Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 43

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cobblet
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50
Not swapped 3-1 – the last two support !votes look like sockpuppets, only one mainspace edit between the two of them and that was on the Curtis Mayfield article Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Curtis Mayfield swap Sam Cooke

Still think Curtis needs to be an addition to the list. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You're more likely to be successful this time around if you pair this with removing a less vital musician from one of the bloated genres, not just an album. Personally, I think 173 musicians is enough especially when you compare it to other types of artists (108 visual artists and 115 entertainers). And within the musician section, there are more underrepresented genres than soul. Gizza (t)(c) 04:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree agree with you on maybe the musicians section is bloated just a tad, however relating to the soul section itself it IS under-represented considering one of the most quintessential soul musicians isn't even in the list. To tell you the truth I find it quite surprising he isn't in there. It's a tough decision, but I think Sam Cooke would be better swapped by Curtis. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Curtis and Sam Cooke swap. Gizza (t)(c) 00:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Hidden-Leaves (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Oakwoodtreespirit (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose What's with the people whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to vote on this one particular proposal? Cobblet (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

@Cobblet: Do you think these are sockpuppets? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not Cobblet but if i am honest both of the newer accounts have names that could be related to trees, might be worth looking into. GuzzyG (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks awfully suspicious to me. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Selena

I believe she should be added to the list due to her elevated fame after her death and other honors established as a result. Best, jona(talk) 18:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Pico de Orizaba

It is North America's third tallest mountain (also a volcano) at over 18,000 feet tall. it is dormant but not extinct with its last eruption occurring in the 19th Century. It is the second most prominent volcanic peak after Mount Kilimanjaro. As Mexican geography is lacking on the list, the addition of this mountain would be a good addition for the list.

Support
  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I really would've preferred adding the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt instead. I think mountain ranges are usually more vital than individual mountains, e.g. Sierra Nevada (unsuccessfully removed in a previous !vote) vs. Mount Whitney (successfully removed) or the Alps vs. Mont Blanc or the Matterhorn. Cobblet (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We could have both if you really wanted to. I am fine with adding the range too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Dongguan

Let's try this again. In an earlier proposal to remove this it was suggested that with a population of 8 million, this "is one of the largest manufacturing centres in the world". This is true; but according to Brookings, Suzhou, Wuxi, Foshan, Ningbo and Tangshan were all cities with larger GDPs (in 2012) that aren't on our list. And all those cities have a longer history than Dongguan, which was a rural agricultural area before the '80s (its previous claim to fame was its lychee). I doubt anyone here would consider Karlsruhe vital and we have previously removed Portland, Oregon from the list: these were two other cities with GDPs larger than Dongguan's in 2012 (although it's very possible that Dongguan's passed them since). Other cities with GDPs larger than Dongguan's that we don't include are Malaga, Abu Dhabi and Baltimore: I would rather add all of those in place of Dongguan. We've already included the more notable cities of Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Macau from the Pearl River delta; we don't need Dongguan as well. Foshan is both a bigger manufacturing centre and much more culturally vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Abu Dhabi

Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates. With a population of almost 1 million, it is the second largest city in the UAE. Abu Dhabo is ranked 9th in per capita GDPs for cities at $49,600 due to its massive oil supply. It is the largest oil producer in the UAE. The airport in the city is a vital hub for travelers heading anywhere in the Near East, acting as a hub for flights to India, the Middle East, and the rest of the world. Considering that the Middle East is underrepresented in the city section, Abu Dhabi seems like a fair city to add to the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev 
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support OK why not? There are more obscure Middle Eastern cities listed. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Just being the capital of a particular country guarantees its vitality. Besides, it is quite abundant in oil.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Domestic partnership removed 7-0; Marriage of convenience not added 3-2 Cobblet (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Domestic partnership add Marriage of convenience

Domestic partnership is very similar to Civil Union, some countries refer to civil union as "domestic partnership". Much more important and different topic is Marriage of convenience, wich is covers both heterosexual and homosexual relations.

Support
  1. Support As nom. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Remove not add.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support removal only. Gizza (t)(c) 00:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support removal, oppose addition. Jucchan (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. SupportGonzales John (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support removal, oppose addition Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The three are very different concepts: Civil Union is much like a marriage for LGTB. Domestic partnership is living together without marriage and marriage of convenience is a whole different animal. I would support the straight add, but domestic partnership shouldn't be removed. --Melody Lavender 14:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I've never heard of homosexual partnerships being "convenient", the only case that might fit that is the case of marriage between Nuer widows. To me marriage of convenience is completely different from Civil Union and Domestic partnership and marriage of convenience is the idea of marrying for money or influence or connections or to make a household work. On the other hand Domestic partnership does in fact cover homosexual partnerships in many countries. I dont see any good reason to swap. I will support remove civil union since this is currently redundant both with civil marriage, marriage and domestic partnership. The article on marriage should cover all of those. In cross cultural anthropological perspective they are the same phenomenon, namely lasting socially privileged domestic partnerships. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Living together without marriage" is called cohabitation. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah right, obviously domestic partnership is a legal term, cohabitation is on the list, so I'll support.--Melody Lavender 21:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Hand

We cover much anatomy and biology including many organs, tissues, chemicals etc some I would regard as more speciallized/expert articles and less vital than the hand. The hand is important to the human body and human evolution but nothing really covers it other than articles like human anatomy, and the things which hands are made of, eg. muscle and bone.  Carlwev  00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Suppose
  1. Support  Carlwev  00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Human Hand is a redirect, so I prefer this article. The hand is one of the reasons humans have thrived for so long, specifically having opposable thumbs. It is one the the key parts of the body (for example, I am typing this !vote with my hands right now) and an evolutionary masterpiece, and thus should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Better than fingerprint. Gizza (t)(c) 10:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. Definitely crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Oxytocin

A hormone that has recently grown to be considered among the most important in producing behavior and emotion in humans - particularly in promoting prosocial behavior and emotional bonds between partners and parents/children. We have 5 hormones, and I think we could add a couple of more. Oxytocine is at least as vital as epinephrine and plant hormone.

Support
  1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Steroid

Suggested above. It is a vital type of hormone in the human body, containing many different hormones such as cortisone. Synthetic steroids have been made to imitate this type of hormone. As one of the major classes of hormones, it should be on the list.

Support
  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Essential topic in biochemistry. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Surprised it's not in the list already...GuzzyG (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  23:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Smilodon

Better known as the sabre-toothed tiger, the Smilodon is one of the best-known prehistoric animals. Because of that, people will be curious to read about it. It's popular, very popular.

Support
  1. Support I think this was ML's proposal. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, I did not come up with this idea myself, no. I wasn't even sure if I supported it until now. I apparently forgot to sign? Odd. ~Mable (chat) 11:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I will probably support this. I noticed that Smilodon was missing when proposed to remove mastodon. At the time there were two extinct elephant-like animals (now there's only mammoth) but no sabre-toothed tigers, which I thought was bit of an anomaly. In comparison to other extinct animals, I would probably have smilodon before 8 different species of dinosaur though others may have different opinions. Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both swapped 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Esox, Add Northern pike

Esox is the genus of fish commonly called pike or pickerel. I think it might be better to list the most notable species of Esox than the genus itself. Northern pike are a popular sport fish in the Northern Hemisphere and it was Wikiproject Fishes's 79th most popular article last month.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, the Northern pike specifically is more interesting to cover than the genus it makes part of. ~Mable (chat) 11:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Gourami, Add Siamese fighting fish

Swapping the family for its most notable member, which was 35th in popularity on WP:FISH last month. (Gourami was 280th.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are other species of Gourami that are popular as pets but I'm not sure if they're popular enough to be vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Scombridae, Add Bonito Add Alaska pollock

We list mackerel and tuna, two notable tribes of the Scombridae. I suggest adding the next most notable tribe, the bonitos (146th most popular WP:FISH article) and removing the family altogether (347th) and adding the second most commonly fished species in the world by tonnage, the Alaska pollock. Your Filet o'Fish, fish sticks and surimi are all made from this species.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Scombridae, Neutral on Bonito, which doesn't look particularly vital either. EDIT: Neutral on the pollock too. ~Mable (chat) 11:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support removal only. Jucchan (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support the removal and the addition of Alaskan Pollock. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I just realized bonito probably gets a lot of hits because people are looking for skipjack tuna, which is sometimes also called the oceanic bonito, but is classified as a tuna. It's the third most commonly caught fish in the world, behind the Peruvian anchoveta (we don't list that but we do list anchovy) and the Alaska pollock. Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Alaska pollock definitely looks better, but I don't think there is enough to it to make it vital. It's a enourmous source of palatable fish and people are worrying of the consequences of a collapse on the ecosystem, but I have a hard time seeing the species' cruciality for an encyclopedia. There's its use in the fast-food industry, though... ~Mable (chat) 09:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
On a list of ~100 fish articles I don't think it looks out of place. Compare grass carp and silver carp which were previous suggestions of mine that were added; they're notable farmed species. If we want to keep even less fish articles though (we've already removed about 40 over the last year), then I agree it may not be essential. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I do think less fish articles is generally better than more, so even if it's as vital as some of the otehr fish articles in this list, I'd rather see those removed than this one added. It's hard to decide which are and aren't vital in many cases, though, which just means that I personally try to limit what gets in with the argument "it's just as vital as these 40 fish that are in!" I'm generally not the best to judge on what fish are vital, though, which is why I'm just neutral ~Mable (chat) 09:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a clerical note. Are all the support votes for the current proposal with our without adding the bonito? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Valence bond theory

It is as vital as molecular orbital theory (see the lede of the valence bond theory article).

