Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 45

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cobblet
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

Just a thought

Hey there, i noticed this list awhile ago and was pleased, as a side hobby i do research into top people who are top influences in fields ranging from the high profile to the extremely obscure. I realize this list is based upon the 2000 most important people that would be in a print encyclopedia... I also acknowledge recentism is a factor but i can't help but wonder if we could represent a small couple of fields that are notable and just have one person to represent them to provide a fuller overview of human cultural existence, even if it is negative. The fact that we have people like Coco Chanel Al Capone Shigeru Miyamoto and Tupac Shakur for instance, as they are one person each representing a small cultural domain. Here's some ideas. (each link goes toward a person who dominates that field).

  1. Chef/Atheism/Modeling/New religious movements
  2. Circus/Rugby League (the other rugby)/Magazines/Criminal
  3. Sexology/Puppeteer
  4. Criminal 2 Criminal 3/Martial Arts
  5. Extreme sports 1/Extreme sports 2/Professional wrestling
  6. Graffiti/Wheelchair tennis (disabled sports)/Squash
  7. Table-Tennis/Bodybuilding

Heck even something like porn is a field that could be represented Linda Lovelace

Or even people who are widely known and are unique like Ayn Rand Giacomo Casanova Grigori Rasputin

P.S i know they don't really qualify under normal circumstances and i am not saying "ADD THEM ALL" i am just saying maybe we can represent some fields like chefs/criminals/Atheism or something with one person even if they might not pass the test like someone would have to in another field like politicians or acting. Mainly proposing this as a brainstorm, i know these are silly but it wouldn't hurt to think about what fields it might be good to think about adding (if any). I'd love to discuss as this is a passion of mine.

P.PS The strongest one i think merits inclusion is L. Ron Hubbard, i am not a fan at all but i really think New Religious Movements are a legitimate target for one biography.

Thanks for sharing your ideas GuzzyG. I have thought about proposing to add some of your suggestions myself, in particular Blackbeard and Jahangir Khan. I support topic diversity in the biography section for a "fuller overview of human cultural existence" as you say and I think adding a pirate would diversify the list of people (piracy itself is on the list so there would be no inconsistency in adding Blackbeard).
Arnold Schwarzenegger was on the list but removed (though he was in the actors section and I agree he would at least have a stronger case in bodybuilding than acting). With regards to atheism, I think Charles Darwin along with other comparable scientists and in a totally different way Karl Marx have expanded its horizons far more than people like Dawkins and Hitchens though I can understand the reasoning behind adding them. I would support adding history of atheism since histories of the five major religions are listed. With sexology, Sigmund Freud seems to be most famous and iconic person in the field for non-experts like me but I may be completely wrong. And just to let you know, we did have Hugh Heffner but he was removed too.
As for Dally Messenger, I think you could enter fuzzy territory since you could likewise add Leigh Matthews, Henry Shefflin, Julián Retegi, Phil Taylor, Lin Dan among many other legends of in the grand scheme of things, relatively small sports (except for possibly Lin Dan). We do have some founders of NRM's like A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada though he's in quite different territory to L. Ron Hubbard. I'll have more to say about all this later. :) Gizza (t)(c) 12:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have a feeling there will be consensus to add one or two more rappers to the list so Tupac will no longer be alone. If there are 27 rock musicians and 14 jazz musicians, two or three hip-hop musicians doesn't seem over the top in my opinion. Also Harry Houdini may be the only magician/illusionist listed so he's another person in that exclusive group of one. Gizza (t)(c) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
These are definitely names all worth considering, and I've even nominated Pablo Escobar before. It might be worthwhile to start separate discussions on specific areas like unrepresented sports or arts, or historical celebrities, so that we can have a more focused conversation. WRT new religious movements I've considered nominating Helena Blavatsky for a long time, who I think has made more of a fundamental impact on modern esotericism than anyone else, including Hubbard. Cobblet (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The road block with these type of under-representations or expanding hip-hop for existence (which i do support) is that they nearly all fall under recentism or are western so people are understandably a little iffy in adding them. I think one of the missing fields is criminals (i know it was removed, i've read most of the archives) yeah it's not a positive field but there's been criminals since there's been humans, recorded criminal history starts here, ha! so i think Blackbeard best represents that as he is historical and piracy played a big part in merchant trade.

I seen Arnold removed and i honestly did not agree really while he may be more of a pop-ish actor he's also a two term governor and played a big role in the foundation and dominance of bodybuilding and he was one of the figures who arguably brought fitness to the mainstream, that's more then a lot of the actors listed here have done, but now i seem like a rabid fan (not really one).

Yeah, Gizza, i seen you mention Atheism and i do agree with you, that's why i added it as a show of support, ha! Regarding the sports you mentioned, yeah they are relatively small, i mainly added League as a nod to the other game which is commonly not as heard of as Union. I do support unique sports when there is such domination like Jahangir and Kelly Slater for instance, i had heard of the others (Thanks for introducing me to Retigi). I would have added Phil and Lin in my original proposal but the sports are too small and people don't really like athletes being on here (Although American Football has three and that is regarded in one country, although a big one i understand).

Regarding Sexology, yes Sigmund is the most important to the layman i was just offering a specific person that specifically is prominent in the field, as Sigmund was mainly Psychoanalysis. Don't have a strong opinion on Hugh being here although he could represent adult entertainment as a whole. Yes, forgot Houdini but he is the only magician (if it was 40 years in the future, David Copperfield would probably qualify), Marcel is the only mime too. A. C. i must of missed him as i did not see him on the list, my mistake. We do need to have a conversation on underrepresented sports and arts, this was supposed to be a mega-post on that but separate discussions might suffice. I'd support Helena and i do agree.

Regarding on how to handle sports i think we should cut back on some like Auto Racing to 5, Cricket to 5, Baseball to 5, Basketball to 5, Gymnastics to 5 and Tennis to 10, then we can add really dominant people in small-ish sports or something, even sports which are restricted to Eastern audiences like Lin Dan or Tanikaze Kajinosuke, that's why i included Table-tennis, also mainly Olympic ones. I know i added some fields regarded as juvenile or regarded for youths but juvenile history is still history, which is why i added Tony Hawk who has influenced a whole scene of youth extreme sports (even had a impact on video games with his own self-titled series). I noticed Professional Wrestling itself is not on the list by-itself so we can ignore that although i do think it should be as it is big in multiple continents (although only the U.S, Japan and Mexico) mainly.

My main point is to maybe add some fields which might not be historically important (as they are within the new century) but it would be good in my mind to diversify the topics as if this list is used as a point of improvement it could help our encyclopedia to improve upon people in different topics. I forgot some potential fields. con-langs sports inventors, one of the only main sports that has a definitive creator Stunt men or even small-ish fields like talk-radio, Media criticism and i think i we missing Shah Rukh Khan.

My main ones that i think should be added are NRM's, a criminal, some unique sports dominators (like Karelin), graffiti (another centuries old thing), Modeling and Martial Arts (beyond Bruce Lee).

