Sight and Sound critics' poll, and is often considered to be the best Western ever. Currently there are no Westerns on the list. I don't think we need two selections from DW Griffith and the silent era is quite well-represented. Tough to choose which one to cut, as Intolerance is more critically acclaimed (more votes in Sight & Sound critics' polls), but Birth of a Nation was groundbreaking for film and the first movie blockbuster. [Note, I previously suggested to cut Birth of a Nation, but have edited to change to Intolerance].--Rsm77 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am opposing this one. The Birth of a Nation is probably second only to Citizen Kane in influence, and Intolerance had huge impact on film narrative too. I would very much like to see The Searchers added to the list, but there are more obvious candidates for replacement at this stage: West Side Story, Doctor Strangelove, Midnight Cowboy etc. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Birth of a Nation was in many ways the first modern blockbuster film, receiving both huge box office returns and critical acclaim, while employing pioneering techniques that were copied by every film that followed. The Searchers, by general acknowledgement, is one of the two or three best westerns ever made. Intolerance simply did not break new ground in the same way that Birth of a Nation did, nor is it widely remembered in the same way that Birth of a Nation is. I might also add that I am extremely skeptical of reliance on single industry polls, such as the Sight and Sound rankings cited above, as the basis for including or deleting any movie. This list will ultimately include 40 to 45 films, 20 to 25 of which will be American films. Is Intolerance among the 20 to 25 greatest American films ever made? No, it is not, and I can easily name 15 to 20 more significant American-made movies. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• I would trade West Side Story(currently already listed, 4 support votes for removal) for the Searchers. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Melody, that's not the way "prioritization" works. You don't get to pick an obvious candidate for deletion that has already been nominated and has four votes and then propose a swap after the fact. We started with the obvious deletion candidates (many of which have had pending discussions since April or May), and now we are trying to force swaps of high priority topics for remaining lower priority ones. I am more than a little concerned by the recent spate of random adds, many to already bloated pop culture lists. The required sense of discipline seems to be fading. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove La Strada, Add L'Avventura

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Fellini already has three pics on the list (8.5 and La Dolce Vita). Antonioni is currently unrepresented. L'Avventura is easily the more influential film featuring in three consecutive S&S polls, and a huge impact on visual narrative in film. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support as per BL --Rsm77 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Three Fellini films is too many. ~~
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - Per Betty. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose!votes

1. Weak oppose, because I want them both on. Maybe 8 and a half should be eliminated? --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose...agree entirely with Melody, two essential films and I'd prefer them both on. Disagree though on removing 8 1/2.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Melody. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I don't think we can really consider removing 8.5, it is Fellini's most iconic film, and only Citizen kane, The Rules of the Game and Battleship Potemkin have been included on more S&S polls. Betty Logan (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Mon Oncle, Add L'Atalante

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Mon Oncle was successful and critically respected, but I don't think it belongs on a list of the 50 most influential films of all-time. On the other hand L'Atalante probably does, featuring on the S&S decennial poll twice and numerous other lists, and comes third after The Rules of the Game and Breathless in regards to Frencg films on the The Shoot Pictures list aggregator. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support L'Atalante certainly belongs ahead of Mon Oncle, which is not significant enough for the list. I do wonder whether there might be a better option though.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I am inclined to start opposing some of these nominations because of the over-reliance on a single industry poll (Sight and Sound) that is less popular and no more influential than AFI and BFI. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the five films I nominated for swaps yesterday (Triumph of the Will, L'Avventura, Breathless, l'Atlante & Deep Throat) only two have featured in S&S polls! Yesterday I even made a concerted effort to look beyond critical reverence and consider films that were cultural phenomenons too. They Shoot Pictures btw is an aggregator of many polls across many publications and L'Atlante places at #17, so its reverence among world cinema is hardly unique to S&S in this case. It's not surprising that a film that scores so highly in other polls has also featured in a S&S poll: most of the titans of world cinema have appeared on the poll at some point over the last 60 years (even The Searchers appears on the poll several times). Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Jacques Tati is listed as a comedian, I think that is enough. What else is Mon Oncle known for except for being the most famous Jacques Tati-movie? I'm not so sure about the addition of L'Atalante - that is the problem with the swap method - exchanging Mon Oncle for The searchers or La strada (currently being voted off) would be a better swap.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting the La strada thing, Melody. The reason I selected l'Atalante ahead of La Strada for example is simply because it generally rates higher in world cinema polls and Fellini has three entries on the list and I didn't really want to cut the French representation. Other than a personal preference thing, is there an objective reason we should be looking at La Strada ahead of L'Atalante, L'Avventura and Fellini's other two films? I could probably just as easily be convinced that we should choose La Strada ahead of La Dolce Vita for instance. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2013 (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.