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I can't see the justification for excluding one but including the other. Neljack (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Researchers use MO theory almost exclusively nowadays because it's better at actually predicting how molecules behave. However, its complete reliance on QM calculations makes it much more abstract and hence less useful than VB theory as a way of teaching chemists how to understand reactivity. Valence bond theory has introduced many terms that are still commonly used by chemists to describe molecules – resonance (chemistry), orbital hybridisation, sigma and pi bonds are all basic concepts still taught in any high school or university. We certainly don't have the room to include all those concepts individually, but this article could do the job (even though it's in a woefully inadequate state right now). Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 12:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Ozone layer

More important to the Earth than many individual lakes and rivers etc, and more vital. We have Ozone, but Ozone itself only makes up a small percentage of the Ozone layer, and I believe the ozone layer in itself is looked up, studied and read about just as much if not more than ozone is alone. It is well studied by experts, interesting to general readers and is often in the media due to it's depletion....I was also looking at Ozone depletion as a potential article, but the ozone layer itself is probably enough, thoughts?  Carlwev  00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We did already add ozone depletion. Taking account the additions being proposed above, I don't think there's room for this kind of slight redundancy. Cobblet (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Ozone depletion is enough and earth science is over quota as it is. Gizza (t)(c) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Would anyone prefer ozone layer over ozone depletion? This seems like a 50-50 argument. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Composite material

From plywood to (reinforced) concrete to fibreglass to Kevlar to graphite-fibre sports equipment, composite materials are ubiquitous in modern society and are one of the most significant technological innovations of the last century.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 00:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0 for addition and 5-1 for removal, swapped Gizza (t)(c) 00:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Blacksmith, Add Forging

Swapping the historical profession for the technique which is still very much relevant today.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support the addition, Opposethe removal. Blacksmith as a historical profession should not be removed. it was an extremely important profession historically, and should remain on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, swapped Gizza (t)(c) 01:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Quenching, Add Heat treating

There are many ways in which material properties can be usefully altered by the application of heat: quenching's just one of them.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Quenching is one type of heat treating and it's important to know the other types too. Gizza (t)(c) 00:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Tower Bridge

It's a famous symbol of London but is of little significance as a work of engineering. Many iconic symbols of important world cities aren't listed (e.g. Arc de Triomphe, Brandenburg Gate, St. Basil's Cathedral, Merlion, Willis Tower) and London's already got Palace of Westminster on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose An old bridge should probably be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Dialysis and Cardiopulmonary bypass

Techniques/machines that are part and parcel of modern medicine.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support although I'ma bit more comfortable with Dialysis than bypass  Carlwev  13:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove James Webb Space Telescope

Per above discussion. A telescope that hasn't even been launched yet is not vital. We don't really know what its impact will be. We can only speculate.

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  08:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Thoughts on removing the Herschel Space Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope? IMO one space telescope is enough for the list (Hubble Space Telescope), and they don't stand out as more vital than several other spacecraft/space missions not listed like Cassini–Huygens, Mir, Galileo, Pioneer 10, the Viking program, Spirit and Opportunity, or Voyager 2. I'm not even sure if they're more vital than the other unlisted space telescopes like the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Malerisch (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support ;p I agree, those seem much less vital than some of the examples you've given. ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Proton (rocket family)

Per above as well. If we don't list any specific examples of notable cars (Ford Model T) or aircraft (North American P-51 Mustang or Boeing 747), we shouldn't be listing more than a few specific examples of space vehicles. Proton seems to be the least notable example of the ones we have listed, so I'm nominating it for removal. Malerisch (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 07:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rwessel (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Parametric equation

Basic concept in analytical geometry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Dewey Decimal Classification

I was surprised that this article is not on the list. The Dewey Decimal System is perhaps one of the most fundamental parts of mathematics. It is everywhere in math and is often a substitute for fractions. The value of an irrational number is estimated using decimals. Significant figures in chemistry and other sciences also rely on decimals. Mile/kilometer markers also rely on decimals. The metric system relies on decimals too. Given the importance of decimals, this article should be on the list, perhaps even on the level 3 list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Uh, the library classification system is not the same thing as the concept of a decimal, which is in fact listed... Cobblet (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

errr....Time to withdraw this one....PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Raj Kapoor

Ranbir Raj Kapoor (14 December 1924 – 2 June 1988), also known as "The Show Man", was a noted Indian film actor, producer and director of Hindi cinema. He was the winner of two National Film Awards and nine Filmfare Awards in India, and a two-time nominee for the Palme d'Or grand prize at the Cannes Film Festival for his films Awaara (1951) and Boot Polish (1954). His performance in Awaara was ranked as one of the top ten greatest performances of all time by Time magazine. His films attracted worldwide audiences, particularly in Asia and Europe. The Government of India honoured him with the Padma Bhushan in 1971 and the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1987 for his contributions towards Indian cinema. He was called the Clark Gable of the Indian film industry.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree that mainstream Indian film should be represented in the directors' list (Satyajit Ray represents Indian art film). If we were looking at directing in isolation, Guru Dutt is probably more significant but when you consider Raj Kapoor's acting success as well as being the one who really propelled the Kapoor family into celebrity stardom that stands to this day, his biography is more vital. Gizza (t)(c) 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support: --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add Cobblet (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Thomas H. Ince

Thomas H. Ince (November 16, 1882 – November 19, 1924) was an American silent film producer, director, screenwriter, and earlier an actor. He was a pioneering studio mogul who made more than 600 films. Known as the "Father of the Western", he invented many mechanisms of professional movie production, introducing early Hollywood to the "assembly line" system of filmmaking. He wrote the screenplay for The Italian (1915), and directed Civilization (1916), both films selected for preservation by the United States National Film Registry. He was a partner with D.W. Griffith and Mack Sennett in the Triangle Motion Picture Company, and built his own studios in Culver City, which later became the legendary home of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (French: [pjɛʁ ʒɔzɛf pʁudɔ̃]; 15 January 1809 – 19 January 1865) was a French politician, the founder of Mutualist philosophy. He was the first person to declare himself an anarchist and is among its most influential theorists. He is considered by many to be the "father of anarchism". He became a member of the French Parliament after the revolution of 1848, whereafter he referred to himself as a federalist.

Support
  1. As nom. I think that the facts mentioned above (taken from the first paragraph of the lede of the article) make him absolutely vital. Also it is quite strange that the article is not listed while Emma Goldman is listed in this list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Bakunin is the other anarchist who has a strong claim to inclusion. Neljack (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Yeah, definitely. GuzzyG (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Aleksandr Karelin

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Karelin (Russian: Александр Александрович Карелин; born 19 September 1967) is a Hero of the Russian Federation and retired Greco-Roman wrestler for the Soviet Union and Russia. Nicknamed the "Russian Bear",[1] "Russian King Kong",[2] "Alexander the Great" and "The Experiment", he is considered the greatest Greco-Roman wrestler of all time.[3][4] Karelin won gold medals at the 1988, 1992 and 1996, as well as a silver in the 2000 Olympic Games. His wrestling record is 887 wins and two losses.[5][6] Karelin was the national flag bearer at three consecutive Olympics: in 1988 for the Soviet Union, in 1992 for the Unified Team, and in 1996 for Russia.

He is the greatest Russian athlete purely by accomplishments and between 1994-2000 was not only undefeated, he never even had a point scored against him in any match. He was the most dominant wrestler in history. –– Lid(Talk) 02:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Support

  1. nominator –– Lid(Talk) 02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Absolutely dominated his sport. Certainly one of the greatest Russian sportspeople. Neljack (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per above. Gizza (t)(c) 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Was gonna add him myself. Definitely one of the most dominant recorded athletes. GuzzyG (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Tropics

We list the Lines of latitude, the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn but not the general area, The Tropics, I think a real encyclopedia would have it the other way round. Much of the articles about the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, are lists of countries they pass through. While there is other information too, it's included or could be included in the tropics article too. I'm not suggesting removing the lines of latitude here though, although it could be discussed. Compare to the Arctic, we do list the Arctic Circle in addition to arctic, so we could have the tropic circles in addition to the tropics, however the Arctic itself is higher priority vital article appearing in the 1000 list, so I would think the Tropics article itself, is equal or slightly more important than the articles about tropics of cancer and capricorn. We list several geographic zones/types but not this major one, it would fit in well; the article is quite short, much could be added to it, so it may benefit being added here.  Carlwev  10:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  10:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support When we even bother listing regions like Subantarctic this ought to be a no-brainer. Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I note that tropical climate, wet season and dry season are all listed. I think listing the tropics is a good idea, but I also think we should remove at least the tropical seasons. Cobblet (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize we had tropical climate as well. We don't list Arctic climate in the 10'000 even though Arctic is in the 1000. Would tropics be more vital than tropical climate? Also the list of nations and regions on the tropic lines, in those articles, don't include nations between them that don't touch the lines themselves. The articles only talk about the regions on the lines not between them in the middle of the tropics, I haven't thought and read extensively about it, but my instinct dislikes the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, but there's probably a reason I'm wrong.
I'm also wondering how vital Antarctic Circle is? One could say, if you have the Arctic circle you gotta have the other too. It's a shame the polar circles are not summed up in one article, and the same for the tropic lines. In fact I just discovered we have Polar Circle, it's underdeveloped, and I'm not sure how well used the term is.  Carlwev  18:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to leave out the Antarctic Circle if you include the Arctic Circle, but it's certainly worth asking whether all major circles of latitude are equally vital. You could say that the significance of the two Tropics could be covered by, well, tropics. I could see an argument for including tropics and tropical climate separately, but I don't have a strong opinion either way about that. Cobblet (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove True History