P.S i think if more hip-hop is to be added we should include atleast one group (like Run–D.M.C.) for example. Disclaimer - I am not a big fan of any of these people or fields i just think some diversification of topics and the potential of adding some fun, non-academic type fields might be good for this list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Although it's important that we have a list that captures the diversity of human experience, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the smaller fields might not be important enough to deserve representation. I'll take the example of Lin Dan since now both of you have mentioned him and I've thought about suggesting him in the past as well. Even though China dominates the sport, badminton has never been the most popular sport in China: it used to be ping-pong and these days it's basketball. Lin Dan is big but not that big in his home country: for example, when you look at page views on the Chinese Wikipedia, he gets fewer page views than Yao Ming or Jeremy Lin. If you're going to pick a Chinese athlete of the current generation to add to the list, it really has to be Yao Ming, who was the first truly internationally famous Chinese athlete of any kind and is responsible to a great extent for the popularity of basketball in China. And still Yao has no chance of making the list since he's not anywhere close to being the greatest basketball players of all time. There may be other areas where the Chinese are underrepresented but I don't think sports is one of them. You can't possibly justify adding Lin Dan to a list missing a figure as vitally important to Chinese culture as Yue Fei for example. Cobblet (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, Badminton does not make the cut, the only thing that helps it's case is that it's an Olympic sport, although it does outnumber the views on the English wiki 7x the amount of Alpine skiing [1] which has two athletes on the list [2] but Alpine is representative of the Winter Olympics, i am not that fussed about adding new sports, i understand some of them are too obscure and people don't like adding athletes, although ones like Kelly Arnold Esther (Paralympics) Jahangir Tony, Sébastien and Fedor are highly, highly dominant in their respective sports (which each are in the vital life section), with that i do think if we are going to have 14 of great but not super, super amazing players like Pancho Gonzales it might be good to cut back and add some highly dominant people in lesser known sports. I am also in favor of adding a sporting figure from a sport like Sumo which is one of the oldest currently competing sports. But not too big on sports as athletes are not overall that important and consensus is against them.
I was mainly meaning maybe adding in some culture stuff like a performing artist, graffiti artist, model, chef, puppeteer, one or two criminals, maybe someone representing sexuality/adult entertainment, stuntman, radio/talk-radio, media criticism (like film), new religious movements (but i see we have that covered) and i was going to suggest the performance art of Professional wrestling but i see the main article is not in here and has not been voted in before, just fields like that which are centuries old and well known unlike ones like Sailor Jerry or Juan Belmonte. I was also wondering about people's thoughts on people who are widely recognizable by their surnames Rand Casanova Rasputin and De Sade. I am not here as a fan who is trying to put in their "fav celebrity" i have no affinity for anyone i suggest, i am just wondering if we might be missing any fields.
Yue Fei i agree with you on that, before any other fields are added i think we should add an Australia leader (only member of the G-20 missing) and the Hawaiian and Tongan king first, what do you think of them? Or even a top Caribbean politician.
Cobblet what do you think of the fields and names thrown around? Like i said now that we are on our last legs to our limit i am just making sure if we are covered with what we could be. People like Jeanne Calment, Robert Wadlow and Lina Medina might be worth looking into as-well. GuzzyG (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think people one would associate with Ripley's or the Guinness Book of World Records are vital.
  • I've never paid much attention to Oceanian politicians but I think I'm OK with adding Kamehameha I unless there's someone even more notable we're missing. I'm not convinced yet we need a second one besides him. The one politician from Jamaica I've considered in the past was Marcus Garvey.
  • I don't think there's any chef I'd consider vital. Within any culinary tradition I'd rather list characteristic ingredients, eating habits, cooking methods, and dishes, before individual chefs. If no chefs are vital, there's no way any graffiti artist is vital.
  • Hitchens was just a pundit, not someone who made fundamental contributions to the development of Western thought. Dawkins would be slightly better, but I'm pretty sure there are several much more vital biologists we need first.
  • When it comes to fashion, there are several designers, movie icons (we removed James Dean and never listed Brigitte Bardot) as well as executives like Anna Wintour or Helena Rubinstein I'd consider to have made more of an impact on the history of fashion than any model.
  • People notable for being connected to sex in some way have to be judged against other people of their time. Maybe Sappho could be vital, especially if more of her work was extant and could back up her reputation. I'm not convinced anyone after her makes the cut. Lord Byron and Margaret Mead are people I consider definitely vital; Casanova and Kinsey are definitely less vital by comparison – whether they're still vital enough to make the list, I'm not really sure. We're still missing foundational writers of the Western canon like Rabelais and Tasso; de Sade's far, far down the list.
  • I don't remember having thought of Henry Luce before but he seems fairly vital. I thought David Sarnoff was clearly vital and that nomination still failed, and I haven't really thought about media execs since then.
  • We list Sesame Street and I'd probably list the Muppets before Jim Henson, but that's just me.
  • I doubt there are many people who care about Howard Stern and Ayn Rand outside of the US, and even in the US they're not exactly mainstream figures.
  • Rasputin could be a good choice, definitely crossed my mind before. Undecided on Blackbeard.
  • Have thought about Emelianenko before, but not really sure I'd take him over Royce Gracie. MMA is a young sport (ditto with extreme sports) and in a sense Bruce Lee is the first MMA fighter. I might not oppose adding professional wrestling as a form of entertainment but I really don't think we need professional wrestlers. I absolutely agree we have too many tennis players and Pancho Gonzales is the obvious person to remove, but I'm not sure who you'd remove after him. Tennis players are generally far better known than, say, squash players, and removing someone like Bjorn Borg or Margaret Court just to add Jahangir Khan or Nicol David doesn't seem right. When it comes to Japanese cultural figures, I'm not sure we need sumo wrestlers any more than we need, say, go players like Honinbo Shusaku or Go Seigen. (Izumo no Okuni seems more vital than any Japanese sportsperson that isn't a baseball player.) Based on impact on society as a whole, if I had to pick one disabled athlete I think I'd go with Terry Fox, and even he doesn't seem clearly vital to me – I don't think he's well known outside Canada.
  • I think I'd rather add one more film director from an underrepresented tradition or genre, say Abbas Kiarostami, than Roger Ebert. Has Ebert actually changed the way people make films? Are people going to study what he wrote a hundred years from now? Cobblet (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the vital list is a balancing act between adding people who were/are actually important versus diversifying the list to include underrepresented people and topics like women, minorities, "ancient" history, etc. In an encyclopedia you expect to read about people who made an impact on society but also a wide variety of content so you can broaden your knowledge on everything. Forming an opinion on where to draw the line is one of the most interesting and exciting parts of this project. I agree with most of what Cobblet said above.
With regards to Indian cinema, the biggest hole is the absence of actresses. Three male actors is plenty in comparison. There really should two female actors as a minimum from a country that produces the most films in the world and has done so for a long time, something that 600 million odd people aspire to become one day. And Shah Rukh Khan would face tough competition from Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand and Rajesh Khanna for the next male spot. I will probably support John Curtin simply because Australia ought to have representation in political leaders though if we're looking for people with power and influence, Rupert Murdoch would be a good addition too (more vital than Ted Turner in my opinion and gets more views). Gizza (t)(c) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. Just thought that "world's oldest person" could be a vital study in longevity.
  • I had both because Kamehameha I was a very influential king in his own right and i suggested George Tupou I because he was one of the few leaders of a country (let alone islands) who managed to keep his country intact and not colonized. Big yes on Garvey, i was gonna nominate him but i forgot, do you think i should?
  • I understand
  • Yeah, there's not enough evidence of their historical worth (if any) yet.
  • I do think one more person could be added to fashion along with Coco Chanel, Wintour or Charles Frederick Worth would probably be right, some models like Twiggy or Kate Moss can have cultural impact but not vital impact i guess, James Dean and Birdot i would not support. Rubinstein only if we were to include cosmetics which might be too small a field.
  • I probably would be in support of Sappho as she seems to be quite significant for BCE women poets and fits in as a erotica writer.
  • I would support Henry and i would Smirnoff, surprised he failed actually.
  • The Muppet's are a big cross media franchise and could be historically important, i guess....
  • True, just throwing out names.
  • In my mind if they thought he had enough power to kill him, i would say he might be notable (i would vote support if he was up). For sure would support Blackbeard.
  • I'd only vote for Royce out of MMA if we are doing are "one of the first important figures" i think historically Fedor out-ranks him. I probably will try Pro Wrestling itself again later. it's extremely popular in 3 major world countries for going on 60 years now. As for Tennis my first two to remove would be Pancho and Pete Sampras they're good but Tennis is packed with amazing players and their accomplishments have been largely left behind. I'm in full support of Jahangir because his record transcends his sport although it's downtrodden because Squash is not a Olympic sport, how about Karch Kiraly? He's got dominance and a gold medal in two Olympic sports (indoor & outdoor Volleyball) apparently the only one to do so. Yeah, Sumo is a one off country and Japan is not up there with the U.S in numbers in order to support a one country sports add, so that rules out Go and Sumo. Izumo looks to be a good add.
  • Abbas is more notable then Roger yeah, Roger probably will be read/studied as a starter on film criticism but that's not a really important field, i concede.
  • How about this guy Cobblet? Alfred Wegener he seems to be vital and influential in polar research. Nominate Helena too, if you want, i'll support her.
  • The biggest problem with the ideas i have pointed out is the recentism in them, although i was originally under the idea it might be good to have some unique/small fields get representation with figures who are/were a dominant force in them (influenced by Al Capone being here, which i agree with), but i concede that historical importance and vitality trumps that. Let's wait a couple years (or decades, haha!) Do you have any fields you think we have not covered Cobb?
  • @Gizza How about Madhubala or Nargis? What two other hip-hop artists would you choose to get the nod? I would support a Ted Turner and Murdoch swap. GuzzyG (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Garvey and W. E. B. Du Bois should probably be nominated together as their influence on African-American history is comparable. The trouble with Karch Kiraly is again the relative prominence of volleyball athletes vs. other sports – is Kiraly really more vital than Joe Montana or Kobe Bryant? We definitely haven't paid enough attention to earth scientists and the guy who came up with continental drift definitely needs to be considered. It has occurred to me before that Alfred Russel Wallace isn't on the list.
Fields we haven't covered at all... honestly I've never really thought about it in a global sense like you have (which is why I'm glad you're here). I ought to nominate Wang Xizhi soon. I've also thought about adding someone to represent the decorative arts like maybe Louis Comfort Tiffany or Peter Carl Fabergé. I've also noticed for a very long time that engineers are underrepresented, particularly people associated with the Industrial Revolution like John Smeaton, George Stephenson or Richard Arkwright just to name three possibilities. Remarkably we once had a proposal to rename the "Inventors" section to "Inventors and Engineers" that failed which is why I've personally put those ideas on the backburner. That being said, none of the people who opposed it at the time are still around. Also, I think the only judge we have is John Marshall. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Du Bois and Garvey we could probably only get one and Garvey would be that one in my opinion. I'd have both though. I'd say Volleyball is a bit more important worldwide then American Football as it's a Olympic sport, it's popular in Brazil and it's along with Netball one mainly played by women. Basketball beats it, but then again Kobe is more important then some of the other sport figures there too, but he is just not historically in the top 5 of basketball yet. I would have said we should cut Basketball to 5 and i would've chose Larry but he's the only person to win a Series in all four roles so i would not pick him..
Wallace not on the list is surprising.. I'd vote for Wang but i don't know if he'd get in. Decorative arts sound good, just the type of field i meant to say. Tiffany and Fabergé could go either way, both influential people, maybe more Fabergé. I would have thought Smeaton and Arkwright would be in here, Inventors and Engineers has a nice ring to it. Judge's are hard as they mainly influence one country like Warren and Denning. There's Roland Freisler but i would not add another Nazi as Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Göring are not on here, you could go biblical with Samson but he's not the most vital biblical figure, we could go with a Nuremberg judge? . Lawyer's are even harder as they are more singular like Giovanni Falcone and Clarence Darrow. We could add Syed Ahmad Khan, what do you think? I am shocked that Cesar Chavez is not on the list either. How about an Indigenous Australian? Bennelong might fit, he's up there with Sitting Bull. It's an interesting discussion but it is hard because most people's importance is relagated to a single country or continent. What did you think of L. L. Zamenhof? How about Aleister Crowley? What do you think of Pancho and Pete being removed from Tennis? GuzzyG (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Göring is listed under military leaders. As for judges, we have John Marshall. pbp 16:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I just remembered that we did briefly discuss adding William Blackstone. I'd say no to Zamenhof – I don't think Esperanto's that important. Syed Ahmad Khan seems to have a good case – I haven't thought much about 19th-century South Asian history although I've considered nominating Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani under the journalist category. Bennelong seems distinctly non-vital – it seems to me a much closer comparison could be made to Squanto who is way less vital than, say, Pocahontas, let alone Sitting Bull. Never considered Crowley but I think I'd still take Blavatsky over him, since her impact has been more global. I agree with removing Pancho but rather doubt that Sampras should be the next player to bump off, he seems a better choice than Borg at least. Also, I just realized we do in fact list Sappho – for some reason I thought we hadn't. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Either Blackstone or his book is a must, either way it/he was highly influential. I missed the banner on Sappho too, haha! Göring does not have a VA banner on his talk so i assumed he was not here. I'd support adding Himmler actually. Jamal is a good choice. Pocahontas would be a good pick if American history wasn't over represented. I'll nominate Pancho later, how many people do you think would fit tennis good? I'd say 10. But we are under the limit so we probably should wait until we hit the limit. These could be good Francis Galton, Thomas Bayes, Jean-François Champollion, Aldus Manutius, Heinrich Schliemann, William Morris, Wernher von Braun, Gottlieb Daimler, Richard Stallman or Valentina Tereshkova to represent women in space. GuzzyG (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree ten tennis players would be all right. I've tagged Göring now. No idea what to make of Galton. No to Bayes. We list Egyptian hieroglyphs and Rosetta Stone and I think that makes Champollion redundant. Manutius is interesting, Schliemann is vital – what other archaeologists are we missing? Morris – I knew I was missing someone when I was naming decorative artists. Von Braun is OK though Sergei Korolev deserves just as much consideration and I have to wonder if Robert H. Goddard and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky aren't better choices – you could argue that von Braun and Korolev are subsumed to some extent by the articles on their respective space programs. Yes to Daimler, Stallman's too recent and in my last sentence I named two people more important to the Soviet space program than Tereshkova. Cobblet (talk) 08:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer Tsiolkovsky. I am not that knowledgeable on archaeologists but i know the big names are V. Gordon Childe, Marija Gimbutas, Louis Leakey, Richard Owen, Othniel Charles Marsh, Edward Drinker Cope then there's the most famous one Howard Carter but he's a one hit wonder. I also noticed Robert Koch is missing, i think he's perfect for this list. There's also some known last names that might make it, that have not been discussed, Louis Braille and Rudolf Diesel, you won't like these next ones but i would think if we got rid of some modern sports people these would not hurt Milo of Croton and Pierre de Coubertin. What do you think of Gizza's suggestion of possibly adding two or one more hip-hop? wait a couple of years? Make Tupac less lonely, ha! I am thinking of nominating Itzhak Perlman and Steve Martin for removal, what do you think? There's also Julian Huxley GuzzyG (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup, I mentioned Koch in the discussion on the Chandrasekhar-Raman swap and I agree we really need to look at biologists like him and Huxley. Braille is a better choice than Diesel. Leakey seems the best among the choices you gave; I think Georges Cuvier and Flinders Petrie also have a shot. Can't take Milo when we don't have Theseus, Hipparchus or Polybius. (When you warned me I thought you were going to say Gaius Appuleius Diocles.) De Coubertin is interesting but would lose to Henry Dunant. I'm all for adding more hip hop artists but the only one I listen to is Nujabes so don't ask me who to pick. I agree Perlman and Martin can go. Just realized Hugo Grotius is listed so we have a second jurist. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Koch's a must, in my opinion, we really do need to look at biologists. Both are good but out of those two Cuvier seems to be the better shot. Haha, i knew you would think that, there's not much evidence for him but if those times had as much documentation us now he most likely would be a shoe-in, same with a gladiator, just no documentation so it's impossible to judge their impact. Forgot about the Red Cross, i'd say for hip-hop based on significantly changing the industry i would go with Run–D.M.C. and Eminem but you could say the latter is too recent so i am not sure. Yeah, Hugo is really vital, not surprised, ha. Found some more potentially vital people like Igor Sikorsky, Cornelis Drebbel, Mel Blanc, Eadweard Muybridge and Nicéphore Niépce. Also before we add more hip-hop shouldn't we have a punk representative like Sex Pistols? it's been around longer.GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Before adding punk rockers (the Ramones have been suggested before) I'd like to see The Velvet Underground added back since they were basically the creators of alternative rock. Of the other people you mentioned I think Sikorsky's the only one who has a shot. Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that (Velvet), especially if we list Nirvana. Really i would have thought for sure Muybridge and Blanc left a pretty big impact. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither of them stand out strongly when compared to their peers who also aren't on the list, e.g. Étienne-Jules Marey and Auguste and Louis Lumière for Muybridge and all the other people associated with Warner Bros. Cartoons for Blanc. Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unfortunately Bennelong isn't vital. It would be good to represent Aboriginal Australian culture a bit better on the list but I don't think adding people is the answer. There are other aspects that are more well-known within Australia and around the world. At the moment, Aboriginal Australians itself, Aboriginal Australian mythology and boomerang are listed. Dreamtime for all purposes is just a synonym for Aboriginal Australian mythology. The only article I can think of with some chance is didgeridoo.
Madhubala and Nargis are both great choices. Along with Meena Kumari, they represent the Golden Age of Indian cinema in the 50s and 60s. Alternatively, if we want to have to have two from different eras, we could pick someone like Hema Malini, Mumtaz or Madhuri Dixit but I lean towards two of the first three.
Regarding hip-hop, Eminem used to be on the list but was removed two years ago here. Coincidentally, the most people that have been listed on VA is 2260. See here. That was when the entire list was very much over the limit because anyone could anything they wanted to the list without discussion. It is interesting to note how the list has progressed. Gizza (t)(c) 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not that knowledgeable on Indian Cinema but if you want to pick 1-2 representatives i will trust your judgment and support, as one of the biggest film industries it does need at-least 1-2 actresses. True no Indigenous Australian has really reached worldwide prominence, David Unaipon is probably the closest, it's a shame, the topics you mentioned are good representations though. I actually think Eminem should be on here aswell as Run–D.M.C. for a group, but Eminem is probably too recent. Other then way too many recent comedians/actors/authors/american athletes i do not think that list was that bad, it had a good variety. Thanks for linking me that diff, appreciate it, very interesting to compare it to today. GuzzyG (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: Come to think of it, the most vital Indigenous Australian would be Eddie Mabo since his successful landmark court case resulted in Indigenous Australians obtaining genuine land rights for the first time since British colonisation. He is ranked sixth in a list of 50 top Australians which explains why he is important better than I could http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-greatest-of-all-our-50-top-australians/story-e6frg6n6-1226562801398. It's a shame his Wikipedia article doesn't do him justice. Gizza (t)(c) 14:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
5-0 and added Gizza (t)(c) 06:30, 16 October 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 Madhubala