Philosophy and religion

Religion

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion for complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ishvara, Add Avatar

Support !votes

1. Support Avatar is a central Hindu concept. I admit I don't know much about Ishvara but nothing I see in its article makes me think it's vital. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Ishvara, rated a top importance in Religion project, high imp. in Hinduism project. But I don't know if I buy that. If it were truly vital concept to Hinduism, I am wondering why it is lacking in most SE Asian languages. For languages I know are spoken there in decent numbers in SE Asia, the article appears in Zhongwen (used in part of China), Sinhala (Used in part of Sri Lanka), and English. Not any others. I wonder if it is an alternative term for an important concept? a guess. Like "God" is a very important topic, "Jahovah" is a fairly important topic, but, is kind of just another term for "God". So that means it's kind of redundant and would be a stand alone topic less often. In the article it says Ishvara means "ccontroller/god" and is a name for Shiva, so like Jahovah, maybe it is kind of redundant to Shiva then and would appear as a stand alone topic less often. Only a guess? I support for those reasons. It appears to be an alternative term or a name for an already included topic, Shiva, God, or Deity. Carlwev (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Longchenpa, Add Nirvana

Support !votes

1. Support Nirvana is an important concept in Buddhism and also a feature of other religions and has become a familiar concept throughout the world. Longchenpa was a Buddhist teacher in Tibet, but does not have many articles in different languages about him and is not mentioned in the Tibetan Buddhism article. Even in the article on his school Nyingma (one of four schools in Tibet) he does not stand out as the most important person within it. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

On your reasoning, and reviewing the article my judgment agrees, good call......I don't want to preach but I can't help help it...... I just hope no one starts rejecting on the grounds of "oh no person for a concept too complicated, brain can't handle it, Apples and oranges errghh." If someone genuinely wants to keep an article like this, because they think the article in itself is vital fine, but I wish all the stupid Apple and Oranges remarks would stop, it's plain ridiculous, if your brain or view can't get around such an idea, some lists are too big others too small, and with swaps the only way to get articles in, we are forced to cross swap. We should not be forced to wait 6 months to add articles like this, while still allowing rock bands to be eligible for immediate addition. And they are not completely different topics either, both important topics to Buddhism, one is a man the other a concept/belief. To me it's obvious which is more vital out of these two. Carlwev (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Neopaganism (duplicate), Add Reincarnation

Support !votes

1. Support Neopaganism appears twice - in Theistic philosophies and New religious movements so make Carl a happy man and put reincarnation in its place. But seriously, this is an important part of some major religions and has become a much-discussed concept all over the world. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

#Oppose, both are vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes I am a happy man, beaming at lap top. May you come back as a rich person in your next life. But seriously, yes this is so clearly a vital topic in a list as big as 10'000. If Neopaganism is listed twice it's a no brainer, good some one noticed. I am wondering how many unnoticed duplications remain in on single pages or across 2 pages.
• Also discussing Neopaganism, it redirects to Modern paganism. Although Neopaganism is the well known term, we should list articles actual names shouldn't we? not redirecting terms?
• Having said that. Page ranking shows Modern paganism to have 500-600 monthly views, but Neopaganism (presuming viewing article via redirect) to have around 10'000 monthly views. Odd, I may check the article hasn't recently moved, eg changed it's title. I may bring this up on the talk page of the article itself. Perhaps one is politically correct term and the other potiently offensive and I don't it. But is seems odd to pick one term for an article title if another term is 20 times more popular. In fact if you look at how many pages link to Modern paganism. Over half are from a Neopaganism or derivative term, a load more from other terms, contemporary paganism etc. Look how many link to the actual title as it is with no redirect [[1]] almost none? what? I also found this [[2]] search for pagan. I don't know if that is a reason. I am a little confused. Anyway I may opt to rename the Modern paganism article to Neopanism. Carlwev (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Spearthrower Owl, Add Reincarnation