This is a curiosity, not a foundational work of Western literature. The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter would be a better example of a culturally significant piece of early literature with science-fiction themes.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support, interesting, but not vital.  Carlwev  14:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that it is the world's first science fiction work guarantees its vitality. Just read the lede of the article and you'll agree with me. Also its author should be in the list as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Clavier-Übung III

We already have a more famous example of Bach's keyboard works in The Well-Tempered Clavier. If we really needed a fourth example of Bach's work I would choose the Bach cantatas as being the most significant component of his oeuvre not already listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The article is huge in English, but it only appears in 3 language Wikipedias, English, Japanese and Italian, it's not even in German, Bachs homeland. Only suggestive but other languages haven't yet seen this as vital enough to even start an article at all about it.  Carlwev  15:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair observation Carl. And the German Wikipedia is the second largest in the world after English. Gizza (t)(c) 11:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia has de:w:Clavierübung which covers parts I-IV. On the English Wikipedia each part gets its own article, which is frankly the better way of doing it since there's no connection between them other than that they were the only keyboard works Bach published in his lifetime and he chose to call all of them Clavierübung. We once had Part IV (the Goldberg Variations) on the list. Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Greensleeves and Swing Low, Sweet Chariot

Again popular tunes that don't have much significance beyond being recognizable. At least tunes like White Christmas (song) or You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' can claim to have sold a lot of copies or played many times. If the Dies irae isn't vital I don't see how these have a better case to be made for them.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: For starters, these two should have been nominated separately. As for the claim that "Greensleeves" hasn't been played many times, over 500 songs have been set to it over its history. (FWIW, I nominated Dies irae for inclusion, so...) pbp 13:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

User:Purplebackpack89, all sorts of popular Christmas carols exist, and we already have White Christmas listed. Why is it vital that we include a second example? It's the refusal to address questions like these that leads to bloat on the list. Cobblet (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cobblet, Greensleeves is more than a Christmas carol. See my above comment about 500 different lyrics being set to it. It just so happens the most popular lyrics in this day and age are Christmas lyrics. pbp 02:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Source? Cobblet (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Source for Greensleeves being nothing more than a popular Christmas carol? I'm still working on the 500 comment; I think Pete Seeger mentions that number in the liner notes to one of his albums. But there's clearly ample sourcing that a great deal of tunes over 5 centuries have been written to that melody. I believe Greensleeves to be vital because a) a great number of tunes have been written to it, and b) it's 500 years old. The only pieces of music that have survived that long and are still referenced with any kind of regularly are this and Dies Irae. As such, I believe them both to be vital. I certainly believe Greensleeves to be more vital than You've Lost that Lovin' Feelin'. pbp 16:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
"The only pieces of music that have survived that long and are still referenced with any kind of regularly are this and Dies Irae." Not true at all. There are several Christmas carols that are claimed to date from the same period or earlier (with varying degrees of certainty), including Coventry Carol, Deck the Halls, O come, O come, Emmanuel and possibly We Wish You a Merry Christmas. The tune to the Dutch national anthem Wilhelmus was recorded in 1574 and The Fox (folk song) is older. When it comes to tunes that have been frequently quoted in classical music, Folia is at least as old as Greensleeves and L'homme armé is definitely older. Outside of Europe, Tala' al Badru 'Alayna is attributed to Muhammad's time and Bo Ya's "Gao shan liu shui" is reputedly over 2000 years old; both remain classics in their musical cultures. Why list Greensleeves over any of those? You're more than welcome to propose removing other works on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Années de pèlerinage

Not really essential if we're only listing ~20 pieces of classical music. Chopin and Schumann both wrote sets of piano pieces that are both more significant and better known than this work by Liszt. Even Liszt's own Hungarian Rhapsodies or Transcendental Études are more famous.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Hungarian Rhapsodies might replace - nice not to have everything German! Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Le marteau sans maître

IMO, no work of the postwar avant-garde in classical music is vital enough to be listed (forget about compositions: we don't even list composers like Webern, Messiaen, Lutosławski, Ligeti or Reich), and even if there was one, I don't this is the best candidate.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I hate to pick on classical music for removals but this is the music I know best. If someone wants to look through the pop songs (many of you probably have already, it's not like we haven't gone through this before) they could probably use a similar trim. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Works of music in general can shrink I think. I do dislike many albums, like Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, when we don't have the band themselves. I don't think we need a Marvin Gaye album among many others either. Also works of visual art, namely paintings seems to be a list of many non vital articles, The Treachery of Images, The Blue Boy etc  Carlwev  18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Dixie (song), Add National anthem

Of all the nationalistic songs we could've picked, did we have really to pick Dixie? Let's be a little more neutral and just add the article that describes their purpose and history in general. (I think it's futile task trying to pick a specific national anthem or song: everyone knows God Save the Queen, the Marseillaise, The Star-Spangled Banner, Waltzing Matilda, Sakura Sakura and Hava Nagila.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support (also in opera, suggest removing Pelléas et Mélisande & adding Boris Godunov (opera) Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support pbp 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed Section "Sweet things" (but not the articles)

I removed the section named "sweet things" as it is not a proper type of food. It had 3 articles Honey, Candy, and Chocolate. I moved honey to animal products, and candy and chocolate to food types, that's where biscuit and cake are for example. Sweet things was an odd section, you could just as easily include, or not, several more articles we have that are sweet things, like ice cream, cake, biscuit, sugar, fruit preserve etc. No articles where added or removed so I did it without opening vote, hope no one disagrees.  Carlwev  16:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Good call IMO. Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Face

Pretty important, no? And not just from an anatomical perspective – facial appearance, recognition and expressions need some sort of coverage on the list as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  09:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Only tangentially related but I would support adding physical attraction too. Gizza (t)(c) 09:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Great Oxygenation Event

As stated in the conversation below: "It's odd to call that event "not well known". I've never heard of it under that name, but it is definitely a well-known happening that should probably be vital as well. I've heard plenty about the biologically-induced appearance of oxygen in the atosphere, but I never actually read about it. Having a good description of it on Wikipedia should definitely be vital. I'll suggest it right away."

support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I can support this. Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add each of the big five extinction events

These are Ordovician–Silurian extinction events, Late Devonian extinction, Permian–Triassic extinction event (already in), Triassic–Jurassic extinction event and Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (already in). The three articles that aren't already in are still incredibly major events in the big history of the Earth and life. They are grouped together in these articles for a reason, after all, and are all vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 12:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Per Cobblet. I don't see why mass extinctions should be given more attention than the rest of geological history. We don't even have the most recent ice age which is surely more vital than the three unlisted extinctions. Also Earth Science is over quota. I prefer discussing quotas and possibly increasing it before adding another bunch of articles. Gizza (t)(c) 05:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Really don't think the ones not listed are all that notable. Cobblet (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I've moved this proposal to the "Earth science" section, since the nominator's proposal is to add another three articles about palaeontology, which belongs to geology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I simply put it in the same section where the current extinction events were already located. I guess those would need to be moved as well then. ~Mable (chat) 08:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure all these events are of general interest, and I think mass extinction might be better. If all of these are vital then the Great Oxygenation Event ought to be as well – it's not widely known either but in a way it is more significant than any mass extinction event in geological history. Cobblet (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It's odd to call that event "not well known". I've never heard of it under that name, but it is definitely a well-known happening that should probably be vital as well. I've heard plenty about the biologically-induced appearance of oxigen in the atosphere, but I never actually read about it. Having a good description of it on Wikipedia should definitely be vital. I'll suggest it right away. ~Mable (chat) 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Meteorite

I'm very surprised this is not included, they are of significant interest to scientists and to common readers too, for numerous reasons. We list many rock types or minerals, seams odd to leave this one out; many rock types we have, in my opinion, seam less vital than this such as Schist or Gneiss, to pick on a few. The geology project rates meteorite as high importance, compared to many rocks/minerals we include which are only mid importance; Meteorite is also in more languages than many rocks/minerals we have.  Carlwev  23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I like the idea of adding this. I am not sure what the overlap between meteorite and meteoroid is though. Perhaps only meteorite should be added though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Also, we are missing meteoroid too, I may open than to in astronomy, what are peoples thoughts on that? BTW, Meteorite is a rock on Earth which is of extraterrestrial origin, a meteoroid is an object in space smaller than an asteroid, and a meteor is a rock whilst burning through the atmosphere and the word redirects to meteoroid. (If meteoroids overlap with anything it would be asteroid, although they are not the same though, but since asteroid, comet, planet, natural satellite are all 1000 list articles I would have thought a few more space object types acceptable for the 10,000 list)  Carlwev  23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Paris Metro removed, 6-0, Pont du Gard not added 4-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Paris Métro, Add Pont du Gard

The Paris Métro isn't even all that notable among mass transit systems – for instance, there are six subway systems with more ridership that aren't on the list. I think the Pont du Gard is a much better example of a vital piece of engineering – it's the tallest aqueduct the Romans built, has survived intact for nearly two millennia, and has attracted and inspired visitors throughout its history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support removal Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support removal only Jucchan (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

And I would swap Tokyo Subway with Shinkansen. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Pont du Gard is a better example of Roman engineering than Hadrian's Wall or the Appian Way. Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think a classic example of an arch bridge (few things are better at visually conveying the usefulness and elegance of good engineering, IMO) is a better choice than an ancient road (the Via Appia has to compete with the Royal Road) or a second example of a defensive wall (we've got the Great Wall of China), but that's just me. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Tokyo subway, add Shinkansen

There are five examples of rapid transit systems and zero examples of high speed rail. This imbalance needs to be rectified. The Shinkansen is the most notable high speed rail network in the world. The Tokyo Subway was not the first of its kind (the London Underground was) nor does it even have the highest ridership in East Asia let alone the world (Beijing, Seoul and Shanghai all have busier rapid transit systems).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quotas changed per nom Cobblet (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Raise the History quota

As you can see, I've just opened a new slate of proposals to try to trim the remaining subsections of the list not already at quota. But for the History section, I just don't see how that's going to be possible: I can think of far more things worth adding than removing. So I propose we raise the quota for the History section by 25 articles to 675. To make room for that I think we should lower the quota for the Astronomy and "Basics & Measurement" sections of the Physical sciences to 215 and 85 respectively – we've done a lot of work on those sections and I don't think much needs to be added to either one.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. But I think that we can add some more units of measurement before modifying the quotas.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. This will be better than what we have now. Gizza (t)(c) 13:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I needed to check the current quotas and articles to see how different the the current and proposed quotas are and how many articles they currently have. I wrote them down so others wouldn't need to check too.