Mumtaz Jehan (February 14, 1933 – February 23, 1969), more popularly known as Madhubala (literally "honey belle"), was an Indian Bollywood actress who appeared in classic films of Hindi Cinema.[2][3] She was active between 1942 and 1960. Along with her contemporaries Nargis and Meena Kumari, she is regarded as one of the most influential personalities of Hindi movies.[4] She is also considered to be one of the most beautiful actresses to have worked in the industry.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm willing to support adding one Indian actress without a more detailed explanation of why she's vital, and of the ones suggested Madhubala seems like the best choice. Cobblet (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Continuing from what I said above, Nargis often costarred with Raj Kapoor who is listed, creating overlap which on such a selective list makes it hard to add her. Another thought I've had is should another Indian film be added to complement the Apu Trilogy? If so, it could only be Sholay which is so far ahead of every other candidate. Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we already have enough actors/actresses. So to support this nomination, I would need someone to remove to make space for this one. Please add information on why this actress is vital for international Wikipedians, ie beyond the Indian context Arnoutf (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The actors and actresses (and directors) of the 50s and 60s generation of Indian film propelled the industry to international markets beyond the country's traditional sphere of influence of South Asia. The economically socialist, anti-colonial and socially conservative bent of the films at the time made Indian film more popular and well-known than Hollywood in the Soviet Union, Middle East and parts of Africa. This generation also created a domestic boom and is a major reason why the Indian film industry is the biggest in the world by ticket sales and number of movies (population is not the only factor, it comprises a greater proportion of the total economy compared to other countries) and why the unique traits of film in India remain entrenched in modern Indian culture. And what the actresses bring to the table is obviously different to what the actors bring. Modern Indian actors and actresses are still influenced and inspired by those who acted in the golden era, especially the cream (Raj Kapoor, Dev Anand, Dilip Kumar, Nargis, Meena Kumari and Madhubala).
How many we need is a good question. If it's just the one, I agree with Cobblet and believe it should be Madhubala. Gizza (t)(c) 13:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 06:09, 17 October 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 Roy Lichtenstein

A prominent pop artist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Vital enough, top 10 000. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Because we have 32 "Modern" artists, against only 17 older ones - these should be boosted before other moderns are added. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Johnbod. Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 08:25, 15 October 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 Joanne Gair

Her body painting, especially of the Trompe-l'œil variety, has become quite prominent as the primary artist for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and her prior work as a make-up artist for Madonna and others is highly regarded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think it's wildly premature at this point to suggest that she's an integral part of the history of art. Of contemporary female artists I think Louise Bourgeois and Cindy Sherman might have the best cases to be made for them. Cobblet (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 19:58, 13 September 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 1-3 Gizza (t)(c) 05:12, 5 October 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 Thorstein Veblen

A social scientist and critic who greatly influenced socialist thinkers and engineers who sought a non-Marxist critique of capitalism.

Support
  1. As nom. This highly influential figure should be included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose He may have been important to the American intelligentsia 60 years ago (compare Paul Krugman's influence nowadays) but not so much today. Institutional economics is already represented by John Kenneth Galbraith. Cobblet (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The most important missing American economist is probably Irving Fisher. Among other social scientists and philosophers Ronald Dworkin is way ahead of him. Gizza (t)(c) 22:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. He was another prestigious figure in institutional economics, which means that the article is definitely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 06:31, 16 October 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 Granville Stanley Hall

He was a key figure in the history of child-study, and contributed a lot to psychology, hence he is vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already have too many psychologists. Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose "72nd most cited psychologist of the 20th century" if anything proves he is not vital. The nom doesn't rebut this with anything substantial. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

He was the first to have an American negro as his student, and was the first president of the American Psychological Association, which is currently the largest psychological association on earth. Don't these statements prove that this article is vital?--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No, not even close. The one child psychologist whose addition I'd support is Melanie Klein. Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hall's theory that adolescence is the most crucial life stage (this theory later went obsolete) greatly influenced education in the United States, making upper secondary education there compulsory. Doesn't this mean that he was crucial?--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Still nowhere close. Johann Julius Hecker was the driving force behind the establishment of the globally influential Prussian education system, the first modern system of compulsory education anywhere in the world. Isn't that a much more impressive contribution? Unfortunately he's far too obscure (111 page views in the last 30 days, probably fewer than anyone currently on the list) to be vital. Horace Mann and Booker T. Washington were both notable politicians who made a far greater impact on American education than Hall – both were included on The Atlantic's list of the 100 most influential Americans. Cobblet (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Then let's include Johann Julius Hecker, Horace Mann, Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All 1-3 and not added Gizza (t)(c) 06:34, 16 October 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 Jerome Bruner

A psychologist who made significant contribution to educational, developmental and cognitive psychology.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Johann Julius Hecker

A great Prussian educator who influenced the formulation of Prussia's first general school law, which in turn influenced compulsory education on earth.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too obscure – I think this would be by far the least-viewed biography on the list. Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Horace Mann

He helped to established public schools in Massachusetts, which in turn caused many other states to do the same, thus he influenced the U.S.A. a lot.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd rather include educators with a more global impact like Maria Montessori. Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 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, no votes after more than 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 06:12, 17 October 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 Peter Drucker

An Austrian-American whose writings contributed to the philosophical and practical foundations of the modern business corporation. He was also a leader in the development of management education.

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that he has been called the founder of modern management makes him vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Not the next business theorist to be included. Gizza (t)(c) 06:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 8-0 pbp 14:52, 6 October 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 Angela Merkel

We generally guard against recentism though we do list people that only became prominent since the mid-2000s like Lionel Messi, Rafael Nadal, Manmohan Singh, Usain Bolt and Barack Obama (while Kofi Annan, the Williams sisters and Vladimir Putin became notable only a little bit earlier).

