Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 48

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
Latest comment: 8 years ago by DaGizza in topic Intolerance
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55
Added 6-0 Gonzales John (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Yahweh

Prototype for the Abrahamic concept of God, top-importance.Gonzales John (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.Gonzales John (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support swap Jehovah -> Yahweh. --Thi (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support with a swap for Jehovah. Iamozy (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Off topic, but in the general area of ancient Levant, I'm still thinking of Canaan.  Carlwev  17:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind on that. We also list Levant. Cobblet (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Although it's had 4 support before it's still failed 3 times, I think I'll leave it, opening the same thing too often can be...bit negative. However Speaking of Jehovah, I would support Jehovah's Witnesses too, article states it has 8 million followers give or take. Been mentioned a few times in discussion but never opened.  Carlwev  09:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Handbag

The sort of omission that apparently happens because everyone here is a dude. Let's fix this.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems reasonable, certainly an important item in the dress of a large portion of the population. The article (unfortunately not in great shape) appears to try an distinguish handbags from some sort of unspecified smaller bag, is there a more encompassing group that might make a better VA? Rwessel (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support I suppose an over encompassing article could be bag very over encompassing though; and we list that already....And barbie does seem more notable than Buck Rogers, and also Conan the Barbarian too and a few more. We removed Barbie a while back.  Carlwev  18:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support - per above. Jusdafax 06:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Female pop culture topics are underrepresented too. We have so many characters and franchises from the male oriented spheres of superheroes, comic book characters and science fiction. In some areas, children's entertainment has better coverage than women's. I personally think Barbie is more notable than Buck Rogers for example. And having one long standing soap opera like Days of Our Lives doesn't seem unreasonable when we have Star Wars, Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the Shadow, Godzilla, King Kong, Astro Boy and more representing sci-fi. Gizza (t)(c) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Brand

Been brought up a couple of times too, similar importance to trademark and other intellectual property. There are many brands, some worth millions or billions. Central concept to advertising and consumerism. Could go under property law or advertising?

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Again more vital than a third Japanese car company. Should go under marketing. Cobblet (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 02:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per reasoning above. Jusdafax 06:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support but agree with DaGizza that this should not go under law. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Brand fits better in business/economics than law, much better. Gizza (t)(c) 10:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add occupational safety and health

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support a vital multidisciplinary topic. More important than some articles in this section (e.g. mushroom poisoning and transmissible spongiform encephalopathy which I think is redundant to prion). Gizza (t)(c) 23:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Important in the legal field, the workplace, and the health care field. It has many different branches, so it is vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --David Tornheim (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Human voice

Speech and singing are both level-3 vital articles and yet on level 4 we have nothing on how humans produce sounds.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I also thought of larynx a while back. Perhaps this is better?  Carlwev  11:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - per nom. Jusdafax 05:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Qanat

Same list as Water well, we also list water tower. Qanats are essential in parts of the Middle East, and other developing areas of the world. Have been in use since ancient times up to modern day, many societies still rely on them. An interesting piece of engineering, used more outside the West.

Support
  1.  Carlwev  18:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Economy of the European Union

Why waste time, three economies seem a good number.

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  21:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support - Obviously vital. Jusdafax 06:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

My personal preference would be to include Economy of Japan as well though I understand if others don't agree. It was until quite recently the second largest economy in the world. We have many Japanese companies listed and there have been suggestions to add some more like Nintendo. There are economic events like the Meiji Restoration on the list and there have even been suggestions to add Zaibatsu. This article will cover all of these things and more. It also provides a unique case study as Japan has faced unique challenges to a level that no other major country has faced (deflation, population decline and aging). Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm just not sure more national economies should be our biggest priority. (Especially after we've added Post–World War II economic expansion.) We already break down the concept of the global economy by covering major economic sectors – is our coverage of those good enough? When we added economic growth I noticed how that article distinguished itself from development economics/economic development – why isn't one of those listed? What about related issues like aid, specifically development aid? It's been a while since we added international trade – are there subtopics worth adding, say balance of trade or free trade? Why not fiscal policy or monetary policy, or related institutions like central bank? Recession? Productivity? Cobblet (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I've thought of Aid before, it's on my own personal brainstorm list I continue to add to that I pick ideas from. Development aid, seems decent idea too. I would support at least one of them.  Carlwev  10:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