Basics and measurement: current quota 100, current actual 85, proposed quota 85.

Astronomy: current quota 225, current actual 209, proposed quota 215

History: current quota 650, current actual 664, proposed quota 675.

I don't always pay attention to quotas, but the quotas can be continually discussed and altered if we agree they need to be. At the moment, making astronomy quota 215 would mean it's still under by 6, and the new quota for measurement (with basics) means it would become spot on. This means we would need to remove nothing and still leave a tiny space for a few more astronomy articles but not much. Altering the history quota means we can add 11 more articles instead of needing to remove 14. In short I agree I can think of more missing things that seem to be vital to me from history compared to other areas, including astronomy and measurement. I think astronomy could have a few more, but this proposal still leaves a small amount of room which may be enough.

Also, I notice we have always chosen round(ish) numbers for quotas which kind of makes sense, I wonder if, as the list gets more complete, we will pick not so round numbers if we decide a certain section needs another 1 article but not another 5 or 10. How close are people trying to get to the quotas anyway? exact or just a rough guide with some leeway? The latter I would presume?  Carlwev  16:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Sessue Hayakawa

Sessue Hayakawa (早川 雪洲 Hayakawa Sesshū?, June 10, 1889 – November 23, 1973) was a Japanese Issei actor who starred in American, Japanese, French, German, and British films. Hayakawa was active at the outset of the American film industry. He was the first Asian actor to find stardom in the United States and Europe. He is the first Asian American as well as the first Japanese American movie star and the first Asian American leading man. His "broodingly handsome" good looks and typecasting as a sinister villain with sexual dominance made him a heartthrob among American women, and the first male sex symbol of Hollywood, several years in advance of Rudolph Valentino.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 2-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Mehmood Ali

Mehmood Ali (Hindi: महमूद अली; Urdu: محمود علی‎; 29 September 1932 – 23 July 2004), popularly known simply as Mehmood, was an Indian actor, singer, director and producer best known for playing comic roles in Hindi films. During his career of more than four decades, he worked in over 300 Hindi films.

A very popular figure in India, he was nominated for the Filmfare Best Comedian Award several times and won it 4 times.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support can't decide between Mehmood and Johnny Walker but one having comedian from the country that produces the most films in the world is definitely reasonable. We can leave the Mehmood vs JW debate for another day. Gizza (t)(c) 13:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Mehmood is definitely right up there with Johnny Walker as the two leading Indian comedians. Tun Tun would be close and is clearly India's most vital female comedian and her addition would improve the diversity of the list in two aspects but to be honest she is not quite at the level of Mehmood and Johnny Walker. Note that during the peak of Johnny Walker's career, there were no Filmfare Best Comedian Awards given out, making it hard to compare the the two on that basis. We can look at sources from critics to decide between them.

I doubt you would find consensus for more than one comedian from India as the trend lately on this page has been to reduce the number of overall comedians. Gizza (t)(c) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No objection with Mehmood Ali, but will prefer Kishore Kumar over him due to his important role as a playback singer, actor, composer, lyricist, producer, director, screenplay writer, scriptwriter as well. Also he was not limited to Hindi movies, he sang in many other Indian languages. Logical1004 (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 01:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Devika Rani

Devika Rani Chaudhuri, usually known as Devika Rani (30 March 1908 – 9 March 1994), was an actress in Indian films who was active during the 1930s and 1940s. Widely acknowledged as the first lady of Indian cinema, Devika Rani had a successful film career that spanned 10 years. Her awards include thePadmashri (1958), Dadasaheb Phalke Award (1970) and the Soviet Land Nehru Award (1990). It's strange that no Indian actress has been included in the VA list.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my earlier comments. Gizza (t)(c) 13:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Devika Rani seems to be at a similar level to K.L. Saigal, who was the first genuine male film star of India but not necessarily most successful nor most acclaimed and therefore not most vital. I'm not sure Devika Rani would be the first choice for Indian actresses when there is the likes of Nargis, Madhubala, Meena Kumari, Nutan, Madhuri Dixit, Sridevi and Kajol to contend with. Gizza (t)(c) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Charles Fourier

A utopian socialist who later influenced a diverse array of revolutionary thinkers and writers. Some of his social and moral views, held to be radical in his lifetime, have become mainstream thinking in modern society.

Support
  1. As nom. From the above statement I copied or cited from the lede of the article you can infer that the article is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Fourierism never really went anywhere. Cobblet (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Well, Utopian socialism is vital, and Fourier, Saint-Simon, Owen and Blanc are all crucial figures in this type of socialism, so they are vital as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Robert Owen

A Welsh social reformer and one of the founders of utopian socialism and the cooperative movement. In 1824, Owen travelled to America to invest the bulk of his fortune in an experimental 1,000-member colony on the banks of Indiana's Wabash River, called New Harmony. New Harmony was to be a utopian, or ideal/perfect, society.

Support
  1. As nom. The above statement I copied from the lede of the article ensures that the article is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The above statement ensures nothing of the sort. Cobblet (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Ultimately his ideas and projects did not achieve sufficient influence to warrant his inclusion. Neljack (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 04:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Louis Blanc

A French politician and historian whose politicl and social ideas greatly contributed to the development of socialism in France.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose So? Cobblet (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not sufficiently influential. Neljack (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Contributing to the development of socialism in a medium-sized country such as France is not enough to be vital. Gizza (t)(c) 04:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 2-2 Cobblet (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Henry Parkes

Henry Parkes (27 May 1815 – 27 April 1896) was an Australian politician regarded as the father of the Australian Federation and the most important of the Australian Founding Fathers, also described by The Times as "the most commanding figure in Australian politics"

Support
  1. As nom. I think it'd be a nice addition to have a political leader from every permanently inhabited continent, if not Henry then someone else.GuzzyG (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG's persuasive comments below convinced me that we should have some sort of political representation from Australia and other currently unrepresented regions of the world. Gizza (t)(c) 18:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not convinced that he's the most important Australian political figure ever, and to be honest I'm not sure any Australian politician is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion. Curtin would perhaps have the strongest claim. Neljack (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

For an earlier related discussion on Australian political figures, see the proposal to add Gough Whitlam. It was unsuccessful though a few other Australian PMs were suggested, notably John Curtin.

Speaking for myself, as significant as the Australian Federation was in hindsight, at the time it was not revolutionary. Six British colonies essentially merged into one British colony. The devolution of power came much later. And there were other figures associated with the Federation movement such as Edmund Barton. If we are to have an Australian political figure I still prefer John Curtin for reasons stated by Malerisch in the archives or Lachlan Macquarie since he was pivotal in transforming the convict island hellhole into a functioning society to which European free settlers readily migrated. Many other European colonies around the world was abandoned soon after colonisation and the indigenous or another group become the dominant culture. A major reason why this didn't happen in Australia was Macquarie. But as you can see from the archived discussion, there is some disagreement on whether we should have any Australian political figures at all. As for other leaders from Oceania, we could have George Tupou I or Kamehameha I who were among the most notable Polynesian kings in history. Gizza (t)(c) 10:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

With Lachlan you'd kill two birds with one stone (Successful example of the transformation of a colony + a leader), ideally i'd say both John and Lachlan but i am just basing that off that i find it a little weird that Australia is the only member of the G-20 without a leader to represent, the others have 2+ each. We should definitely have a Polynesian king too or both (George + Kamehameha), i was going to nominate George before so he'd be my first choice just for the fact Tonga was one of the major islands that didn't become a colony. We have 5+ people for each sub region like Central America and Central Asia so i don't see why 4 for one (Although, small) continent is a bad thing. We could use the argument of "Australian leader's not having a impact worldwide" but i would say Australia has more prominence worldwide then Madagascar or Turkmenistan which both do have a leader (Although for diversity reasons, i understand, but what's more diverse then a whole continent, descent aside?) , it's not like we're over the limit either with 24 biographies till our cap and politicians (love em' or hate em') are the top of the historical biography pile (Well maybe Religion founders are but that's another debate!). GuzzyG (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd absolutely support adding an Australian leader if we can get consensus on one. Canada's got two. Cobblet (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to swap 2-2 Cobblet (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Jack the Ripper swap Peter Zumthor

I don't know where he/her would fit on the list (Rebel?) but him/she should be on here. One of the few people who has kept the public interest for a centenary, has a group of people dedicated to his/her study "Ripperology". A good peek into the mind of a evil being and i was surprised when i went through the archives that when the criminal section was removed there was no discussion to his/her individual removal, certainly more notable then Capone, the only downside is he/her has no section to go into but his/her infamy and the continual study of him/her certainly qualify him/her into this list. I'd say swap him for this relatively recent architect.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support I'd prefer someone like Blackbeard first though. Gizza (t)(c) 12:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Jack the Ripper is certainly very notorious, but I question how influential or significant he really is. I'm just not convinced he has had sufficient impact to be vital for the purposes of this list. Neljack (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Playwright