I think you can put forward a very strong case for adding Angela Merkel. Chancellor of Germany since 2005 and regarded as de facto leader of the European Union for most of this time. Credited as being a stabilizing force for the continent during a tumultuous economic period. Merkel has been ranked as the most powerful woman for nine of the past ten years by Forbes. And the only people consistently above her in the Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People over the past five years are Obama and Putin who are listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Whether you agree with her policies or not, there's no question she's been a huge force in international politics over the last decade. It makes no sense that we list leaders of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Georgia but not her. Cobblet (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 05:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  16:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support I had thought of this before too. She's arguably been the most powerful and important German leader in a long time, particularly in terms of her role in the European economic crisis. Neljack (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Important world leader. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Note that Obama was added to the list when he president for less than three years and he didn't do much back then. The only reason for adding him so early was because it was an historic moment when someone from a racial minority became President of the United States. You can say likewise for Angela who will always be known as the first woman to become Chancellor of Germany (though her actions and long tenure make her vital too). Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 18 October 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 Christina, Queen of Sweden

One of the best-known monarchs of 17th-century Europe. Her abdication of the Swedish throne stunned Europe and her masculine behaviour and unconventional lifestyle scandalized it. Few have equalled her legacy as a patron of the arts – she founded the Arcadian Academy and sponsored some of the greatest composers (Alessandro Scarlatti, Arcangelo Corelli) and artists (Gian Lorenzo Bernini) of the Baroque period.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Quite a figure. Jusdafax 03:53, 8 October 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) 08:34, 18 October 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 Koch

Pioneer in the study of infectious disease and a founder of modern bacteriology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 16:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:26, 3 October 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) 08:34, 18 October 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 Alfred Wegener

Apart from biology and medicine we're also short on people who made contributions to geology. Wegener conceived of the idea of continental drift; like Mendel, his theory was ahead of its time but has since been shown to be one of the most profound ideas in modern science.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:33, 9 October 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) 08:34, 18 October 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 Leopold Kronecker and James Joseph Sylvester

Second-rate 19th-century mathematicians. Richard Dedekind, a contemporary number theorist, was far more important than either of them; and Apollonius of Perga is another mathematician that I'd consider more obviously vital but isn't listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Good choices to pull. Jusdafax 03:57, 8 October 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) 08:34, 18 October 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 Pieter van Musschenbroek

This otherwise totally obscure scientist (812 views in the last 30 days) was probably not even the first person to invent the capacitor: Ewald Georg von Kleist is also claimed to have done the same.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:38, 4 October 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) 08:34, 18 October 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 Dewar

I don't think inventing the vacuum flask is enough to make Dewar vital. For example we don't list Robert Bunsen who invented the Bunsen burner. Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, discoverer of superconductivity and winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize for Physics, is a more important condensed-matter physicist who isn't listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Hopefully the above proposals make it obvious just how much more detailed our coverage of mathematicians and physicists is compared to our coverage of other natural sciences, where people who opened up entire disciplines of study have so far been overlooked. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I removed the Dewar flask itself from the list years ago, and replaced it with something like water well, or plumbing. Dewar flask now redirects to vacuum flask, neither of them nor it's inventor seem vital. Vacuum flask seems the most important, but still probably not quite vital.  Carlwev  17:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-5, not added 00:35, 4 October 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 Gary Player, Add Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Gene Sarazen, Walter Hagen and/or Bobby Jones (golfer)

The current list of Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Annika Sörenstam and Tiger Woods smacks of recentism.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The proposal decreases the globalization of the list. Also, Gary Player was a more decorated golfer than most of those guys. pbp 16:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless, we should have someone who was a pre-television star of the sport.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any more of a need for that than, say, an opera singer from before the recording age. Cobblet (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Some of the others were probably better golfers than Player, but Player was more influential in popularising golf (along with the likes of Palmer and Nicklaus), in large part because of the ability for people to watch golf on TV. Neljack (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 00:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Snead and Hogan were both removed last year. Cobblet (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add any of these 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 19:31, 18 October 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 Al Oerter

The first Olympian to win gold in the same individual event in four consecutive olympics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Neljack (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Man o' War and Secretariat (horse)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per DaGizza. Neljack (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Secretariat was removed some time ago here. The main reasons provided were that there are more important horse topics missing and there are racing horses of equal significance in other countries such as Phar Lap. Gizza (t)(c) 10:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 18 October 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 Ancestral Puebloans

Probably the most well-known group of early native North Americans, even more so than the Mississippian culture which we already list. I'll note that we also list Mesa Verde National Park, the most famous of Puebloan sites, but the Puebloans' architectural legacy is much more extensive than that one site and is also just one part of their legacy as a whole.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support I do not mind adding this group, but we should probably also add Iroqouis, which is of a similar importance to Native American history. I am not sure Ancestral Puebloans are as important as the Iroqouis, but I am willing to support this proposal because it is a good start to covering Native American ethnic groups. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - Agree that this is vital. Jusdafax 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I was thinking about proposing to add an indigenous group from South America to the ethnic groups section. It's the only inhabited continent with no representation. Quechua people and Aymara people are among the leading candidates. Also thinking of swapping Sami people for Sápmi (the latter is not a politically autonomous region and only notable because of the Sami people). Maybe do the same with Kurds and Kurdistan but at least some of Kurdistan is autonomous. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can support adding the Quechua and Aymara and swapping Lapland for the Laplanders. In the case of the Kurds and Kurdistan I don't think it would be inappropriate to list both (but maybe swap Kurdistan with Iraqi Kurdistan as that is the modern political unit commonly associated with the term) – off the top of my head we already do this for Tibetans/Tibet and Uyghurs/Xinjiang. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 18 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.
No consensus to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:36, 18 October 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 Recession

This article is no less vital than Financial crisis of 2007–08, since it documents the global economic downturn during the early 21st century, rather than the detailed background on financial market events dating from 2007, which is covered by Financial crisis of 2007–08.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I am shocked that this is not included. I think it is recentism.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    Oops. I misread that as the great depression.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose a straight-up addition. I'd support a swap for the financial crisis. Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

The Great Recession is not the same thing as the Great Depression. If the Financial crisis of 2007–08 was included but not the Great Depression, then that would be a clear case of recentism. The Great Recession refers to the largest economic downturn since WWII which happened in the first decade of the 21st century (i.e. quite recent). It is still a decent article to have. Gizza (t)(c) 13:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 18 October 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 Microcomputer revolution

Support
  1. Support as nom. This revolution seems as important as many that are listed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Shouldn't Information Age cover this? Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add Gizza (t)(c) 11:08, 9 October 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 history of anthropology and history of political science

These two articles are no less vital than history of psychology and history of sociology, however they are not included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Not my favourite articles but there are less vital histories listed. Gizza (t)(c) 01:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I think it's better to list history of the social sciences than each of these separately, since it's only been in the last hundred years or so that they've been considered separate disciplines. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I had made this proposal before, however these two article were not added to the list due to having no more vota for 30 days (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 42#Add history of anthropology and history of political science)--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC) 04:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC) added a parenthesis

The discussion above is closed. 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 Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 16 October 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 Fight song

I was about to nominate "Victory March (fight song)" and "The Victors" because when I was younger I did not associate them with a school. I just felt that they were songs played at college sporting events. They are universally recognized. However, I realize that fight song is not even recognized. Let's add this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Seems to be a predominantly American genre. Not clear what its importance is.
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 18 October 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 Rumours (album), Add Kind of Blue

Rumours is a very good album but pop music is already amply represented. We don't have a single jazz album (Rhapsody in Blue isn't really jazz) and Kind of Blue is an obvious choice to represent the genre. It can legitimately be said to have made a major impact on 20th-century music.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Kind of Blue is often cited as one of the most important albums of all time. Neljack (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - Neljack echoes my thoughts. If we really only have one jazz album this is a great choice. Jusdafax 12:29, 7 October 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 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 18 October 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 Whaam!

Arguably Roy Lichtenstein's most notable work and one of the most important pop art works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already have Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans to represent pop art. Other notable post-WWII art movements or genres like abstract expressionism, installation art, art photography and performance art aren't even represented by a single work. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Jucchan (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I'd probably support removing Campbell's soup cans too  Carlwev  18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It all depends on what art styles we think need representation and how much. Some styles are not mentioned at all (body painting). Some have only the article about the style itself and nothing more (origami), some have the style and one or two artists, then some have the style and some artists and a work or two (cubism). We have pop art and Warhol, that may or may not be enough. We have many art forms that don't have a work representing them such as rock art, origami, collage, photography and engraving. Just saying not every single style needs a work here when some don't even have an artist and some don't even the parent article or style itself.  Carlwev  07:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any of those art forms that you mention is as important as pop art except for photography (and I have nominated two works below). Campbell's Soup Cans was added with this edit by Mercurywoodrose on 06:22, 29 October 2011. Currently, over half (8) of the 13 additions in that edit remain (although 2 van Goghs are on the chopping block). I don't know if there was discussion in support of that edit. Also, as I say below I did not know that the art form and an artist had to be added before a work could be added. How much consensus is there for that?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
That isn't always the case – it depends on the relative prominence of each, and several of the works listed are exceptions – but still it's worth keeping in mind that often there are broader topics of greater importance than this one particular thing that otherwise seems unique and hence perhaps vital. For instance, when you nominated Joanne Gair it occurred to me that we don't even list Sports Illustrated to begin with. I personally would consider the magazine more vital than the artist. The current system of seeking consensus before every addition and removal from the list did not exist in 2011. FWIW, I'm completely fine with keeping Warhol's soup cans. Cobblet (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Cobblet, If you want other recent art movements, what about adding representing body painting with Demi's Birthday Suit?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
You'd have to convince me first that body painting needs to be represented. (I've thought about adding Annie Leibovitz to the list of people, but I don't think there's any body artist or their work that's vital.) If I had to add one more piece of 20th-century art to the list I think it would be Duchamp's Fountain. I'm not sure there's any single photograph that's done as much to change the way we make and think about art as that one readymade has. Cobblet (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd support Fountain. I did not know that the art form and an artist had to be added before a work could be added. I don't necessarily think body painting needs to be represented although I think Joanne Gair may be worthy of consideration because her work on bodypainting has become quite prominent. Her annual contribution to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue since 1999 have made her quite well known. She has done a lot for Trompe-l'œil art in her body of work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 5-4 Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 18 October 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 Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or V-J Day in Times Square

I think an important photograph should be on the list since currently 31 of the 32 specific works are paintings and sculptures.