These 3 economies and 2 stock exchanges all have enough time and votes to close as passed. I was wondering however, the specific currencies are in their own list, not under currency. Should specific economies be listed under economy, with specific currencies, or in its own sublist?  Carlwev  18:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the first option. I haven't closed the previous proposal since the !votes on the removals currently stand at 4-2. Cobblet (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove NASDAQ and Tokyo Stock Exchange, Add Economy of the United States and Economy of China

As far as the "XYZ of country" articles go, economy is right up there with history, philosophy, literature, music and so on. Three specific stock exchanges are not necessary. The New York Stock Exchange is by far the biggest in the world (bigger than the NASDAQ and TSE combined) and the most influential. Every other stock exchange follows the trend of the NYSE.

The United States and China are obviously the two biggest economies in the world. These articles are arguably more vital than the specific currencies like the dollar and renminbi, more vital than the companies we have and more vital than the businesspeople we have. This is true for other economies as well (Economy of India is more vital than rupee) but we'll start with these for now.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I'd also support adding Economy of the European Union. These three economies combine for over half of the world's nominal GDP and are way ahead of the next biggest economies, which I'm less convinced we need. Cobblet (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. The additions.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support removals, support adding economy of USA, China and EU  Carlwev  11:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support the additions. Oppose the removals. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Neljack (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removals.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Beyond the US and China, other potential additions are Japan, the European Union and India. After these countries the next biggest economies are the individual countries of the EU like Germany, UK, etc. and Brazil. Then the economies become quite small and are probably not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 04:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

There are two opposes to the removals but so far no reason given. While nobody is under any obligation to give a reason, it would be nice to give one so we can facilitate discussion about this area. Gizza (t)(c) 10:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq

The facts that he was Pakistan's longest-serving head of state, he made Pakistan less religiously tolerant and he successfully made Pakistan more prosperous means that he is as vital as Mahathir Mohamad.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We are now at the 2000-person limit. I will oppose any proposal to add someone that is not accompanied by a proposal to remove someone else. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Then let's alter the quota, as I proposed before!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a single person besides you supported that idea. It has been discussed several times in the past and been shot down every time. Cobblet (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
But Cobblet should now sanction my proposal since now the person subpage only contains 1998 articles, and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq to South Asia is like Mahathir Mohamad to Southeast Asia.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Four other proposals to add people are at 4-0. You have not proposed or !voted to remove anyone. Zia ul-Haq's economic "accomplishments" are nowhere close to the level of Mahathir's. Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind this proposal. Zia has left a stronger legacy than Benazir Bhutto, who has more symbolic importance. Many of the issues facing the country today such as weak democratic institutions and sectarian violence can be attributed to him. Having said that, the list of people is very full and I won't support a straight add unless it is a clear omission. Gizza (t)(c) 04:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Ayub Khan's term in office was only about six months shorter and I think his legacy (setting the precedent for future military coups in Pakistan, war against India, unequal development in West and East Pakistan, cultivating ties with China and the US) is far more noteworthy. Elsewhere in South Asia there's Sirimavo Bandaranaike who I think I'd also prefer over Zia (first democratically elected female head of state anywhere in the modern world, Sri Lankan Prime Minister of three separate times over a span of four decades, creator of a political dynasty, constitutional reformer, champion of Sinhalese nationalism, etc.) Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Buck Rogers

Nearly forgotten character.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Strong SupportGonzales John (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Devon Island Add Alberta

A while back we bulk removed many regions, but islands were not given the same treatment. I'm sure whoever you ask Canadian or otherwise, Alberta is more vital than Devon Island. One has 3.5 million people, the other is uninhabited. This doesn't increase the amount of articles Canada has, only swapping an island for a province. Viewing the articles will suggest which is more important. We already list the article about the archipelago of islands that includes Devon Island as well. I am considering a swap for British Colombia also, perhaps with another Canadian island?