We don't list writer, author, artist, composer, film director or screenwriter; I don't see what makes playwrights exceptional among these.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Thinking out loud, do we need play (theatre) or acting? There's may be a reason we don't?  Carlwev  17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, we list tragedy, comedy and drama. Acting does seem like a good addition to me though. Cobblet (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd support acting. Gizza (t)(c) 05:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 2-2 Cobblet (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add ethnic cleansing

In my opinion since not all ethnic cleansings are genocides (some do not involve killing) and it is a concept no less crucial than genocide (which belongs to the list), this article should be added to the Level 4 list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose At best this is a non-vital umbrella term covering both genocide (listed) and forced migration (overlaps with refugee); at worst it's simply a euphemism for genocide. Cobblet (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree with Cobblet. Too much overlap with genocide. At least population transfer and forced migration are more distinct. Enough to be vital? Still probably not. Gizza (t)(c) 09:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

If this is successful, it should be placed somewhere under "Society" not "Law". Ethnic cleansing itself is not regarded as a crime even by the International Criminal Court. Gizza (t)(c) 07:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Photodetector, Add Charge-coupled device

I don't think we need to list classes of sensors, be they photodetectors, chemosensors, biosensors, etc. I suggest replacing that article with the CCD, which is the semiconductor device that made digital imaging practical for the first time and is still employed in a variety of applications ranging from endoscopy to the Hubble space telescope.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Now that Biosensor is not listed, photodetector should not be listed as well. CCD should be listed instead.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No votes or comments in 30+ days - no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add collective memory and periodization

Both are vital concepts in historiography, however they do not belong to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Is collective memory any more vital than archival research? It doesn't seem to be. It's just some niche theory. Periodization is better though I wonder if historiography needs to be expanded. Note that historiography is introduced to the list at this level (Level 4). Sometimes subtopics are added to the list at the same level as the main topic if there is a compelling reason. I can't see a compelling reason in this case at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 09:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Eine kleine Nachtmusik

The tune's well-known, but otherwise this is a work of virtually no musical significance – Mozart wrote it for the purposes of light entertainment. Calling this vital is like calling Für Elise or Pachelbel's Canon or Wagner's Bridal Chorus or the Nokia ringtone vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Yes, it's hard to argue that this is one of Mozart's most important compositions. Neljack (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I hate to say it, but there's pretty strong cases for the first three things you've listed that are kitsch but well-known and frequently played. pbp 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

No, pbp, there really isn't. Try reading a history of Western music – none of these works have had any discernible influence on its development. To list any of these instead of the Mozart piano concertos or Beethoven's Eroica Symphony or Wagner's Parsifal would be ridiculous. Cobblet (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm expecting your support when I nominate You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' for removal in about 30 seconds, because you've essentially made the case for its removal. pbp 20:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim to know much about popular music. Feel free to educate us. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Cobblet, You seem to be arguing with this nomination that Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is a puff piece that, while well-known, isn't significant or vital. That could be also applied to pop tunes. pbp 21:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
REmoved 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'

Aside of air time, what significance does this piece of music have? It's not considered one of the 10-15 greatest pieces of pop music. Not sure it's particularly influential either. pbp 20:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Lymphatic system

We have neither this nor lymph nor lymph node.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Seems quite vital. Following print encyclopedias, I own a few biology encyclopedias and textbooks, old and new big and small, this appears in most of them, often with a page/article of it's own.  Carlwev  07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Add Cartilage

As essential a topic as bone or muscle.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  08:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Important in the human body, and the fact some fish, such as sharks have an entire boneless cartilage skeleton makes it seem more vital.  Carlwev  08:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-4 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

John Reed

John Silas "Jack" Reed was an American journalist, poet, and socialist activist, best remembered for his first-hand account of the Bolshevik Revolution, Ten Days That Shook the World.

Support
  1. As Nom. Logical1004 (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Removed as a result of this discussion. We are not lacking for American socialists (e.g. Eugene Debs, Upton Sinclair, Walter Lippmann) and I think there are more significant activists and journalists not listed. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Mikhail Bakunin

We have Peter Kropotkin, but not Bakunin, who was a highly influential ideologue in Europe, which is quite strange.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I'd say Bakunin was more important than Kropotkin, who should probably be removed. Neljack (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Bakunin is indeed a prominent anarchist but anarchism itself has not been as prominent as socialism, communism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, or even fascism. I agree that Bakunin is better than Kropotkin. And I don't know enough about utopian socialism to form a view on how many utopian socialists from the proposals below we need on this list. Gizza (t)(c) 12:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon

A French political and economic theorist and businessperson whose thought played a substantial role in influencing politics, economics, sociology, and the philosophy of science.

Support
  1. As nom. The above statement I copied from the first paragraph of the article guarantees that the article is crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add John Dewey

An American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey is one of the primary figures associated with the philosophy of pragmatism and is considered one of the founders of functional psychology. A well-known public intellectual, he was also a major voice of progressive education and liberalism. Although Dewey is known best for his publications about education, he also wrote about many other topics, including epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, art, logic, social theory, and ethics.

The overriding theme of Dewey's works was his profound belief in democracy, be it in politics, education or communication and journalism. As Dewey himself stated in 1888, while still at the University of Michigan, "Democracy and the one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity are to my mind synonymous."

Known for his advocacy of democracy, Dewey considered two fundamental elements—schools and civil society—to be major topics needing attention and reconstruction to encourage experimental intelligence and plurality. Dewey asserted that complete democracy was to be obtained not just by extending voting rights but also by ensuring that there exists a fully formed public opinion, accomplished by communication among citizens, experts, and politicians, with the latter being accountable for the policies they adopt.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that the article is not include in the Level 4 List!--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support: Very influential in American pedagogy. pbp 13:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 04:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support I don't think he's less vital than Walter Lippmann, his counterpart in the Lippmann-Dewey debate. Cobblet (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not that influential or highly-regarded in philosophy these days. His educational ideas undoubtedly had influence, but not enough to make him vital, in my view. Neljack (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose : As stated above. Logical1004 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Bernard Lewis

A historian who studies history of the Arabs, history of Islam, Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey. He is also a public intellectual who influences the educated public a lot. His advice has been frequently sought by policymakers, including the Bush administration.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that this figure is not included in the Level 4 List!--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think there are more important historians that we don't have. Part of Lewis's fame comes from his rather provocative views, which often don't command widespread scholarly acceptance. I accept that he has had a fair degree of influence, but not enough to warrant listing. Neljack (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 04:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. The fact that Bernard Lewis pioneered in the social and economic history of the Middle East and is famous for his extensive research of the Ottoman archives, and his influence on the educated English-speaking public means that the figure is crucial (Arnold Joseph Toynbee and E. H. Carr are still not included in the list, but that does not mean Lewis is not vital).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Edward Said

A cultural critic who is best known for the 1978 book Orientalism. In it, he analyses the cultural representations that are the basis of Orientalism, a term he redefined to refer to the West's patronizing perceptions and depictions of Middle Eastern, Asian and North African societies—"the East". He contended that Orientalist scholarship was, and remains, inextricably tied to the imperialist societies that produced it, which makes much of the work inherently political, servile to power, and thus intellectually suspect. His book was quite influential in the humanities, but also quite controversial.

Support
  1. As nom. The above statement which I copied or cited from the lede of the article and Orientalism (book) proves the vitality of the article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Perhaps the most famous theorist in the field of postcolonialism. Highly influential. Neljack (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 04:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neither added 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Arnold J. Toynbee

A British historian, philosopher of history, research professor of International History at the London School of Economics and the University of London and author of numerous books. Toynbee in the 1918–1950 period was a leading specialist on international affairs.

He is best known for his 12-volume A Study of History (1934–61), through which he

...examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders.

With his endless output of papers, articles, speeches and presentations, and numerous books translated into many languages, Toynbee was perhaps the world’s most read and discussed scholar in the 1940s and 1950s. Yet Toynbee's work lost favor among both the general public and scholars by the 1960s, due to the religious and spiritual outlook that permeates the largest part of his work. His work has been seldom read or cited in recent decades.
Support
  1. As nom. The above statement copied from the lede of the article guarantees the article's vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I suggest that the statement that "his work has been seldom read or cited" after his own time indicates why he is not vital. Neljack (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 01:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose--Thi (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add E. H. Carr

An English historian, diplomat, journalist and international relations theorist, and an opponent of empiricism within historiography.

Carr was best known for his 14-volume history of the Soviet Union, in which he provided an account of Soviet history from 1917-29, for his writings on international relations, particularly The Twenty Years' Crisis, and for his book What Is History?, in which he laid out historiographical principles rejecting traditional historical methods and practices.

Educated at the Merchant Taylors' School, London, and at Trinity College, Cambridge, Carr began his career as a diplomat in 1916; three years later, he participated at the Paris Peace Conference as a member of the British delegation. Becoming increasingly preoccupied with the study of international relations and of the Soviet Union, he resigned from the Foreign Office in 1936 to begin an academic career. From 1941 to 1946, Carr worked as an assistant editor at The Times, where he was noted for his leaders (editorials) urging a socialist system and an Anglo-Soviet alliance as the basis of a post-war order. Afterwards, Carr worked on a massive 14-volume work on Soviet history entitled A History of Soviet Russia, a project that he was still engaged on at the time of his death in 1982. In 1961, he delivered the G. M. Trevelyan lectures at the University of Cambridge that became the basis of his book, What Is History? Moving increasingly towards the left throughout his career, Carr saw his role as the theorist who would work out the basis of a new international order.