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Good swap of high priority topic for low priority topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. oppose remove but support add This is apples and oranges to compare. Is the only known lord of the world's largest city at 300AD less notable than a religious concept? I don't know. But I do know that native american and mesoamerican history is hugely underrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Now that "SO" has been removed via another thread. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Sorry, this is a swap of completely different things but please consider it anyway. The religion and philosophy section doesn't have many articles that look like obvious removal candidates, (my last attempt at swapping out a religion article, Great Spirit, has already got an oppose, I though that was one of the worst.) So this is removing a biography, a section which everyone agrees is bloated, and adding an article to religion, a section that is not as bloated. I am proposing to remove Spearthrower Owl, from perhaps the 300s AD a Meso American ruler of Teotihuacan, of whom there is hardly any information or evidence on him or what he did, and is not a vital article, and I'm not sure how he got here. I propose to add reincarnation to religion, incredibly vital topic to many religions such as Hinduism and others. So vital I believe it possibly has a shot at getting in the 1000 list too, (more important than Goddess which is there?) I know these are from different sections but seriously assess which article is more vital. I am very surprised this article has been missed. Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, it's an odd swap of unrelated topics, but Spearthrower Owl does not merit a place among the VA/E 10,000 and reincarnation does. As certain sublists get tighter and more refined, with fewer obvious candidates for deletion, we are going to see more cross-category swaps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, can we please preserve the alphabetization of the discussion topic lists? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• We're all entitle to our views, but some views really really perplex me. Spearthrower Owl vital really???? Reincarnation not vital, OK. There are so many historical cities and states with no leaders missing, not to mention cities and states them selves, we only just added Golden Horde. There are so many important leaders missing, to include someone like this is unwise. We want people whom have had an impact on the world, if there is hardly any evidence or documentation of a persons actions, (whether it be historical or mythological) how does anyone even know what impact he had? His life story can not influence other people if no one knows his story. I'm pretty sure Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Babylonia, Chang'an were among the biggest cities around 300 AD. Teotihuacan was quoted to be one of the biggest cities in 500 BC, 800 years before Spearthrower Owl. Jericho and Çatalhöyük were believed to be the biggest cities in the whole world in their hey day, not only do we not list any rulers of those cities, we don't even list the cities themselves. I'll leave this thread up to run its coarse and try some similar threads as well. Carlwev (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Turan Depression, Add Reincarnation

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Yes it's another cross swap, I believe religion doesn't have many obvious stand out articles, waiting for the chop. Carlwev (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2013 (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.

Anthropology, psychology and everyday life

Unsorted Anthropology, psychology and everyday life topics

The following discussion is closed. 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 Primitive culture

Support votes

1. support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Maunus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support at first looks like it could be important, after reading, realize it's a seldom used potentially offensive term for tribes people. Carlwev (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Discussion

• Not a concept that has any meaning or relevance in contemporary social sciences.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 6 July 2013 (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.

Food: Miscellaneous

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life#Cooking, food and drink, 159 for a complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Afternoon tea

Support !votes

1. This is not a global thing, it is almost entirely exclusive to Britain. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Pretty much a historical practice even in the UK. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per above reasons. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Vermouth

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Not vital. Also, who drinks straight vermouth? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support But what's wrong with straight Vermouth I'm drinking it nowkjhskdjhl lkjslijffjlqqoo5 jjjjjjjdioo Carlwev (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Noodles

Support !votes

1. We already have Pasta on the same sub-list and a noodle is nothing more than elongated pasta. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Yeah similar to pasta, not as vital Carlwev (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove McDonald's