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  00:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support No-brainer. Alberta is home to Canada's well-known oil sands industry. Cobblet (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support a big jump in significance. Gizza (t)(c) 07:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 20:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Vancouver Island, Add British Columbia

Canada's third biggest and third most populous province is a vastly more important topic than the island where its capital is located, which has nothing terribly special in terms of geography or culture. Within BC, Haida Gwaii is arguably more deserving to be listed individually than Vancouver Island on account of its unique culture.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  07:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 07:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 20:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Removing a vast number of subnational entities was probably the single worst mistake we made here. I'd like to see some of them added back. Cobblet (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't list articles that are vaguely similar territory, like: Singapore Island Pulau Ujong, or Manhattan Island. In fact some one opened an Add Manhattan thread a while back, it failed....Perhaps we did have too many regions, but we also lost some decent articles in that process. Although it got enough support overwhelmingly see here I feel it was a bit of a cheat way, kind of opposite to normal. It was agreed that they would all be removed, and to be kept an article would need the 5 support, opposite to needing 5 support for removal like a normal thread. Islands were overlooked, some are obviously vital, some maybes, and some look very non-vital.  Carlwev  07:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The region section was at its numerical peak around June 2013 when there were 279 articles listed compared to the current 99 (I think it went down to as low as 90 at one stage). Gizza (t)(c) 04:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove French fries and Potato chip

These are currently in the Food Types section under Everyday Life. I really can't see why they were put there at all. They are simply two ways to prepare potatoes to eat, which is not vital information in any context.

Note that we already have Fast food and Potato.

Support
  1. Support as nom Iamozy (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support ----David Tornheim (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  20:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Just to let you know, these articles have had tumultuous histories. The first proposal to remove potato chips failed, the second was successful but it was then re-added.

As you said, these are just two of many ways to prepare potatoes. Potato itself is obviously a very vital food and crop. If fried chicken ,which is at least the main dish in a fast food meal unlike these snacks, is not considered vital and other globally common fried foods like fried rice have never even been up for discussion, I can't see why these articles are vital. Gizza (t)(c) 02:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for cluing me in on previous discussions. Iamozy (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

They're a multi billion industry. Crisps or potato chips are on of the most widely eaten snack food. There are many big companies and brands that make them, many people eat them everyday. In a supermarket they have an aisle of their own, compared to a food like mustard which has a shelf or two, and has a much smaller market. Sandwich is included and is just a way to prepare already included bread, Ketchup is a way of preparing tomatoes, hot dog is included and is just a way to prepare the already included sausage, and sausage like bacon and ham is a way to prepare the already included pork. Potato is the only veg in the vital 1000, I don't think it's unreasonable to expand on them. The crisp market is bigger than that of mustard, ketchup. French Fries or chips, there are shops dedicated to selling them, they're called Fish and chip shops, maybe they're more known in Britain? We have many foods that aren't "the main dish". I am more strongly oppose to removing potato chips than French fries.  Carlwev  20:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see how "it's a big industry" makes anything a vital article. Regardless of how much money is made selling potato chips, how does that make this article vital to an encyclopedia? What vital information does an encyclopedia article on potato chips provide that helps us understand food or everyday life in general? Honestly, I think Sandwich and Hot dog should go too. Many of the subjects in this section lack any sort of vitality. Compare it with Chocolate or Curry, which are important articles that inform the reader about history, culture, and regional cuisine. Iamozy (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
There are hundreds on topics not listed that are multi-billion industries ranging from tissues to protein shakes and from engagement rings to many illegal drugs. There has to be something more than just being common in order for it to be vital. Gizza (t)(c) 14:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I've always been puzzled by hot dog's inclusion. Surely sausage and sandwich cover everything you need to know about a hot dog? To compare, we have hamburger but don't have patty or ground meat. And there are other types of sandwiches we don't include. Gizza (t)(c) 04:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hot dogs should go. So should main course. Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Let's take out hot dogs too. I agree with all the comments from Tamozy, DaGizza and Cobblet. Just because a prouduct is popular and $$$$ does not mean we need a "vital" article on it. Are pencils, pens, typewriters, staples and other commonly used office supplies, or every kind of furniture, appliance, lawn equipment, etc. vital? I much agree that something like sausage has a long historical cultural tradition, and THAT is indeed worthy of a vital and informative article. But these other things like hot dogs, fries and potato chips, unless we do wonders with them showing a connection to something wider that being just a snack, are stale. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
FYI, User:David Tornheim, but in case you weren't aware, pencil, pen, typewriter, and even lawn mower are all listed in the Technology section. Also, thank you for your recent contributions, but please make sure to sign all of them... Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Forgot to sign. Wow. Not like me. I think I was getting warn out and should have stopped earlier! sorry. will fix... --David Tornheim (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Desalination