Support
  1. As nom. The above statement copied from the lede of the article guarantees its vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose A difficult decision. What is History? was certainly one of the most influential books ever written on historiography, but that's really the main thing he's remembered for now. I ultimately don't think the rest of his historical work is sufficiently important when compared with the other historians we include. Neljack (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 00:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Saul Perlmutter

There were two groups of scientists who found evidence for the accelerating universe. If we don't list Brian Schmidt or Adam Riess, the people who shared the Nobel Prize with Perlmutter, I don't see why we should list Perlmutter in the first place. Besides, this achievement is less significant than other modern discoveries, such as that of cosmic microwave background radiation which was key evidence for the Big Bang; we don't list Robert Woodrow Wilson or Arno Allan Penzias. Historical figures like Hipparchus, Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi and William Herschel are also clearly more vital than Perlmutter.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Sri Lankan Civil War

Now that the history quota has gone up, we can add missing articles on well-known topics that will give globalize that history section. As a comparison, the Sri Lankan Civil War is far more vital than the listed Revolution of 1905. FYI there are around 20 other articles on modern Russian history. Modern Russia is very well represented though I'm just proposing this as a straight addition at the moment due to quota. Gizza (t)(c) 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm not convinced by the comparison to the events in Russia in 1905 but I have no doubts that this subject is vital if The Troubles or the events in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Angola during the Cold War are vital. Cobblet (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support I'm not fully convinced this is a vital war, but given that South Asia is fairly underrepresented, I will give this article the benefit of the doubt and weakly support its addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The history of South Asia remains underrepresented. For example, I plan to nominate Gurjara-Pratihara, Rashtrakuta dynasty, Chalukya dynasty and Pala Empire to improve our coverage of medieval Indian history which is woeful compared to our coverage of any other part of Asia at the time. Cobblet (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the comparison with 1905 was a little bit apples and oranges but coverage of modern Russian/Soviet history is currently more detailed than British, German, Chinese, Japanese and possibly even American depending on how you count certain articles. No doubt it should be up there but it feels slightly excessive. Gizza (t)(c) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Great Zimbabwe added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Chichen Itza and Great Zimbabwe

The Aztecs and Inca have one historical city each but the Maya have none. Adding Chichen Itza will give each major New World civilization one historical city (I chose Chichen Itza because its page views dwarf Tikal and Copán).

Great Zimbabwe is the most famous historical city of Southern Africa, a region poorly represented on the list.

Support
  1. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Great Zimbabwe – far better known than many of the other topics we list on Sub-Saharan African history. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose

Oppose Chichen Itza – User:Maunus has previously pointed out that better choices exist in Mexico, and I think Tikal in Guatemala is also more historically and architecturally significant. Chichen Itza gets a disproportionate amount of attention because it's only two hours away from Cancun and has been subject of a private marketing campaign. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Some regions seem to be poorly represented in historical cities because these cities are still inhabited and haven't become archeological sites (Rome, Athens, Luoyang and Patna to name a few). Still we could add Delphi to boost coverage of Europe. Gizza (t)(c) 03:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Delphi is one possibility, although Santorini, Rhodes and Thessaloniki also have strong cases to be made for them. If Sparta, Genoa and Venice were listed in the historical cities section Europe would not seem so underrepresented. Where are Çatalhöyük and Erlitou? Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of Tikal myself until I saw the page views. I will probably support Çatalhöyük. Gizza (t)(c) 04:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I am close to supporting these two (Great Zimbabwe and Tikal). I would be close to supporting all those mention above, except Eritou culture. I particularly like, and have been thinking of Çatalhöyük for a loooong time, although I am slightly biased, as it's a personal favourite of mine. There are many interesting sites especially in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near East, such as Jericho and Byblos off the top of my head.  Carlwev  20:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I could support Jericho as well, but would probably draw the line at Byblos since we already list Phoenicia and Tyre, Lebanon. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Tikal

Per above discussion.

Support
  1. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Arguably the most historically significant of the Mayan city-states. Tikal Temple IV is bigger and taller than the more famous El Castillo at Chichen Itza. Tikal also happens to be one of only 31 World Heritage Sites listed as both a cultural and natural site. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Luther Bible

A German language Bible translation from Hebrew and ancient Greek by Martin Luther.

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that it contributed significantly to the development of today's Modern High German language guarantees its vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per prior consensus. That isn't a great justification for vitality on the English-language Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Just a reminder; Luther Bible was removed August 2014, vote was five to none, see here  Carlwev  14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Op art

Not a particularly significant art movement, and the presence of optical illusion on the list means we can probably afford to do without it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Optical art is very redundant to optical illusion. Gizza (t)(c) 11:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nominator.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
(@Giza —Godsy(TALKCONT)) Huh? It isn't in the slightest. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
In general it isn't obviously but in the context of this vital list it is. There is too much overlap between op art and optical illusion to include both of them here. Gizza (t)(c) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 2-2 Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood

Not sure why this is listed when most of the painting schools of the 19th century (Nazarene movement, Düsseldorf school of painting, Barbizon school, Macchiaioli, Hudson River School, Peredvizhniki) aren't.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Taking a small sample of random articles, I see that Bauhaus and Fauvism as examples get more views and the articles in Category:Bauhaus and Category:Fauvism get more than the equivalent in Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (and there are far more articles in the Bauhaus and Fauvism categories). The reasoning of the opposes doesn't hold. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Because it's infinitely better-known and more popular, especially in the Anglosphere, that's why! And arguably better. Look at the views. Also rather more widely distributed in museums. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Well-known and popular. --Thi (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

OK, fair enough. But stuff like Arts and Crafts movement, Bauhaus, Beat Generation, Fauvism or magic realism all have more page views and aren't listed either. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

PRB is the head article for a whole group of artists and works that I'd imagine add up to more views than other groups. look at the categories. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
But I could say the same about the others too. Cobblet (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
No, how many paintings from the others have articles, and how many views do they get? See Category:Pre-Raphaelite paintings. Düsseldorf school of painting lists many painters, but how many views do they get? Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove The Blue Boy

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Much more expensive paintings have been sold since 1921. Cobblet (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removing the only British painting on the list. A swop is needed. Most of this list is odd frankly. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

How about a swap for the Bayeux Tapestry? Cobblet (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I never noticed this was the only British painting, although I wouldn't keep this only because it's British, and for no another reason, I'm sure not every other big nation has a painting. We have no female musicians in the 1000 for example and I wouldn't add someone there "only" to get a woman in. I'm British, and I don't feel compelled to keep this painting. That being said if we want a British work of art, the Bayeux Tapestry is an excellent idea, much better and more vital IMO than this, I may open that myself if no one else does.  Carlwev  10:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually we do: Hildegard of Bingen. Cobblet (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Craft

Seems redundant with handicraft which is also listed. On a related note we don't list craftsman or artisan but do list guild.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Acting

Mentioned by User:Carlwev in a previous discussion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support (but it should go in Performing arts, not Modern visual arts) Plantdrew (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Ossian

Ossian hasn't had the same degree of influence and staying power as the other fictional characters listed. Maybe adding an article on Irish mythology or Celtic mythology (although we do list Celtic polytheism) would be a better choice.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  08:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Sinbad has come up before in discussion, no one's proposed it though. Also Medusa and Minotaur too, although Greek mythology is already well represented.  Carlwev  18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add National church

No doubt it is a crucial term in Christianity.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not that crucial when we already list several national churches. Cobblet (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Jucchan (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 2-3 Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Armenian Apostolic Church

The fact that it is the world's oldest national church guarantees its vitality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. The two things for which Armenia is famous worldwide are firstly and sadly, the Armenian Genocide, and secondly having the oldest national church. The main glut in the Christian denomination section is in Protestantism. The Armenian Apostolic Church is far more vital than the Quakers for instance. Gizza (t)(c) 12:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    Armenian architecture and Armenian cuisine are famous worldwide as well, since many non-Armenians travel there to enjoy them. I'll make two proposals here to add them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
    With all due respect to Armenia, the country's architectural and culinary traditions are very low down the list. Among its close neigbhours, Russia, Turkey and Iran are all more significant in these aspects of culture. I have a feeling there will be at least 50 (if not 100) countries with more important architecture and cuisines than Armenia. There obviously isn't room for 100-200 more articles on national forms of architecture and cuisine. Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No. We already list Oriental Orthodoxy and two of its branches. Christian denominations are already much better represented than branches of other religions. For instance Twelver and Ibadi are not listed. Cobblet (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Jucchan (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Add Palm oil

Since oil palm (originally nominated in Organisms) is a redirect and there's more than one palm species that produces oil, I nominate the oil itself, which is the most commonly produced type of vegetable oil in the world. Ranked #8010 for page views over the last 30 days, more than vegetable oil and cooking oil combined.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support significant beyond its culinary use. One of the most well-known crops to cause widescale environmental damage. Gizza (t)(c) 10:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-4 Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add auxiliary verb and preposition and postposition

No doubt they are all crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The latter is already listed since adposition redirects to it. The former is just one of several possible ways of expressing tense–aspect–mood and this ought to be the vital concept. Cobblet (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Redundant to verb. Gizza (t)(c) 00:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose--Thi (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Sorry, I didn't know that adposition redirects to preposition and postposition, and adposition is already listed. I'll rename the link adposition in the list to preposition and postposition, where it redirects to.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 09:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC) fixed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add variety (linguistics) and standard language