Support !votes

1. Not vital and not really a restaurant; its more of a store, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I had to think about this one, I understand the dislike for Companies and brands and big American things, although it is fairly world wide. Been around for over 60 years not very recent thinking we have several websites like Amazon and Twitter, and they're still growing. I know they're not comparable to cities or countries, but looking at the article, McDonald's has 34K locations, and 1.7M employees. More people work in McDs than work or even live in some countries and cities we have, and that's only people that work there the number of people that eat there is even higher. I still think if we're removing things that are big US culture, many sportsman, musicians, albums have clearly had less impact on the world. I feel more comfortable having McD's than 10+ lists of Am. Football players and Basketball and Baseball players. Sorry I really can understand the argument for removing it, but I think it has a chance, and I think other areas are asking for trimming more. Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Tonic water

Support !votes

1. Not vital. Also, who drinks straight tonic water? Also, its not a soft drink so much as a base for mixed drinks, of which there are dozens. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, despite the historic importance as malaria-medicine, let's remove it --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Tripe

Support !votes

1. Not vital. Also, its really just one type of Offal, which is already listed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support, even though it is delicious. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Move Vitamin to biology, with health and nutrition

Support !votes

1. Its out-of-place under Cooking, food and drink. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

OK so it's misplaced, maybe move to biology, with health and nutrition etc. Whole layout needs addressing Carlwev (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I will support this, it is a good idea, I will try to summarize my thoughts. I held off voting, as I was thinking suggesting to merge the whole food section. Something like "biology, food and health" There are lots of topics like vitamin, nutrition, diet fruit, veg, spices, nuts that could be/is split between food or biology. At the moment food is with sports games, colors, anthropology and psychology, there's no real reason why it has to be with those, they're not really linked, having all plants veg and fruit together would be easier to navigate. Gabe already couldn't find potato, as he was looking in food not plants. By food it says "for fruits etc see biology". If we just put all food near there to start with, we would't need to say "for food see biology" by the emotions, or "for sports see everyday life" by the food, food is quite a unique topic, unrelated to the rest of its section, closer to biology than sport and emotions etc. I think all food should be moved, and was contemplating suggesting it, that's the only reason I was slow to vote on this one. Carlwev (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2013 (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.

Society and social sciences

Mass Media

The following discussion is closed. 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 Guiding Light

Support !votes

1. Support, not vital, doesn't get enough traffic to make the top 10.000 list in terms of page views. We have Soap opera on the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• This is exactly what I was talking about a couple of months ago; we should be focused on trimming the obvious excess before we expend so much time and effort debating contentious removals. I mean, we removed George Harrison before we removed Guiding Light, really? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah. Movies may have impact world wide. Soaps have mediocre national impact. I looked at the hit count page and the UK's 2 big soaps EastEnders and Coronation Street are within the top 10'000 viewed articles, higher than Guiding Light. But somehow I don't think I'll be nominating them for inclusion, Coronation Street was often among the highest viewed TV shows, at least before cable TV took off, and is still going after 50 years, sounds good, but I get a strange feeling no one would want to include it in here. Every big western nation may have 1 or 2 big soaps of their own, I think it's better to make do with the inclusion of Soap opera its self. Carlwev (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• I will say this: if we have one example of the genre, it should be this one pbp 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I will say this: If we make room on this list (currently 400+ articles over the limit) for US soap operas, then we should be quite ashamed to call it vital. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove It Is Written

Support !votes

1. Support, Never heard of it - clearly a US-only phenomenon. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

What made me laugh a bit like the Wikipedia nerd I am was, it says it's broadcast in over 140 countries, but no one of a foreign language bothered to write about it here though, except in Spanish, maybe in Mexico? As it only appears in Spanish and English. Carlwev (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Wall Street Week, Add Propaganda

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Relatively obscure American TV program; perfect example of what has been added to the VA/E list when no one was watching. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Igrek (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I propose to remove Wall Street Week from TV shows, it's long running but is it really vital or influential. There are a handful of long running news and information programs, that aren't vital or known especially outside their host country, It also appears in no other languages only English, so how interested or aware are people outside of the English speaking world about this topic. I Propose to add Propaganda, surely this topic deserves a place. Old and new, world wide, very well documented, very well known, probably very vital. Not sure where to put it yet, Mass media, Social issues, war and military, Politics and Government? I would appreciate opinions on where to put it too. Carlwev (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It belongs in the sociology section.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Wide World of Sports (U.S. TV series)