Very important, and will continue to become more so in the future. Article states over over 18,000 desalination plants supply over 300 million people their water, and that number is quickly increasing.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Not only is desalination a major, and growing, contribution to fresh water supplies, it carries considerable costs, as well as having its own environmental impacts, and significant political implications, all of which will be exacerbated as the climate continues to warm. Rwessel (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support significant omission. More people rely on desalination these days as a source of drinking than the individual bodies of freshwater we list. Gizza (t)(c) 09:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Melee weapon

Barely a dictionary definition. We list many weapons/weapon types that are melee weapons. Some types of weapons are an invention that works in a particular way, and the warfare with them works in a specific way and can be written about, like firearms, or archery. The only thing melee weapons have in common, is that they don't fire, they are not ranged. The other, or opposite kind of weapon ranged weapon is not listed here. Perhaps a better article on close unranged combat could be Swordsmanship since we list things like rapier and fencing. There are several weapon types articles that are unlisted, and either non existant articles, stubs like melee weapon, or in a few cases in better shape. We don't list Blade, bladed weapon, ranged weapon, blunt weapon, cold weapon or pole weapon the last one is probably he best of them.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Close quarters combat or Hand-to-hand combat would make better overview articles – weaponry is just one aspect of fighting. Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Iamozy (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support I think an argument can be made that this involves a large class of weapons--I might be wrong--but as it is, this article has almost nothing in it. Unless some editors who know their military technology want to make it a better quality article, I'd take it off the list for now. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Been thinking about weapons a bit. Pole weapon, swordsmanship and Javelin seem OK ish, not sure but possibly as significant as Katana, Rapier and Bayonet. Articles like, bullet, arrow and Shell (projectile) I was thinking about, bullet is significant, but then we list ammunition, and obviously bow and arrow, and the main firearms that fire the bullets. The one article I was really thinking about is mounted archery. We list important types of unit or warfare from Europe and Japan like Samurai, Ninja, Knight, Mounted archery had huge use and impact for centuries across central Asia especially the Mongols, but also others like Turkic people, Indians and Huns as well.  Carlwev  19:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

We list horses in warfare and cavalry though. The biggest omissions from the Technology list I can think of right now are stethoscope, contact lens, barcode, artificial cardiac pacemaker, and match. I've also mentioned electric car, catalytic converter, desalination, center pivot irrigation, and engineered wood/plywood in the past. Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I would support most of those, some are OK, some excellent. Some of those should be opened soon.  Carlwev  18:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add religious war

Is it acceptable that the list contains ethnic conflict, but not this article?

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. --Thi (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support the nom is logical enough. Both religious war and ethnic conflict are vital as each other. Gizza (t)(c) 10:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Umbrella

If we list hats, why not umbrellas too?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support This crossed my mind a while back, but I didn't think anyone would back it. It includes very old ones, and very big ones, as well as the little one used today.  Carlwev  07:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support this is the type of article that suggests to me that most of clothing and fashion should move from everyday life to technology. Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Off topic but...On hard to place everday items, that have had use throughout the world and throughout history, I was thinking about Ladder. Very widely used, not sure what covers it, similar to stairs but not the same, stair article very briefly mentions it. We list Scaffolding, which has some similar use. Article is very listy, but I think is we can write about stairs we can write about ladders. And there is also escalator. And also Flush toilet.  Carlwev  19:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Escalator seems better to me than the other two, although still not really a top priority. The Technology section is full and looks right-sized to me. Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Wallet

Pretty much carried by everyone in some form or another. Difficult to image getting by in the modern world without something to organize the mass of cards and currency we all carry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support again the article is not in good shape but essential these days as per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Article is thin as noted, but not fatally so. Clearly vital. Jusdafax 06:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5.5-0.5 Cobblet (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove HSL and HSV add RGB color model

HSL and HSV seems to be a subtopic of RGB color model. And if we're adding CMYK color model, RGB seems like an obvious complement. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. 02:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Perhaps we should remove all of those, and add the overview article, color model. Rwessel (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, sure. Or consider the RYB color model that I suspect very many people learned in school, even if it's deprecated in modern color theory. Color model is pretty jargony and esotoric. There are clearly several unlisted articles that are more broadly relevant than cyan and magenta.Plantdrew (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5ish-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Liana

More jargon. Herb, tree and shrub (or equivalent terms) are the three most important cross cultural terms that cover plants by how the grow. These concepts get fuzzy at the edges (is a 5 cm tall woody plant a shrub? are 10 m tall non-woody plants herbs or trees?). And there are some weird plants that just don't mesh with these concepts very well (cacti, duckweed). That being said, a term for long/tall weak-stemmed plants that rely on their surroundings for support is arguably the fourth most important cross cultural term for plants by growth habit. In everyday English, this term is vine. The liana article describes lianas as being woody vines. The vine article focuses on non-woody plants (um, "true vines", I guess?) but doesn't consistently exclude woody plants. "Liana" is a jargony subcategory for a jargony sense of "vine". And if you really went to dig into jargon, bines aren't vines.