They are no less crucial than dialect, however they do not belong to the Level 4 List.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The addition of sociolinguistics means that we do not have to list every single semi-notable term in the field, whether it's these or things like register or prestige. I'd be more inclined to support a well-justified swap. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose sociolinguistics and dialect is enough. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add language revitalization

It is no less crucial than language death, yet the list still does not contain it.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose a straight addition. IMO endangered language covers both concepts since the processes leading to language endangerment also ultimately lead to language death; and the processes involved in reviving a endangered/moribund language also applying to reviving an extinct one. If you want to argue that the mechanisms and consequences of language loss should be covered separately from those of language rebirth then I suggest swapping language death for this. Cobblet (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Classical Armenian

This classical language, no doubt should be in the list, since experts use it to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European language, many ancient Greek, Persian, Hebrew, Syriac, and Latin manuscripts survive only in their Armenian translation, and Classical Armenian continues to be the liturgical language of the Armenian Apostolic Church and is often learned by Biblical, Intertestamental, and Patristic scholars dedicated to textual studies.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We don't even list Proto-Indo-European language in the first place. Nor do we list Classical Arabic, Classical Chinese or Biblical Hebrew which are far more significant classical languages. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Proto-Indo-European language is an interesting idea though adding it may open up a can of worms as there are other notable proto-languages. Then there is proto-language itself. Gizza (t)(c) 09:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I think that, instead of opposing my proposal, you should propose that all proto-languages and two classical languages, Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew be added to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Classical Chinese belongs to the list, Cobblet.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Sentence (linguistics)

Hard to describe this, but a sentence is the basis of language. What makes a sentence, how to put one together, the word order etc, is the basis of what a language is, pretty much every language, if not at least most of them. It's rated high importance in the linguistics wikiproject, higher than some other articles, listed or proposed. Vital at the 10'000 level at least, I should think. In fact, I'm not doing it here, but a decent argument could probably be made for it place in the 1000 list too.  Carlwev  15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. It definitely should belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support it here. Probably not on the 1000. Gizza (t)(c) 00:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Side note: I was looking at the linguistic wikiproject top importance articles for ideas, at least some of them seem like reasonable ideas. Category:Top-importance Linguistics articles. Etymology in particular interests me. Tone (linguistics) is another language article I'm thinking about too.  Carlwev  15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. Was rushing, I'll jump the queue and insert support as nom. at the top, thanks for pointing out.  Carlwev  13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add etymology

A definitely crucial article. The Linguistic WikiProject regard it a top-importance Linguistic articles.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add meaning (linguistics)

No doubt this article is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by semantics. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose indeed redundant to semantics, which is the branch of linguistics that studies meaning. Gizza (t)(c) 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Register (sociolinguistics)

A crucial article in the field of linguistics.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my earlier comments. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Graphetics, Graphemics, morphophonology, Stylistics (field of study) and pragmatics

These field are as vital as phonetics and phonology, yet they still do not belong to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose That is simply not true. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Very niche, specialized fields of linguistic study. The second part of Rekishi's nom is true. Gizza (t)(c) 00:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. But at least stylistics and pragmatics are crucial (they are all rated Top-Importance by the Linguistics WikiProject)! Especially pragmatics, since it is listed in the linguistics navbox like syntax.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There are generally no formal guidelines or processes for designating the importance level of articles in most Wikiprojects, and little reason to take arbitrary ratings seriously. Cobblet (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5.5-0.5 Cobblet (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Toronto International Film Festival, Add World's fair

We already list film festival and Cannes Film Festival which I think is enough. We need some good examples of cultural festivals outside of film and I think this is the best possible choice: World Expos have played a huge role in the globalization of science, technology and culture and the arts since the 19th century. They're nowadays an important vehicle for nation branding and they're also the model for modern trade shows.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support an improvement.  Carlwev  18:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Add World's fair. No doubt it is crucial. Most news media on earth are quite keen to report world expositions.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Remove Toronto International Film Festival, since this festival "is second only to Cannes in terms of high-profile pics, stars and market activity".--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I would prefer some film studios instead of actors, films, and film festivals but that's a whole other kettle of fish. Also more sport events instead of sportsman was on my mind, like Wimbledon instead of a tennis player? Agree with this though. also how about carnival?  Carlwev  18:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No votes in 60 days, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Prohibition

Seems more relevant to the culture and history of alcohol than say cocktail which we have.  Carlwev  19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 05:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza. IMO Roaring Twenties would be better than Prohibition but unless the quota for History is raised even higher than what I'm currently suggesting, we have no hope of including something like that. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Perhaps you were thinking of Prohibition in the United States, the actual 1920's era which could be vital. This prohibition article is just a general, listy page of drinking laws in different countries of the world. And as a topic alcohol law is very, very low down the list.

Just to add, a related article like black market would be a useful addition to economics. There aren't really any articles currently listed that overlap with black market either. Gizza (t)(c) 05:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably support black market. Illegal drug trade and organized crime which we have touch on the same area, but they are not identical and the overlap is probably not too much.  Carlwev  16:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Just want to make sure people know exactly what the article is about they're voting on, I too think of the US 1920s when I hear the word prohibition. The article Prohibition isn't just about the Prohibition of alcohol during the 1920s and 30s in the United States, although it does have a large section on it; that article is located at Prohibition in the United States. The Prohibition article is about the ban of selling alcohol in general across many nations and many time periods, which would place it under law/government/social area of articles. This article mentions ancient prohibition, early 20th century in nations like US, UK, Canada, USSR, and present bans such as those in the Middle East. It could be expanded a lot more. If the article about being addicted to booze, Alcoholism is top 1,000 article, I would have thought the article about banning it might have a chance in the 10,000.

Also....Just thinking out loud about alcohol topics in the 1000 list. Perhaps Alcoholism is not a 1000 article material? We have Addiction, Alcoholism, Beer, Wine. Why is the addiction of alcohol at the 1000 level, when even at the 10,000 level no other specific addiction is included apart from the Substance abuse and Substance dependence articles; is it just because there is a single word for it? We don't have Tobacco at the 1000 level, which I would think is more important than Soybean which is. We do have Smoking however, which may be considered the kind of equivalent to alcoholism. But Alcoholism is about "any drinking of alcohol that results in problems" not just drinking in general. Although we have Beer and Wine we also don't have Alcohol (about the organic compound) at the 1000 level nor Alcoholic beverage...Alcohol consumption, would be the equivalent to smoking but that just redirects to alcoholic beverage.  Carlwev  11:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the general prohibition article too listy. It briefly mentions the different approaches taken by countries to ban or control the consumption of alcohol in as many countries as possible. It appears to be an article that could open the floodgates to adding any article on how countries ban something (other drugs, weapons, chemicals, etc.). The Prohibition in the United States article has a bit more meat on the bones and so is better in that respect, but as Cobblet said, it might be a bit too local in terms of time and place to be vital. I could support removing alcoholism from the 1,000 list as long as we have addiction. Can't see being an addiction to alcohol being more important than an addiction to smoking, other drugs, gambling or anything else. Gizza (t)(c) 11:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Decentralization

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support The most closely related article is probably federation, which really covers different territory. More important than cosmopolitanism. Gizza (t)(c) 01:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not swapped 2-3 Cobblet (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Field (agriculture), Add Ranch

We list so many things related to cropland (farm, agronomy, crop, soil science, soil fertility, irrigation, fertilizer, tillage, meadow) that I'm not really sure we need an article on the physical feature itself – what's left to write about it? In contrast ranching is an important economic activity in many parts of the world but our coverage of it is basically non-existent.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose adding ranch. very local really, & we have the more important Livestock (level 4 vital). That "our coverage of it is basically non-existent" is irrelevant to adding something here. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose While I'm indifferent about Field (agriculture), I don't think Ranch should be added.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose adding ranch per above. Gizza (t)(c) 06:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I like the add more than the remove but I agree, field is something, that can seem important at first, but how much can you really write about it like you said, that's not included in crops, farm agriculture etc. Field does appear in many languages in Wikipedia, but all the ones I checked are, like ours, little more than stubs. Ranch is something that has crossed my mind before, probably from playing too many games that include them, but still, to me ranch seems better than field and is more vital for agriculture than several crops and fruits we still have.  Carlwev  16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk)

The following discussion is closed. 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 building code

Read the article and you will notice it is not as fundamental as related articles like occupational safety and health, ergonomics, code (law), real estate, mortgage and lease, none of which are listed. Gizza (t)(c) 03:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree this isn't the most vital of legal codes or bodies of law. The previously nominated family law or law of obligations would be better choices; I'd also prioritize labour law or bankruptcy before building codes. Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support crossed my mind before, seems very non vital, agree with other comments real estate, bankruptcy, mortgage, more vital, thought of before. May be someone will open them soon?  Carlwev  16:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove 13 transactinide elements, Add Transactinide element

I suggest we remove all the transactinide elements beyond dubnium, i.e. seaborgium, bohrium, hassium, meitnerium, darmstadtium, roentgenium, copernicium, ununtrium, flerovium, ununpentium, livermorium, ununseptium and ununoctium. All of these artificially synthesized, non-naturally-occurring elements have half-lives of less than 15 minutes; even the rarest and least stable naturally occurring element francium has a half-life longer than that, as do the transactinides rutherfordium and dubnium (which I'm not suggesting we remove). So unless we find new isotopes of them that happen to be more stable, there is little chance of ever seeing practical applications for these elements. With the chemistry section over quota and many extremely important topics still missing (e.g. stoichiometry, stereochemistry), we simply don't have room to include all the known chemical elements, just like we don't include all the known subatomic particles or all the known organisms on Earth. The article on the transactinide elements should cover the general properties of these elements and the reasons why we keep trying to make new ones (island of stability).