Support !votes

1. Support, Entirely fail to see why this would be considered vital. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Business and Economics

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

---

Add Accountancy

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I want this in, I may think of a swap for it, to attract more votes. But I'm supporting adding all the same Carlwev (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Obvious omission, accounting even has historical importance - it has been done for thousands of years. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Add Monopoly (not the game), Remove Fireside chats

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support, thank you. That was on my list, too. Vital economics topic, timeless, affects lots of people and ranks 6257th in article view statistics. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Igrek (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Fireside chats Roosevelt's radio show addressing the nation, Considering we're actually removing presidents themselves I don't see why this president should also have his show listed, it wasn't that big a deal surely. Monopoly top importance article for economics. Carlwev (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Carl is right: when we are actually cutting U.S. presidents from the VA/E list, we do not need to include trivia and minor subtopics of presidential administrations. "Fireside chats" are among the latter. "Monopoly," on the other hand, is a fundamental economics concept that should be included. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2013 (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.

Biology and health sciences

Remove thread

The following discussion is closed. 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 Attelabidae

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Per Carl. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support as the lesser of two weevils. Jusdafax 04:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

This and Curculionidae are 2 divisions of weevil. I think weevil is enough. If I remember rightly, a while back someone removed weevil itself, but it has been added back, with 2 subdivions too. Anyway I think we can keep weevil for now but remove it's 2 divisions. Carlwev (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Flower chafer

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Beat the beetles. Jusdafax 04:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

This is one of 2 divisions of scarab beetle we have listed. The other division is already up for removal in a swap. We have scarab beetle already I say that itself is probably enough. Like we removed all the divisions of cockroach. Carlwev (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Mountain papaya

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Paypaya is enough, assuming we have it. Jusdafax 04:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Podophyllum peltatum

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Jusdafax 04:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Pteridium aquilinum

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - a bit reluctantly, here. Still... Jusdafax 06:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Saccopharyngiformes

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, not vital --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Headache, Migraine and Fishes

I propose removing 2 articles from Biology and health sciences, 2 fish, and adding 2 articles, headache and migraine. I have put the articles as separate votes in case users agree with some but not all of the proposals, as, although they are all in biology and health sciences, they are quite different articles. Carlwev (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Add Headache?

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- per nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

#Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - What's next, stomach ache? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, now that Migraine is added, there is no need for headache to be added too. --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please note that this wasn't technically a straight add, a fish article was removed to make way for this, but for some reason at the time I thought it was a good idea to put the addition and the removal voting up separately, the removal has happened already as it gained votes quicker, but this has not yet gone through yet. Carlwev (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Migraine?

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support -- per nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please note that this wasn't technically a straight add, a fish article was removed to make way for this, but for some reason at the time I thought it was a good idea to put the addition and the removal voting up separately, the removal has happened already as it gained votes quicker, but this has not yet gone through yet. Carlwev (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

In biology and medicine we don't have headache or migraine. I think we should have at least one if not both. Although they are minor conditions compared to others, they are very wide spread everyone gets them nearly, they are well documented, and many drugs have been developed primarily to combat them. According to the articles 90% of people will have have a headache within the next year, so they appear to be very common. Although they might be considered a minor ailment they shouldn't be forgotten, Common cold has made the 1000 list, sometimes a headache can be severe. Some users may think only one is needed because there is overlap in their meaning, but they are two separate articles both quite long and appear in many languages. If you think only one is needed? which is more vital? The facts about the articles are.... Migraine is a top importance article in the Wikiproject Medicine, Headache is slightly lower at high importance. Headache appears in 72 other languages, migraine in 56. In English Migraine is a longer article than headache and has more references, one definition in the articles describe a migraine as one of several types of headace, which means headache is a wider topic? I think there is room for both articles myself.