The vine article ought to cover "long/tall weak-stemmed plants that rely on their surroundings for support" and describe the jargony ways that concept has been chopped up. Vine might a vital concept. With our current coverage and scopes, I think it best to remove liana. Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  12:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support a swap with vine. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - I'll support a swap, or removal. Jusdafax 06:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

When it comes to terms that describe plant habit I agree neither liana nor even herbaceous plant seem particularly vital, no doubt because they're jargon-y, but also possibly because they're so generic; more specific terms like succulent plant or epiphyte actually get more hits. At the same time I was not aware of the ecological prominence of lianas which both our article and the one in Britannica are eager to emphasize. Maybe a particularly notable type of liana like rattan is worth including? (Although among tropical woody plants in general there are probably more significant omissions like banyan.) Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add New South Wales

Continuing the trend of fixing the hasty mass region cull, I propose we add New South Wales. Australia's most populous state, it is comparable to the Canadian provinces being added. There have been suggestions to add the cities of Adelaide and Canberra but New South Wales' population minus the capital Sydney's is 2.7 million (Sources: [1] [2]) which is much greater than these cities combined. Besides that, New South Wales contains the oldest British towns and settlements of Oceania, and therefore has the greatest sum of colonial and modern history among all Australian regions.

Geography is under quota and there have been many removals lately, hence it is not necessary to frame this as a swap. Having said that, NSW is more vital than the Australian geography articles of Gulf of Carpentaria, Bass Strait and probably Tasmania though the reasons for Tasmania's vitality are different and not easy to compare.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support If you had to pick one Australian state for the list, who in their right mind would pick Tasmania? Cobblet (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  10:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Population aging

The second most significant global population trend after human overpopulation. In time it will become the most important. The overall effect of population aging is probably more important than things like pension. Note that aging itself is level-3 vital and we don't really expand on it here. Individual aspects of aging such as wrinkles, gray hair and baldness, while notable are not really good choices. This is the best choice.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Countries like Japan are certainly finding this vital, as well as some spots in the USA. Jusdafax 06:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove The Shadow

Old pulp character like Tarzan (listed) or Doc Savage. Similar fictional characters are in Arts section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Batman covers similar territory and is far more notable. Gizza (t)(c) 10:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support If we're going to have radio shows, War of the Worlds should be included before this. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - The article makes it brilliantly clear how notable The Shadow is. I suggest supporters read, and reconsider. The character may be 85 years old, but is highly influential and therefore vital. Jusdafax 08:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Criminal procedure

It is odd to have 18 types of crime listed but not criminal procedure. Don't let the stub state of Wikipedia's article on the topic fool you (the Britannica article is a much better guide). Criminal procedure encompasses topics almost vital on their own including bail, sentencing, arrests, the right to remain silent, investigation and interrogation, search warrants and pleas. Many stages of criminal procedure (or legal procedure more generally) are listed like evidence, trial and appeal. But that is not sufficient. It is crucial to know the start-to-end process in its entirety.

Most of civil procedure happens to be covered in lawsuit which is why it's not as necessary to add it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support: also far more important than statutory interpretation. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add subsidy

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per my reasoning below. Gizza (t)(c) 11:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Subsidy does indeed complement tariff which is already listed. I feel that we should have both listed or neither. They are the two main methods of enforcing protectionism in a country. I will probably support this. The other logical option is to replace tariff with protectionism itself. I don't think the current situation (having tariff but not subsidy) is the most balanced way to cover the subject. Gizza (t)(c) 01:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 04:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