Support
  1. Support as nom who also happens to be a chemist. Cobblet (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I've always thought that having every single element by default was silly, especially ones that have little history and application. At this level, I think only countries become vital by default. We may have to reconsider that though if more than 100 new nations form in the next few years. :P Gizza (t)(c) 12:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Good way to save some space on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Surface weather analysis

This article's about a particular type of weather map, and we don't list any other type of map (street map, relief map, etc.). We already list the meteorological features that are depicted on such a map (e.g. weather fronts, low-pressure areas, anticyclones, precipitation) and an article on the map itself doesn't seem vital to me – weather forecasting should cover what a reader needs to know about this topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Beryl

Emerald is vital; the general type of mineral is not. (Compare ruby and sapphire with corundum.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

What about a swap for jade? Cobblet (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Jade would be a good addition. Gizza (t)(c) 04:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I think so too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove General Circulation Model

This is a particular type of climate model. I think a less technical article like that might be vital, but this is probably too specialized.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Geyser not removed 2-2; spring added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Geyser, Add Spring (hydrology)

As interesting as geysers are, I don't think we can afford to list unusual types of springs when we don't even list the basic concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support adding spring only  Carlwev  18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support adding spring. Gizza (t)(c) 02:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support adding spring. Jucchan (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support the addition, Oppose the removal. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removing geyser. Jucchan (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Undecided on geyser but think I want to keep it.  Carlwev  18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
pond not removed 3-2; drainage basin added 5-0 Cobblet (talk)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pond, Add Drainage basin

We already list lake and the study of freshwater in general, limnology. Pond seems like a rather trivial concept, while everyone ought to know what a drainage basin is.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Adding Drainage basin only  Carlwev  17:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Add drainage basin only.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support removing pond. We don't include drizzle in addition to rain nor stream/creek in addition to river. I would support removing hill too. A small lake is still a lake. A small mountain is still a mountain. Most of these types of article are quite small in length and mainly try to discuss the nuances in terminology and then come to the conclusion that the difference between the words is unclear and subjective. Waste of space having these articles. Update Support addition too. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support addition and removal. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removing Pond only  Carlwev  17:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Pond should be kept, since it is crucial and the article can become a featured one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I would prefer to keep pond. It is relevant to wildlife, ecosystem, agriculture, fish, culture/recreation, and some religions. It is guilty of being smaller than a lake, but I don't think it's trivial. Drainage basin is clearly vital to me.  Carlwev  17:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My point is that it's pretty redundant with lake. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The number of things that could be double-listed because of two words existing for the same object of different size is endless. We could include mansion along with house, street and lane with road, tower block with skyscraper (which we do at the moment), etc. Gizza (t)(c) 09:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As some people are supporting half this thread, I would like to split this thread to make it clearer. Some votes followed by a comment mentioning one article but not the other are unclear to me whether the support is only for the article they mention or the whole swap.  Carlwev  21:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind that. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rapeseed and sesame added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Oil palm, Rapeseed and Sesame

Oil palm and rapeseed (also known as canola) are some of the most valuable cash crops around – they are the first and third most common sources of vegetable oil in the world. (Soybeans are second, sunflowers fourth; both are listed.) Sesame is the oldest oilseed crop and an essential component of many cuisines around the world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support I've been wanting to see more oil crops listed. There are certainly listed vegetables and spices that are less vital then these oil crops if the list of plants is getting too big. Plantdrew (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I support these additions (of course, I want to see more plants listed), but want to point out that palm oil is a better developed article than Elaeis (the redirect target of oil palm). Palm oil receives far more page views as well (112k in the last 90 days vs. not quite 3k for Elaeis). And I don't know if it's worth considering adding vegetable oil to the Everyday Life section (cooking oil is already on the vital list there). Plantdrew (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. I suppose palm oil is probably the better choice than even Elaeis guineensis since that's not the only source of palm oil and I don't think there are any other significant uses of the oil palms. I'll strike the redirect from this nomination and open a new one specifically for palm oil (which should probably go under cooking oil in the Everyday Life section). Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Hazel, Add Maple

We already list hazelnut which is the main use of the hazel. Maple is probably one of the most recognizable types of trees around the world; several species are notable for their wood or syrup.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support maples are culturally more significant too, particularly in Canada. Gizza (t)(c) 11:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Willow

Another extremely well-known tree with lots of uses and cultural significance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  09:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm a little leery of adding too many Northern hemisphere temperate trees, but willows are a better choice than some we already have (live oak could go).01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Phaseolus coccineus

Not a particularly notable variety of bean: the cowpea (e.g. black-eyed peas), pigeon pea and mung bean are more vital legumes not listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  13:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Clove and Nutmeg

Two very well-known spices that drove the development of the global spice trade during the Age of Discovery.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC) (Plantdrew)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Who's is the unsigned vote? I checked, it is Plantdrew's [see here]  Carlwev  13:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Cantaloupe and Honeydew (melon)

These are just two cultivars of the muskmelon which is already listed. We don't list individual cultivars of more important fruits like apples, oranges, pears or bananas.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Mandarin orange has a stronger case than these two. Gizza (t)(c) 10:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Tamarind

For the most part, the list of fruits reads like what you'd find at a Western grocery. Tamarind is used extensively throughout the tropical regions of the world. The Wikipedia page receives about as many views as the pages on cantaloupe and honeydew combined.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  13:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Diamondback terrapin

We probably list too many types of turtles – there are about 10,000 species of reptiles and only about 400 of them are turtles. We already have a much more notable example of a terrapin in the red-eared slider; we don't need a second (sorry if you're from Maryland).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Pleurodira, Add Skink

There are about 60 species of side-necked turtles but over 1500 species of skinks (the largest family of reptiles of any kind except for Colubridae, which is a wastebin taxon for snakes); I think the latter's more vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are families with even a greater number of species and distribution like jumping spiders. There is only one type of spider of the list (tarantula) and currently fives types of lizards. I think spiders and lizards are equally notable animals despite the difficulty in comparing them. But as Cobblet notes, there are less lizards than turtles and snakes (and dinosaurs). There are only seven articles on arachnids at the moment. Arthropod groups with similar notability like crustaceans and molluscs have ten articles each. Maybe my views are divergent from consensus but it seems arachnids could be better represented. Gizza (t)(c) 10:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

My first impression is too agree, spiders are underrepresented compared to other animals and lifeforms. Came up before, but I still think Butterflies/moths could afford to lose some entries, perhaps some adds, removes, default swaps could be suggested.  Carlwev  11:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I've previously nominated the largest families of insects around, and objected to the removal of Opiliones, both times without success. I'll admit species count should not be the sole determining factor of the vitality of a taxon, but when you have two groups of reptiles that are both slightly obscure but one comprises about 15% of all reptile species while the other comprises 0.6%, I think it's pretty straightforward which one we should pick. And if we're listing as many as 50 reptile articles the largest family of them ought to be vital. (By the way, since you guys brought up butterflies and spiders, Lepidoptera accounts for 10% of all described species of living organisms and people like butterflies – I'm not aware of articles corresponding to butterfly watching or butterfly garden for any other type of insect. The unlisted monarch butterfly is more vital than any type of spider I can think of. Also I don't think it's unreasonable to have more crustaceans or molluscs than spiders – for one thing, we don't eat spiders.) Cobblet (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Synapsid

An important group in the history of reptile evolution, they were the largest land animals of the Permian period (Dimetrodon is a famous example that we already list), and gave rise to mammals (the only extant synapsids).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  06:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 07:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both added 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Hybrid (biology) and/or Mule

From what I can see, there are no articles dealing with the concept of biological hybrids nor is the most famous example listed. It is quite surprising that mule isn't listed when many obscure species like diving petrel and cebidae are in addition to nine breeds of horses. We need at least one of these articles though not sure which one.

Support
  1. Support both for now as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support both  Carlwev  17:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support both. Plantdrew (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support both. Cobblet (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support both. Jucchan (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support both. I support hybrid because it is the genetics concept and mule because it is the best example of a hybrid species. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support both. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Both should be added to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Head and Abdomen

Basic parts of vertebrate anatomy. Somehow we have thorax but not these.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  07:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm curious as to whether people think neck is vital. There are potentially a lot of anatomy-related articles worth adding – I've got a list of fifty or so, but I'm only going to nominate the most obvious ones right now. (This is why we need to get rid of more organisms!) Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Intestines and brain and other organs, seem more vital, but at the 10000 level these probably are to, definitely if thorax is in.  Carlwev  07:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
was about to withdraw this, but then the !votes appeared out of nowhere; added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Central nervous system and Peripheral nervous system

The two basic divisions of the nervous system, which is so important that it really deserves better coverage. They're surely more notable components than the five different sensory systems we list in addition to the senses they're associated with.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 01:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd like to add subdivisions of each as well, e.g. autonomic nervous system (covering both sympathetic and parasympathetic nerves), somatic nervous system (AKA voluntary nerves) and enteric nervous system to cover the peripheral nervous system, and parts of the brain (potentially a lot to choose from, but cerebrum, cerebral cortex, brainstem and cerebellum at the very least). Most of these are among Wikiproject Anatomy's most-viewed pages. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Arm, Human leg and Foot

We just added hand so we should probably add these too. And like hand, these articles mostly deal with the anatomical feature in humans and don't really say much about these features in other primates, so I've put the nomination here with the intention of listing them under the "human anatomy" section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  09:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_43&oldid=1052967535"