To make it swaps, not just more adds, I have nominated 2 articles for removal at the same time although different also from Biology, they are 2 fish articles. We have 163 fish articles, seems like slightly too many to me, I have looked through to pick out what appear to be less vital ones. Compared to the other fish articles these 2 Merlucciidae and Notacanthiformes, are only stubs and appear in less languages than other fish articles. Nothing in the articles describe why they are vital to humanity or biology, and they are unrated in the Fish Wikiproject. Looking through this Fish Wikiproject there are 22 top importance articles, 106 high importance and 441 mid importance. We don't have all the top importance fish articles here, and looking at the big picture, these 2 unrated fish article stubs seem not so vital. Carlwev (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (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.

Physical sciences

Astronomy

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Astronomy, 226 for complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Photometry (astronomy)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. One of the most important tools in the astronomer's toolkit for determining the nature of stars and planets. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per DL1, and since this has been here since May suggest we close. Jusdafax 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Overly specific science article about measuring stars radiation. In astronomy. Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Canis Minor

Support ! votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - here since May, suggest a close. Jusdafax 04:37, 17 July 2013 (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.

Technology

Unsorted Technology topics

The following discussion is closed. 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 Multics (operating system), add Lighthouse

Support !votes

1. support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Apples to oranges, and per Melody's comments below, you are overindulging one section by taking from a neglected one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I propose to remove Multics a computer operating system, I am wondering if we need any operating systems, but that aside this one is one of the least notable, and also it's rated start class of low importance in its wikiproject computing, and appears in less languages than others like Windows and DOS. I propose to add lighthouse, a type of building that is very old, well known and important to navigation. We have an example of a lighthouse, the Lighthouse of Alexandria, maybe we should also have lighthouse itself too. Anyway lighthouse is surely more vital than Multics. The best place I can see for lighthouse is in construction, under coastal construction with harbour and pier, I also thought of putting it in navigation and timekeeping but it would be the only building there among mostly tools. Carlwev (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• This suggestion illustrates some of the problems the swap-method has: it further reduces a section that is already lacking many topics. For example, first and foremost: there are no programming languages on the list, none. Most other languages that have 10.000-lists and meta have 10 programming languages or more. We have to have at least Java, C, C++, C# (those are the most frequently used currently) and then some others like Python, Ruby, Fortran, Pascal, SQL. These are among the most vital topics of our time that will no doubt have a lasting effect. Programming is very important ... I could go on, but I think everybody knows. And yes, we need operating systems, too.

In the architecture section we go into absurd detail, on the other hand (closet?). And look at tools and car-brands.

Maybe we should lay out stricter quotas first.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• there were programming languages here before they were removed as were the 50+ makes and model of car, we still have programming language itself. I don't believe individual programming languages are needed for the list, but if you do propose some and see what others think. From a computers point of view we have no videgames other than Pong, and no consoles, (maybe that warrants a tiny list as we have 40 music albums and 40 movies and 15 board games maybe we could have 5 video games? but thats for later) Computers and languages? we had missing computer virus and morse code until I added them. Media? we don't have things like DVD, VHS, compact cassette of which must number in billions. I don't believe lighthouse to be excessive. The other language wikipedias vital lists, I believe have 10+ programming languages only because they were all directly copied from the English vital list over a year ago when we had them, the multiple car models are also on the other language wiki lists which shows this too. If you lookt at a foreign list and the date it was created, it is exactly the same as the English list of the same date in it's History, I've checked. They were not compiled separately by foreign speaking Wikipedians, just copied. Carlwev (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2013 (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.

Construction

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Construction, 77 for a complete sublist of related topics.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lake Pontchartrain Causeway

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. But for its length, the Lake Ponchartrain Causeway is just another precast concrete viaduct on the U.S. Interstate Highway System. See my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• With the supersize Chinese civil engineering projects of the last 20 years, "longest bridges" has become a fairly meaningless superlative. I've been struggling with whether we should include actual examples of bridges (as opposed to merely including types of bridges), and if we include actual examples, what should be the basis for their inclusion. Here's what I've rationalized: specific bridges should only be included on the VA/E list on the basis of their engineering innovation and historical significance. The Brooklyn Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge were technological marvels and major innovations at the time of their construction, and pioneered the engineering for many that followed. IMO, that should be the standard by which we judge the individual examples of bridges, and by that standard the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway and the Sunshine Skyway both fail even though they were record-setters of one sort or another at the time they were built. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2013 (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.