Support
  1. Support any of them as nom. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support V-J Day in Times Square All.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 02:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC) changed from V-J to all
  3. Support V-J Day in Times Square. Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support V-J Day in Times Square. That photo is timeless. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support V-J Day. Iconic, and unposed. Jusdafax 04:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If another piece of American art needs to be listed American Gothic is more significant than any of these photographs. Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Neljack (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose  Carlwev  18:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

History of photography might be worth considering....maybe?  Carlwev  07:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not surprising since they've been the two most important Western art forms. The history of photography is comparatively short and while I'd very much like to add a deserving photograph, I'm just not convinced there's one that has the kind of importance that the works of art already listed have – and we're omitting some fairly deserving paintings. Like when it comes to American art I'm not sure these photographs make better choices for the list than American Gothic. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thinking out loud about this, sorry if it's a bit long.
1. In general, I think the number of works of art has been too many, although we have reduced it from what it once was; I have suggested and supported removals from it in the past, I am supporting some removals now, and might even support removing more in the future. I do think we should have some works, not sure how many exactly, but tend to prefer artists or movements/styles/genres over individual paintings/works most of the time, but not all the time, I look at each suggestion as it is. I would support works of other forms if I genuinely believed them to be vital. Bayeux Tapestry is up for voting, for example, I consider this a decent idea and am supporting it. (I don't think it's more vital than the Battle of Hastings itself which it depicts, but that battle is already on board so it's OK in my brain, if it were missing I would have had a little moan about it.)
2. Cob said "I'm not sure there's any single photograph that's done as much to change the way we make and think about art as that one readymade has" In general I think individual photographs, (not only being recent compared to multiple centuries of painting, sculpture and other methods) just don't seem as famous/influential/important/vital as some paintings and other forms do, most of the time. I would support a photo if I genuinely believed it to be vital, but I don't view the ones you suggest as such, and I can't imagine many/if any I would, but I would look at each one individually.
3. Although not works we do list many other art forms/styles themselves; FWIW I added some of these to the list myself before the voting method started like collage, tattoo, cosmetics, Manga, Anime and engraving, and have suggested and supported some since like prehistoric art and origami. Again not works but we also list artists of several other forms, photographers, architects, comic artists, illustrators, designers, other traditions and one instrument maker. Body painting I don't think is that bad an idea, but it may fall short of vital, Demi's Birthday Suit and Joanne Gair just don't seem vital in the slightest to me personally. (for one, Demi's Birthday Suit appears in only one other language, and Gair herself in no other languages at all, unless that's another wiki language link problem, suggesting people of other languages don't think them vital enough to even start an article at all.)
4. Depending on how far ones definition of visual art goes, we also list buildings/structures/works of architecture in their own section, I think they were previously under visual arts, but now a stand alone section. My self and others suggested several works of architecture to add through voting. We also list some examples of Comic strips, a few books known primarily for their illustrations, video games, movies, animated/illustrated/videogame characters, TV shows (plus genres of some of them too) which are, at least in part, visual art of a kind too.
5. Finally on a completely biased view, photographs that interest me on a personal level are things like. View from the Window at Le Gras, Pale Blue Dot, Hubble Deep Field. But that's only my own interests, and these photos are interesting for historical, technological, scientific, even slightly philosophical reasons but not really artistic. I don't think them vital to photography and they are definitely not vital to astronomy or history standing alone either. Perhaps Astrophotography would stand half a chance, but probably not. History of photography I already mentioned might also be worth at least considering. Perhaps maybe Photojournalism too. Adding photography genres would at least give the medium a bit more representation, even if not through single photos.  Carlwev  09:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I been involved in very little art on WP that is over 100 years old. Thus, my concerns are a bit slanted. However, what is the best mosaic candidate? It would seem to me that there must be important mosaics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S., I don't view View from the Window at Le Gras, Pale Blue Dot, or Hubble Deep Field as famous as I had never heard of any of them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The mosaics of Ravenna, e.g. in the Basilica of San Vitale, are the first thing that came to mind. I'd have thought Earthrise was the most notable space-related photograph. Cobblet (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both 1-3 and not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:25, 14 October 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 View of the World from 9th Avenue

Since paintings and sculptures represent 31 of the 32 specific works at VA, I think we should broaden our perspective. This is another attempt to do that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Neljack (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

This is definitely an interesting choice. Adding a magazine would indeed broaden our perspective. I could support this. For magazines covers, there's also Afghan Girl. Gizza (t)(c) 09:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

There's more than one way to broaden our perspective – is this really more vital than a piece of journalism like "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold", Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Into the Wild or Into Thin Air, or even an advertising logo like I Love New York? We list The New Yorker which has some coverage of its covers including this one. Cobblet (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Shroud of Turin

This is the most famous work of textile art that I know and since textile art is under consideration above, I thought about this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Not a work of art - especially for its fans! But nice to see you nominating something that isn't American, Tony. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Johnbod. Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Based on the categories the article is in, the Shroud of Turin is not treated as a work of art, it is treated as a religious relic. It's not in any art categories in itself or through other subcategories. Would this be better under religion somewhere, if it gets in? No one knows how it was made, it's not famous for artistic reasons, even if one believes it was deliberately drawn on, which is only one theory of many, it still isn't really an art piece. Also this does seem quite notable, much much more than magazine covers, I'm thinking about whether this deserves a place above other relics. Not sure, maybe....There is also the article Relic itself, not sure if that's vital, I'll look through the article.  Carlwev  17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be very strange to be listing the Shroud of Turin before the Gospels. Cobblet (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:02, 2 October 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 Fountain

Cobblet also mentions this work as one of the pieces that is near the front of the line for consideration. Let's have the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Arguably the most influential piece of 20th-century art, period. Cobblet (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support The beginning of conceptual art. Neljack (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 27 September 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) 08:24, 18 October 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 Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

If we're not even sure American Gothic is vital, I don't see how the "18th best American film of all time" is vital. We already list eight other silent films spanning the years 1915-1929.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  08:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 4 October 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) 06:45, 2 October 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 corporate tax

Currently there are six articles on tax: tax itself, corporate tax, income tax, property tax, sales tax and tariff. Corporate tax for all intents and purposes is just an income tax applied to companies. There are 96 articles in the business and economics section and even if there are 100, to be frank there isn't space for six articles on tax.

As previously mentioned, there are many gaping holes in business and economics. Things like productivity, subsidy/protectionism (welfare covers different territory), something on economic growth/business cycle/recession (this is about to be rectified), franchising, bankruptcy, government budget or fiscal policy, interest rate or monetary policy, actuarial science, human resource management, privatization, mortgage, double-entry bookkeeping system, valuation (finance) or mergers and acquisitions or investment banking, etc. You get the idea.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I think it's more important to list either economic policy or fiscal and monetary policy before listing their components. Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom; a corporate tax is indeed merely another tax on income. bd2412 T 00:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:48, 2 October 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 2-2 Cobblet (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Add The Guardian

The fact that its online edition was the second most widely read in the world as of October 2014 guarantees its vitality, however The Times is currently on the list, but the Guardian is not, which is quite weird.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:16, 15 September 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) 06:38, 16 October 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 USA Today

Since this paper is the USA's first national, general-interest daily middle-market newspaper virtually everywhere except New York and Washington and the word "McPaper" was coined to refer to this newspaper, and it is quite influential there, it is as crucial as WSJ.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The word "McPaper" actually shows the impact of McDonald's on American language. It wouldn't make to sense to add a newspaper likened to the fast food restaurant before the fast food restaurant itself. I could support re-adding McDonald's as there are weaker companies on the list but franchising is higher priority. Gizza (t)(c) 10:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:02, 5 October 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.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:54, 2 October 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 authority, Add Power (social and political)

Look at the article and you'll see that it is almost a disambiguation page. More of a dictionary term than a topic in an encyclopedia. Authority has different meanings in politics, sociology, religion and philosophy. Something like sovereignty and power (social and political) would be better choices for the list. Also it doesn't make any sense to have this in psychology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm uncomfortable with a straight-up removal. While different disciplines take different approaches toward studying where power derives from and how it controls people, the questions they are asking are all naturally related. Britannica has a decent overview of this very subject, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an extensive article on political authority. The Milgram experiment is a classic psychological experiment investigating the nature of authority. Perhaps the article belongs better under sociology and maybe power (social and political) is the better article to include (it does get more hits), but something on this topic ought to remain on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the proposal into a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 11:34, 7 August 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.
pride removed, self-esteem added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:40, 8 October 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 Pride and Shame, Add Self-esteem

I think the concept of self-worth is more vital than the emotions related to it, and that listing the more general article is a better way of covering these and other unlisted but related concepts like assertiveness or narcissism. Self-esteem gets about as many page views as pride and shame combined.

I've withdrawn the nomination to remove shame since this is the emotion that motivates people's conduct in honour and face cultures – compare guilt in dignity cultures (which is also synonymous with guilt culture).
Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Addition  Carlwev  17:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support I would support removing the opposites too. Gizza (t)(c) 22:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Some of the concepts that are antonyms of other concepts on the list don't look so vital to me. I feel empathy ought to cover egocentricism and trust ought to cover betrayal, just like how altruism covers selfishness or aggression covers deference. Cobblet (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely support the addition, there is some overlap, but they aren't the same thing, I consider emotions important and vital and believe a little overlap is acceptable. Need to think a bit more if I support removals, not sure if I do? Pride and shame do seem to get a lot of attention among literature, psychology and philosophy.  Carlwev  17:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well that's the thing – everything on this list of emotions receives significant attention, and our task is to cover as much ground as we can with as little overlap as necessary, given the 10,000-article limit. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 2 October 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 Betrayal

Breach of trust ought to be covered by trust.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 10:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:57, 2 October 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 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:43, 18 October 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 Microcomputer

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We decided not to add microprocessor last year. I don't see how microcomputer is a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 06:06, 16 September 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) 06:49, 2 October 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 Tube (fluid conveyance)

We list pipe. In general usage pipe and tube are interchangeable. If you search online you can find pages explaining the perceived difference, at least among experts, but in my opinion it's too similar, or not significant enough to include in out list. Tube itself is a disambiguation page, appearing in 10 languages, this article itself in only 5; pipe however is in about 42 languages and is a much better article. I am wondering how many other languages have 2 words like English does. Also we include pipeline transport under transport, plumbing in industry, water stuff. Also we don't have Cylinder (geometry) or Cylinder (engine) or Pneumatics which are other pipe/tube kind of articles that would cover more ground.  Carlwev  20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Clearly redundant to pipe. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support good catch. Gizza (t)(c) 01:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 04:04, 2 October 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 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 18 October 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 Shanxi and Shaanxi

The ancient toponym Xia (夏) consisted of present-day Shanxi, Shaanxi and Henan, and Henan is included in the list, hence they are all crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Xia isn't even a toponym. Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 29 September 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 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 18 October 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 Zhejiang

This province is in fact no less vital than jiangsu, however it is not included in the article.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I think it's possible to argue Jiangsu's more important than Zhejiang, and I think adding Ningbo is a better idea. Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added, 5-0 after 29 days