Electronics

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Electronics, 34 for a complete sublist of related topics.

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

---

Add Magnet

Support !votes

1. Support Carlwev (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per discussion comments below. 14:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Magnets are used in many places, no more redundant to magnetism than aircraft is to aviation. Or is it redundant and am I wrong? Maybe belongs in physics anyway. Carlwev (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• This is a fundamental technology that is a basic component in numerous modern machines, including electric motors and digital data storage media. I agree that this appears to be a glaring omission in our Technology sublist. Magnet could be placed in several different sublists, but the Electronics sublist seems to be the best overall fit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• I would support the addition in the physics-section. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2013 (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.

Industry

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Industry, 70 for a complete sublist of related topics.

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

---

General discussion of topic area: Water power

I would like to suggest adding Watermill, water wheel and Hydroelectricity to Technology > Industry > Energy and fuel. Near windmill etc. Sorry to suggest more adds but there are many removals looking good like the 2 sky gods above. I am a bit surprised that none of these are in the 10'000 list. Several power sources and types are in the 1000 list, including solar, wind, electricity and hydro. Apart from hydropower all of these have been expanded into the 10'000 list. Electricity has a list of 6 more topics. Wind power is there with windmill and wind turbine. Solar power is there with solar cell. Hydropower which is in the 1000 list too has not been expanded upon within the 10'000 list, the other powers have their sub topics or buildings/machines but water power does not, I think it should have. I know these topics are broadly covered by hydropower and dam, but we wouldn't delete windmill and wind turbine because we have wind power. They are important standing alone topics and have long articles in English and many other languages, they actually look like better articles than hydropower itself. The 3 articles I'm proposing I think are very important and used by a large proportion of the world today and historically, they are much more important than many things we have listed and the only reason I can see not to add them is the over 10'000 problem, but we are working on it, there are many more deletion proposals than adds. With a list as big a 10'000 these topics are just the kind of articles that should be created and improved in English and other language encyclopedias, as opposed to things like 25 articles about different football players that we have. Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Add Watermill

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Not a vital add until we get this list under 10,000. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Water wheel

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Hydroelectricity

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Per PbP, we already include Hydropower. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Sorry to propose more adds, I just couldn't believe they were missed when so many lesser things were added. I know users will comment on the over 10'000 problem. Please say if you support or oppose one or two of these if not all three. Carlwev (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: We have hydropower, though. pbp 16:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Carl, I think we need to look at this comprehensively: are all of hydropower, hydroelectricity, watermill and water wheel necessary? At first glance, it would appear that hydropower and hydroelectricity are redundant, and watermill and water wheel are largely redundant to each other. I would suggest that we pick the most common and most representative of these topics, say hydroelectricity and watermill, as I do not believe we need to have all four of these on the list, given the heavy overlap among them. I must also add, however, that I cannot fully support adding these topics at this time -- unless we identify specific topics to swap out for them or unless and until we get the total expand list below 10,000 total topics again. BTW, what is the current total for the expanded VA list of 10,000? We have a current count of 999 for the VA list of 1,000, but no current running count for the list of 10,000 . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• There is some overlap. But they are separate and different things. Hydropower is all power derived from all water, river and tide, kinetic and electric. Water wheel is the common wheel on a river used throughout the middle ages, Watermill is a building a factory that uses a water wheel's energy for agriculture or textiles etc. Hydroelectricity is modern power from water, often dams, not normally old fashioned wheels. Everything overlaps with something else, I don't think this is the worst overlap, and I wouldn't remove windmill because of the overlap with wind power, so I thought by that logic.... But thank you for your input, I can see there is overlapping, I just didn't think it was that bad compared to others. I am not keen of some long lists we have like 25 footballers, several underground train networks, about 12 individual bridges, Hangzhou Bay Bridge? really? More vital than water mill or hydroelectricity? I think this bridge is less vital to technology, energy, history and culture, than water wheel. I'll propose to remove this to make room, to start with. We can wait for other's opinions if one of these is more worthy than the others, the best representative, like pbp says, perhaps water wheel is higher topic than water mill, and makes it redundant? maybe? lets see what others say Carlwev (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (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.