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

Add Gibraltar

Although not a huge city or a sovereign state, it is basically a self governing over seas territory of the UK. Although not a sovereign state, it has a higher population than some sovereign states we list, such as Niue, Nauru, Cook Islands and more. Compared to the Niue article, the Gibraltar article appears in more languages and gets about triple page views, and in general just receives more attention in encyclopedias, literature and the in media than the smaller sovereign states. We also list some islands with less history, culture and population that are not sovereign states. Gibraltar's history also goes back over 1000 years. Also we list the Straight of Gibraltar but not the territory itself, which seems a little odd. (Although I understand it's an important narrow passageway from the Atlantic to the whole Mediterranean, well, the only one in fact, and is only named after it, of course not actually part of it.)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Due to its historical significance. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Historically important because of its strategic significance. Neljack (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - Undoubtedly vital. Jusdafax 04:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Gibraltar does seem to be in similar territory to the Falkland Islands. Gizza (t)(c) 04:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there are similarities, but Gibraltar has over 10 times population than Falklands, its history is 2 or 3 times as long and it just seems to have more of an identity.  Carlwev  05:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The Falkland Islands is actually listed, I didn't intend to make a comparison in a negative way. It strengthens Gibraltar's case if anything. Gizza (t)(c) 05:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The only reason I haven't suggested removing the Falklands is that we don't list the Falklands War. At least England and Spain haven't actually gone to war over the Gibraltar dispute. I suggest better parallels might be Ceuta and Melilla, and those aren't listed, although admittedly Gibraltar's historical geostrategic significance is greater than those two cities (but in terms of Carlwev's mentioned criteria they're pretty close). Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 19:39, 18 October 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 suburbanization and gentrification

Both are definitely vital, especially the former, since many people are familiar with suburbanization, just like urbanization.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Suburbanization is redundant to suburb and I doubt we should be listing specific processes associated with urban renewal if we don't even have urban decay. Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 04:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. We have both city and urbanization, but we do not consider urbanization redundant to city.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 09:58, 1 October 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 end time

The concept of the end time/end times/end of days has been consistently raising its head every few years for two millennia. pbp

Support
  1. pbp 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - I'd consider the ultimate destiny of humanity and the universe as somewhat vital, certainly. Jusdafax 01:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose redundant to eschatology, the study of end time. Maybe we can do a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I would rather nominate Apocalypse because it is important religiously and in pop-culture. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 18 October 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 table knife

Both fork and spoon are on the list, why isn't the table knife? Daylen (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need both knife and table knife... also, in the US at least, cutlery (which is also listed) refers primarily to knives. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

oppose per Cobblet. Pathetic stub too Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:45, 8 October 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 Sense

Is of interest to biology, psychology and philosophy. We have all 5 traditional senses, this is an overview article that covers them. But it also covers other non traditional senses of humans that we don't cover individually and probably shouldn't such as sense of time, balance, pain, temperature, hunger, and more. It also covers other animals and other life form senses which aren't otherwise covered like echolocation as in bats and marine mammals and others, and perception of electricity, magnetism in bird migration and others and more. The topic about how life forms sense and perceive their environment/surroundings in general is an important topic that could be covered well this overview article but may not be covered in as much depth the same way within articles about individual senses.

Although this cover stuff we already have, it covers new ground too, I still think the concept is vital, and it also may be worth at least considering at the 1000 level considering nearly all life has some form of a sense, and eye and ear are there already, as are things we can sense heat/temperature, light, color, sound. The section about senses already has overlap in that it has olfaction and olfactory system, and auditory system and ear and hearing and more for the other senses. I am aware one is about the primary organ, another the whole system, and another the minds perception of the information, so I'll leave them alone. Biology is under quota too, plus more groups of species are up for removal soon also.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Good overview article. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I've also noticed that there is also an article sensory system which we don't list, that is also a very decent overview article. It would obviously overlap with sense, but the overlap would be the same kind as the other individual senses I've pointed out above (eg nose olfaction and olfactory system are listed for smell, and other senses have at least 3 articles each too).  Carlwev  10:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually we do list sensory system, which is why I've stayed neutral on this one. Cobblet (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added Gizza (t)(c) 08:37, 22 October 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 Waheeda Rehman

Waheeda Rehman (born 3 February 1938) is an Indian actress who has appeared in mainly Hindi films, as well as Tamil andTelugu films. She is noted for her contributions to different genres of films from the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. She has received a Centenary Award for Indian Film Personality, a Filmfare Lifetime Achievement Award, a National Film Award for Best Actress and two Filmfare Awards for Best Actress, throughout her career. She has been cited as the Bollywood's "most beautiful" actress by various media outlets, a title for which she has received substantial publicity.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Personally a big fan of Waheeda Rahman but she is not at the same level as the other three. If we are going to have three Indian actresses, at least one has to be from another generation (like Hema Malini, Sridevi or Madhuri Dixit) Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I think we already have enough actors/actresses. So to support this nomination, I would need someone to remove to make space for this one. Also I am not sure that any national award justifies inclusion into this list of globally vital articles, so please add information on why this actress is vital for international Wikipedians Arnoutf (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, failed Gizza (t)(c) 23:22, 31 October 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 Nargis

Nirmala Dutt (1 June 1929 – 3 May 1981), born Fatima Rashid but known by her screen name, Nargis, was an Indian filmactress working in the Hindi cinema. She made her screen debut as a child artist in Talash-E-Haq in 1935, but her acting career began in 1942 with Tamanna (1942). During a career from the 1940s to the 1960s, Nargis appeared in numerous commercially successful as well as critically appreciated films, many of which featured her alongside actor and filmmaker Raj Kapoor.

One of the best-known roles of Nargis was that of Radha in the Academy Award-nominated film Mother India (1957), a performance that won her Best Actress trophy at the Filmfare Awards. In 1958, she married her Mother India co-actor Sunil Dutt, and left the film industry. She would appear infrequently in films during the 1960s. Some of her films of this period include the drama Raat Aur Din (1967), for which she was given the inaugural National Film Award for Best Actress.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I think we already have enough actors/actresses. So to support this nomination, I would need someone to remove to make space for this one. Also I am not sure that any national award justifies inclusion into this list of globally vital articles, so please add information on why this actress is vital for international Wikipedians Arnoutf (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No votes in 30+ days, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Meena Kumari

Meena Kumari (1 August 1932 – 31 March 1972), born Mahjabeen Bano, was an Indian film actress and poet. She is regarded as one of the most prominent actresses to have appeared on the screens of Hindi Cinema. During a career spanning 30 years from her childhood to her death, she starred in more than ninety films, many of which have achieved classic and cult status today. She is regarded as one of the geatest Hindi movie actresses of all time.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I think we already have enough actors/actresses. So to support this nomination, I would need someone to remove to make space for this one. Please add information on why this actress is vital for international Wikipedians, ie beyond the Indian context Arnoutf (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Alan Moore, Add J. K. Rowling

If we have to include a pop culture writer, the creator of Harry Potter is surely a much better choice than the creator of Watchmen. I'd also prefer including people like George Herriman, Charles M. Schulz or Art Spiegelman before Moore.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. The addition. Her Harry Potter series have been quite popular.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support I have some doubts about adding Rowling, but she is surely more vital than Moore. Neljack (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Something about the books whether Harry Potter itself or Rowling should be on the list. No less vital than Star Wars, Star Trek, The Simpsons and Pokémon. Gizza (t)(c) 11:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since Alan Moore is considered to be the best graphic novel writer.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I am aware of the effort to include more women, Rowling is definitely a contender but I can't help wonder if in this instance, the article on Harry Potter itself would be better or worse. Harry Potter is by far the main if not only reason for the author's importance, Harry Potter itself is very well known, and I haven't checked but I would expect it to appear in more languages and have more page views than the author. For example by comparison we list Superman but not he's creators Jerry Siegel or Joe Shuster, we list Spider-Man but not Stan Lee, Batman but not Bob Kane or Bill Finger, Peanuts but not Charles M. Schulz, Tarzan but not Edgar Rice Burroughs, James Bond but not Ian Fleming, Frankenstein but not Mary Shelley (although Shelley is a decent idea for another notable woman to include though), Count Dracula but not Bram Stoker (or Dracula, the novel), Asterix but not René Goscinny or Albert Uderzo, Conan the Barbarian but not Robert E. Howard. Simply put authors with one main series/work/book/character are often overshadowed by their character which often gets listed more than themself including here. I would consider Potter v Rowling the same, although Rowling is still quite a decent proposal. There are also some that have author and main character/work listed too like Sherlock Holmes and Arthur Conan Doyle, and The Adventures of Tintin and Hergé.  Carlwev  17:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Both the People and Arts sections are essentially full (there's still another 50 women I plan on nominating and Mary Shelley's one of them), and I'm having a much easier time finding biographies that aren't really vital as opposed to arts articles. The only person among my circle of friends who actually reads graphic novels, a pretty niche genre to begin with, thinks it's ridiculous we have Moore on the list. Cobblet (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: Stan Lee is also a more significant figure in the genre than Alan Moore. Moore may receive somewhat greater critical praise, but his body of work is much smaller and much less iconic that Lee's body of work, which includes the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Hulk (and other characters in The Avengers shared Universe), and the X-Men. bd2412 T 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Ernie Pyle, Add Anna Wintour

There are several American journalists more influential than Pyle not listed, from Ambrose Bierce and Ida B. Wells to Tom Wolfe and Truman Capote. But perhaps even more influential than all of them is Anna Wintour, who's become a legendary figure in the fashion industry, which also happens to be poorly represented on our list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 2-3 Cobblet (talk) 18:24, 31 October 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 Lawrence Kohlberg

An American psychologist best known for his theory of stages of moral development.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The number of psychologists is very high compared to other social scientists. The number of economists as an example (where's Friedrich Hayek?) is low in comparison. Gizza (t)(c) 08:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. His theory of stages of moral development is crucial, hence he is also crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both added 9-0/5-1 Cobblet (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add W. E. B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington

Both influenced the U.S.A. a lot, however unlike Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, neither of them are included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Du Bois. Oppose Booker T. Washington – there are two other African-American activists from that era I'd consider more vital, Ida B. Wells and Marcus Garvey. Cobblet (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Du Bois only. Jucchan (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Du Bois. Gizza (t)(c) 23:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Du Bois. Neljack (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support both. Both Booker T. and Du Bois are vital to an understanding of the civil rights movement of the late 19th century. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Du Bois.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC) both.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support - Piling on. Jusdafax 03:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support both pbp 12:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. Booker T. Washington had greatly empowered American negroes, hence African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) happenced and succedded. This means that he is as crucial as Martin Luther King Jr.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The comparison to MLK is nonsense. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Booker T. Washington explicitly mentions the fact that Booker T. Washington greatly made more American negroes receive high education, learn vocational skills and be familiar with the U.S. legal system, paving the road to the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Hence he was as crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thousands of people paved the way for MLK's achievements, including the two people I mentioned above. That doesn't make all of them automatically as important as MLK. Where's the national holiday or monument in honour of Booker T. Washington? It's an absurd comparison to make. Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
But Booker T. Washington was as crucial as W. E. B. DuBois!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Du Bois opposed Booker T. Washington's idea of temporarily acquiescing to racial discrimination and focusing on self-improvement within the community, and eventually won over the majority of the African-American community to his more combative approach to addressing racial inequality. The Souls of Black Folk is widely recognized as a seminal work in sociology and African-American literature, to the extent that we include it in our list of books. Between the two of them, there's no question Du Bois is more important as both an intellectual and a leader. Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
But Booker T. Washington secretly did funded litigations against de jure racial segregation and disfranchisement of the vast majority of negroes living in the Southern America. The article explicitly mentions this fact! And he did economincally empowered lots of American negroes. Also, black conservatives tend to side with Booker T. Washington as contrasted with W. E. B. Du Bois. What's more, his autobiography, Up from Slavery has been a bestseller since it was published, and is still widely read today.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you're at least trying to read the articles you nominate – I had my doubts when you started the habit of nominating any person who I happened to mention as being possibly important. Funny how you're so passionately defending the stature of a person you appear not to have heard of before yesterday – if I'm wrong to think that, why didn't you nominate him sooner? So I don't see the point of arguing with you, especially when you're not even contradicting what I've said. (Word of advice: if you ever happen to speak to an African American in person, calling them a "negro" might get you hurt.) Cobblet (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
In fact, artist Kara Walker is trying to reappropriate the word "negress", and many older African Americans prefer the word "negro" to "black" when non-blacks refers to the race they belong to. Also Martin Luther King Jr. embraced the word negro, hence it is no politically incorrect.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You really believe everything you read on Wikipedia, don't you? Cobblet (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I had heard of Booker T. Washington before you mention this man. The reason why I hadn't nominated him before you mention him is that I was then a little lazy, don't misunderstand me.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet:@RekishiEJ: Booker T. Washington is vital in the same sense as Martin Luther King Jr. in that both were the de facto leaders of the African-American community for a point in time: Booker T. Washington in the late 19th century, and DuBois in the 1910s and 1920s. Other people who served in this role were Frederick Douglass, A. Phillip Randolph, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama; Douglass and Obama are already on the list. However, I am inclined to agree that not all those leaders of the African-American community are equally important. MLK Jr. is obviously the most important (and successful) leader of the African-American community; he unimpeachibly belongs on this list. Next tier down from him are DuBois and Douglass. Washington is slightly less important than Douglass or DuBois; he has been receiving a bum rap since DuBois' day for not advocating radical change in the manner that DuBois and Garvey, the latter of whom really did much of his work outside of the United States, did. However, it's easier to point to concrete achievements on behalf of Booker T. Washington than it is for DuBois, particularly in the area of education, as DuBois' contributions tend to be more philosophical and cultural than political and he was largely unsuccessful at achieving radical change; the concrete social changes came in the 1940s, 50s and 60s when the African-American community was lead by Randolph and King. As such, I'm fairly comfortable saying that Washington was more influential than Ida B. Wells, or than Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman. BTW, from time to time, we bring up the Atlantic Monthly 100 Most Influential Americans list, which I don't agree 100% with but I agree with more than any other published American ranking. Booker T. Washington is 98 on that list, DuBois is 43, Douglass is 47, King is 8; and Randolph, Jackson, Malcolm X, Wells, Truth, Tubman and Obama didn't make the list (the list is from before Obama's presidency) pbp 12:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 14:13, 20 October 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 Heinrich Schliemann

We don't have any archaeologists on the list. Schliemann discovered Troy and Mycenae. His methods may have been brutal by modern standards (we can add Flinders Petrie if there's a need to have someone who represents more modern archaeological techniques) but there's no denying the significance of his accomplishments.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support - Good choice, clearly vital. Jusdafax 03:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:07, 20 October 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) 21:14, 20 October 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 Pope Paul VI, add Pope John XXIII

This one hasn't really made a lot of sense to me. Seems the sainted pontiff who started Vatican 2 is more important than the non-sainted pontiff who finished it. pbp 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I think this makes sense. John XXIII's was a revolutionary pontificate; Paul VI's was one of consolidation. John XXIII, in launching the most revolutionary process of reforms in the modern history of the church, surely had a bigger impact. Neljack (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Agreed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 10:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-4, failed to be added Gizza (t)(c) 23:26, 31 October 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 Xi Jinping

If we are adding Angela Merkel, then we should certainly add Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping is presiding over the second-largest economy in the world, and is one of the most powerful Chinese presidents in a long time. He is also a controversial leader with his island-building in the East China Sea and allegations of cybertheft by his government.. Xi Jinping is at least of equal importance to Angela Merkel, and is arguably even more important. He is arguably the second most powerful world leader if not the most powerful after Barrack Obama, who is on the list. Not to mention adding another Chinese leader can reduce Western bias on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support following my support for adding the current pope, which I see was inspired here. Commenting more below. Plantdrew (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too early, IMO. Merkel's been around since 2005; Xi's only been in power since 2012. He will be judged by how he handles China's slowing economic growth and it's far too soon to say how successful he's been. Cobblet (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. We removed Hu Jintao and I can't see how Xi Jinping is more vital than Hu. I would oppose Pope Francis, Narendra Modi, David Cameron, François Hollande and Shinzo Abe as well. All too recent. Personally, I believe that Obama was added too quickly to the list (before the end of his first term) but I think he's done enough now to make himself vital. Of the popes listed in the pope section (some might be listed elsewhere, three out of the six are modern even though popes had more power in pre-modern times. Gizza (t)(c) 06:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Another leader of China. Yawn. What is so special about him? sst✈ 12:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I get the recentism objection. But his status as the current leader of China should alone guarantee a spot on the list. If he turns out not to be important, he can be replaced by the next Chinese president. While I normally would agree with your objection, current politicians of major countries should be exceptions to the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, although you're welcome to nominate people like Narendra Modi and David Cameron if that's how you feel. There are several Chinese emperors who are clearly more vital than Xi – Emperor Xuanzong of Tang and Emperor Guangwu of Han being particularly egregious omissions. Cobblet (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
China has disproportionately less leaders than other other countries on the list. I would be open to your suggestions above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want recent leaders, we could try again to get the other guy in Washington and New York this week on the list. I'd support adding some Chinese leaders and swapping out some of the obscure Central Asian leaders we have on this list. pbp 04:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Pope Francis seems like a good addition to the list for many reasons. I would also support some swaps in order to add Xi Jinping. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It's absolutely recentism, but I'd like to see a set of current world leaders listed. But I'm not sure what that set should be. Pope and UN secretary general included? Leaders of the 5 permanent UN security council countries? Or G8 leaders? With ~2000 people on the vital list, surely there's room for more than a couple current leaders. Yes, there will be some churn as politicians leave and enter office, but I don't understand why 10 of the last 13 US presidents are on the vital list if not for a tendency to recentism and US bias (the US presidents being all those from FDR-Obama, except Ford, Bush senior and Clinton not listed). It's out of the ordinary for how VA/E usually runs, but I think we could possibly come up with a dozen or so political and religious leadership positions where the incumbent person is the vital topic rather than the position itself (pope is on the vital list, but President of the United States is not, and I don't think it should be, but I learn towards defaulting to include the incumbent US president before debating which of their last 12 predecessors to include). Plantdrew (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I second that, plantdrew. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Plantdrew: I agree that 10 of the last 13 U.S. Presidents is excessive. I've been trying for awhile now to get it down to 7 (FDR, Truman, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Obama). pbp 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Nursultan Nazarbayev

I don't see why we need to list the president of Kazakhstan.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support It makes no sense to have this guy, but not have Bill Clinton, David Cameron or Pope Francis. pbp 15:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose outright removal. Kazakhstan is the largest country in Central Asia and deserves representation. Open to a swap with Abai Qunanbaiuli, Ablai Khan or Töle Biy. Note that the English Wikipedia articles for these people are pathetic. You get a good idea of their vitality on the Kazakh and Russian versions. Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

@DaGizza: Kazakhstan is only 26 years old, though. pbp 15:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

By area, Kazakhstan is Central Asia's largest country. But to keep things in perspective, Uzbekistan has almost twice the population and is historically far more significant, and even then I think it's only represented by Ulugh Beg. (Figures like Timur and Babur had much wider historical impact beyond the borders of modern Uzbekistan.) I don't think we have any Uyghurs either, or any Mongolians after the great khans (and we don't even list Ögedei Khan or Möngke Khan). I feel like I've seen biographies that are better choices than the Kazakhs mentioned. Compare Ablai Khan to Yermak Timofeyevich or Yaqub Beg, Töle Biy to Yunus Emre or Ali-Shir Nava'i (BTW we have a modern Central Asian writer in Chinghiz Aitmatov), and Abai Qunanbaiuli to Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani or Zanabazar. Cobblet (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we have Ögedei Khan... pbp 21:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right, we do. Cobblet (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Kazakhstan has a much larger economy than Uzbekistan which has to count for something if we selected Argentina before Colombia on the Level 3 list. Every country with a bigger economy than Kazakhstan has at least one leader on the list. Most countries with a slightly smaller economy have one or more too. And the Kazakh people trace their history to the Kazakh Khanate 550 years ago and are celebrating the anniversary this year [3]. Gizza (t)(c) 12:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That's because Kazakhstan has oil – do elevated oil prices in recent years really matter more than the presence of Kokand, Samarkand and Bukhara, all major Silk Road trading cities? And maybe I missed it but I thought we didn't have a leader of the UAE. Besides the Kazakhs, other notable successor states to the Golden Horde were Crimea, Kazan, Nogai and Sibir and I don't think we have leaders of any of them either. However we do list Batu Khan and Tokhtamysh of the Golden Horde. I agree with pbp that Central Asia is not badly represented as a whole – I'm not inclined to add any more Central Asian leaders when we're missing people like Xuanzong of Tang and Jahangir. Cobblet (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right about the UAE. I stand corrected. I looked at this list more thoroughly and note that every other country is represented by a leader except for Colombia which is still indirectly represented by Simón Bolívar. I support adding the founder of the UAE Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. In addition to being notable for other reasons, the UAE's political system is unique, being a federal absolute monarchy. Federalism is usually associated with democracy.
I also don't support adding more Central Asian leaders than the current number but I don't know why Nazarbayev was the first target when there are dictators of smaller countries and for less time like Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and when looking at "Early Modern" and "Modern" together there are 6 Burmese leaders listed, vastly more than any comparable nation in Southeast Asia or for that matter the rest of the world. And that's not even including Aung San and Aung San Suu Kyi who are in the revolutionaries section. Gizza (t)(c) 12:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I can accept the idea that we should have a 20th-century Central American leader since resistance to US imperialism there has been a major theme in Latin American history: we discussed Ortega and others in a failed proposal to add Manuel Noriega. For the record, we've previously removed Bagyidaw and Zhao Tuo while I don't recall us having touched the Central Asian figures before. I count nine political and military leaders for Indochina (including Khmer), four for Thailand and nine for Burma – you can call these the three cultural divisions of mainland Southeast Asia. Based on that I have no problem with us removing more Burmese and Vietnamese leaders although I also believe the Trưng Sisters are worth adding. Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the need to add Jahangir when there are five Mughal emperors already listed (Sher Shah Suri is of the same era too). Rani of Jhansi and Maharaja Ranjit Singh are much better choices. The early to mid 1800s is the only period where modern Indian leaders are lacking. Gizza (t)(c) 13:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe having somebody from the Khanate is more vital than this dude. Also, remember that while Kazakhstan the 26-year-old country may have only one leader, there have been a great many leaders who ruled what is present-day Kazakhstan on this list. When you look at political leaders en masse, Central Asia is pretty well represented. pbp 16:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Saparmurat Niyazov

Niyazov was notorious for his eccentricities but his actual influence on history is negligible. Compare Francisco Macías Nguema and François Duvalier who were just as crazy and aren't listed. I'd say someone like Grigori Rasputin, who was once on the list but later removed, would be a vastly better choice.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support If we have to remove a modern Central Asian leader, this is it. Not as vital as Nursultan Nazarbayev. Gizza (t)(c) 10:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-3, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 08:23, 25 October 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 Sojourner Truth

Nominated once for removal before, and got much support, 7 in fact but just fell short. (see here). In fact vote was 6-3 for about 2 weeks in early November, which could have been closed as a pass by today's rules, but not then. That general area of history is covered by many biographies and other articles, and there are other more important articles missing. See is known primarily for one speech, which is fairly well known but not vital, and her other work and her influence are not the same importance as other people listed. Also article woman's rights failed (see here) which is one idea she supported. Articles like racial segregation are missing too, and I think may be worth considering.  Carlwev  18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  18:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per prior consensus. One of the earliest influential activists against both racial and gender inequality. Gizza (t)(c) 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sojourner Truth makes the list less European-American and male biased. She is also important to the fight for racial and gender equality. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 20 October 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 Emmeline Pankhurst

Currently all the suffragettes on the list are Americans, which does not reflect the worldwide nature of the movement. Emmeline Pankhurst became world-famous for her advocacy of militant tactics in the fight for women's suffrage in Britain. Malcolm X is listed; she should be as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Yes I had noted the absence of non-American suffragettes too. Neljack (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support She is pretty vital in the international women's movement. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:15, 20 October 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.
All added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Hubei and Hunan

Since core region of the ancient state Chu (楚) consisted of what is now Hubei and Hunan, Hubei is the province in which the vital city Wuchang belongs to, and some vital figures, e.g. Mao Zedong and Peng Dehuai were born there, hence both Hubei and Hunan are crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support adding Hunan both so we can close this proposal. TBH I doubt this proposal will lead anywhere with such a poorly articulated rationale, although Rekishi does at least hint at the extensive history of the province: Pengtoushan is currently the world's oldest known site of rice cultivation. Hunan is the most populous province in China not currently listed (it has more people than France), the country's largest producer of rice, and possesses a unique language (Xiang is the most widely spoken language in the world not on our list), one of China's most notable culinary traditions, and a significant population of ethnic minorities; enough to make it vital in my view. I think it's the only Chinese province worth adding. Cobblet (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

FWIW, I believe Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka are the only other country subdivisions worth adding on the basis of a similar comparison in cultural/demographic terms with other Indian states. I also think Goa and Penang should be added but that's by analogy with Macau and other historical trading ports on the list. I could accept adding some country subdivisions mainly on the basis of physical size. Cobblet (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Fujian

This province should be added to the list, since many Overseas Chinese persons come from there.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Definitely vital. One of the best known provinces of China. Gizza (t)(c) 22:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support so we can close this. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

The geography section needs some serious rethinking, and I'd like to see some subnational entities (re)-added to the list, e.g. all of the Chinese provinces Rekishi mentions are more vital than Hainan (although that doesn't necessarily mean they should be added – some of the major cities in these provinces like Ningbo or Xiamen might be better choices); I'd argue Tasmania is the least vital of Australian states; that we consider Sierra Nevada (U.S.) vital but New York not doesn't make much sense. But after seeing some of my previous proposals fail due to a lack of !votes I'm not sure enough of us have an interest in world geography to get a solid consensus on what should and shouldn't be considered a vital geography article. Cobblet (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Question for those who support this proposal: would you consider Kerala vital? In a way it's similar to Fujian in that inhabitants of the country (India or China) might consider it more of a "peripheral" as opposed to a "core" state/province; but foreigners are more likely to be familiar with it than with "core" historical areas like Henan or Bihar. Cobblet (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-5 Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 31 October 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 Alabama

This U.S. state is vital, since it is the heart of Dixie.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. More than adequately covered in Southern United States already. Rwessel (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Wessel. If we were adding another U.S.state, Alabama wouldn't be it. pbp 05:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We should add New York instead. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 31 October 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 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 31 October 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 Aberdeen

The fact that this city is abundant in oil makes it crucial.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Aberdeen isn't the next UK city to add to the list IMO. As far as Scottish geography goes, I think it's better to consider Shetland or Scottish Highlands first (swap with Loch Ness Monster?) because these parts are historically and culturally distinct from mainstream Scotland. Gizza (t)(c) 10:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd consider the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and Faroe Islands to all be more vital than Shetland. And I don't think the Scottish Highlands are any more vital than Cornwall, the Hebrides or the traditional regions of Ireland. Cobblet (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily support adding the suggestions I made. I brought up Shetland since because it is even more notable for its oil than Aberdeen but then adding every part of the world where is oil is stupid. Gizza (t)(c) 10:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about cities. UK cities that have crossed my mind are Bristol, Belfast, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield; Bristol I think is the better choice. I look at the Global city article for some ideas there are more UK cities there like the ones I just mentioned plus Nottingham, Southampton and Aberdeen too, I think they seem lower priority. (It is only a rough guide though, it appears to favour industry and business over history and culture Tel Aviv is higher than Jerusalem, and it seems capital cities are favoured too like Luxembourg City and Port Louis are listed there) Other cities mentioned there I like the sound of are ones like: Gothenberg, Antwerp, Calgary, Liepzig, Porto, Malmo, Adelaide

The discussion above is closed. 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 consesnsus to add 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Face (sociological concept)

The paradigm by which East Asian society handles the concept of self-esteem. Similar to honour in that the motivating emotion is shame, but whereas in honour cultures shame falls on the person who's lost their honour, shame in face cultures falls on the person who causes another to lose face.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I think dignity, face and honour should be placed in the same section, probably sociology. Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 2-3 Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 31 October 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 Seven deadly sins

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think sin is enough to cover this. Neljack (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I don't think we need this any more than we need the seven virtues. Cobblet (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Even though sin is already listed, I think this should be added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, this is probably more vital than Pope Francis even if sin is listed. Gizza (t)(c) 10:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Temperament, Add Attention

In a modern context "temperament" is basically a component of personality and is studied as part of personality psychology. With both of those articles on the list I think we can afford to do without this one. The historical concept of four temperaments is less vital than the four classical elements which itself is not a topic we list.

Attention refers to one's ability to focus or concentrate on something and has been studied by psychologists since the 19th century. It has huge implications on the study of mental health – you can't have a discussion on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (which we also list) if you don't talk about the neurological basis of attention first. Issues related to multitasking are also part of the study of attention.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition.  Carlwev  09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I support adding attention, IMO it's better than temperament, but I'm still thinking about whether we need temperament or not, it's true it does overlap personality, but I'm not sure if it's completely redundant, until I read through them a little more.  Carlwev  09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mood might be even weaker than temperament – it seems fairly redundant with emotion. Affect (psychology) might be worth adding. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 22 August 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) 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Honour

A concept pretty much universal to majority of, if not, all cultures. It is important to and has had much representation in literature, religion, law, philosophy, and social sciences historically and up to modern day. Not sure if this belongs in the social/psychology section or the philosophy section, as it relevant to both. I would support putting it in either section.  Carlwev  14:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the major paradigms surrounding self-esteem. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Egocentricism

Lack of empathy ought to be covered by empathy and psychopathy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The two unlisted members of the dark triad, narcissism and Machiavellianism, might be more vital. Cobblet (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 31 October 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 cigar and electronic cigarette

Both are no doubt vital, though somewhat less important than cigarette since they are not consumed that widely.

Support
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --Thi (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

At least cigar has history. Electronic cigarette is very non-vital. Gizza (t)(c) 01:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

agreed. we have tobacco, and cigarette. those are the central articles that cover the most territory. cigar sales are insignificant compared to coffin nails.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Cigar should be added since cigars are considered high-class and frequently be used by upper-class persons. Electronic cigarette should be added as well since electronic cigarettes are popular in the world recently.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Add chewing tobacco

There have been a lot of MLB players chewing tobacco.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Gizza (t)(c) 14:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

The fact that there have been lots of MLB players chewing tobacco guarantees its vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that only a small group chew tobacco guarantees its non-vitality. So many other drugs are more common. Chewing gum is the most common chewing product but still not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
But chewing tobacco has been one of the characteristics of American professional baseball since it was established (e.g. a lot of baseball cards have MLB players chewing tobacco), hence chewing tobacco is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 2-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:32, 31 October 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 Server (computing)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by computer network. Not any more vital than something like modem. Cobblet (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 2-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:38, 31 October 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 American Gothic

Cobblet keeps mentioning this as a marginal piece that should be considered before other pieces that I have nominated. The fact that this discussion has not been held should not be a reason to oppose other works. Let's have the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the most widely known paintings by an American. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We already have Nighthawks. Is it really more important to add a second third American painting than something like The School of Athens? Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that 2 American paintings is too much. 2 is about right considering America's relatively brief history. I have no problem adding your suggestion too. It's just that this painting i particularly important to American art. I can tell you that I see spoofs of it everywhere from kids tv shows to American internet sites. That is why it should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually I misspoke – we have Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans too. Cobblet (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_45&oldid=1137397633"