The facts that nowdays the European Union have to appease Turkey to solve European migrant crisis, which was caused by the U.S. and Erdoğan has to bear some responsibility in strengthening the Daesh mean that he is absolutely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Weak rationale and no proposal to remove someone else. Cobblet (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The only currently serving leaders included are Sirleaf (Nobel Prize winner), Obama, Putin, Merkel, and Queen Elizabeth. If we were to add another, Xi Jinping would be the most likely candidate. Additionally, I'd personally rather add Assad or Netanyahu than Erdoğan from the Middle East. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Have to agree with Presidentman. Gizza (t)(c) 04:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move King Arthur and Merlin to Characters from Western folklore

I don't think that the subsection Characters from Arthurian legend is needed. Other Arthurian characters such as Lancelot and Camelot were removed from the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

For actions which don't involve adding/removing articles I am usually just WP:BOLD about doing it (unless a lot of articles are involved), following WP:BRD if necessary; feel free to do the same. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Thi (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Move Conan the Barbarian to Characters from literature and drama

Robert E. Howard wrote short stories and novellas, not comics.[3]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 03:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add library science

Support
  1. As nom. I'm very surprised that it is not on the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support makes a big impact on the way we think of information. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose There's nothing in that article that looks vital to me and couldn't also be covered by library. Cobblet (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose very narrow and specialized area of study. Not as vital as archive. Gizza (t)(c) 11:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Library seems to be sufficient in of itself. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. Nope, I don't think so.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 04:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add data and metadata

Is it acceptable that we have data (computing) but not data? Metadata is vital as well since it is quite useful in library science.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose In response to the first question, yes. In response to the second sentence, so what? Cobblet (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I would rather have data (computing) as data seems to be rather definition-y. As Gizza noted, metadata is quite specialized, so I don't see how it's as vital as the currently listed article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 04:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I had proposed to add metadata before, however later the proposal failed for having no consensus.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

At most the first part of the nom might be an argument for swapping one data article for another but not an addition, which leads to redundancy. Metadata does have some relevance but its application in library science is minor because library science itself is minor. Gizza (t)(c) 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 04:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Polish literature

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose not as vital as other European literary traditions like Italian. Krisicki and Potocki do not hold a candle to Dante and Machiavelli. Gizza (t)(c) 10:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-5 after 15+ days, failed and not removed Gizza (t)(c) 05:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Wonder Woman

Lesser known DC Comics character.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think the depiction of women in pop culture is a vital topic and this is a good example of that. Cobblet (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Arguably the most prominent women in comic books. pbp 18:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per explanation below. Iamozy (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose changed my mind somewhat since last time. I think female characters (and male characters) from many non-superhero genres need better representation though. Gizza (t)(c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Wonder Woman's creation predates that of DC Comics itself. She was created by a famous psychologist and his wife, modeled after the "liberated woman" of the 40s, and established a new superhero archetype. She is consistently rated as one of the greatest comic characters/heroes of all time, her imagery is iconic, and she has been represented in just about every form of media throughout the last 75 years. She is one of THE superheroes to know in pop culture. Iamozy (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
None of the articles added Gizza (t)(c) 05:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add stationery, letter (message), greeting card and postcard

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support letter. Not that this will be successful but letter is for historical reasons just as vital as text messaging. Shouldn't be redundant to philately any more that texting is redundant to mobile phone. Gizza (t)(c) 10:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Stationery failed 1-4 the last time it was proposed (less than a year ago). All the other things are covered by philately and are not vital on their own. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Rwessel (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose stationery. --Thi (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose all. Jusdafax 06:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose the rest. Gizza (t)(c) 10:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: See comments I just made. [4] --David Tornheim (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Just so everyone's aware, User:RekishiEJ is now canvassing editors of various Wikiprojects to come support his proposals. Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not canvassing them, I'm just encouraging them to vote on these proposals.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:VOTESTACK. Cobblet (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The article on philately does not mention or does not give the following topics: letters, greeting cards and postcards in detail, hence Cobblet's argument against my proposal is invalid.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The study of postage stamps, stamped envelopes, postmarks, postcards, and other materials relating to postal delivery. The term philately also denotes the collecting of these items. Cobblet (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Chinese law and Tang Code

Though Chinese law is now obsolete, it is still vital since it once influenced Vietnam, Korea, Japan and Ryukyu. And Tang Code is no doubt as vital as Code of Hammurabi.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't think we should list legal traditions by country. I also don't think we should include historical legal codes that haven't influenced modern legal systems. There are more noteworthy aspects of Chinese culture that have had a much more lasting impact on the world, e.g. Chinese philosophy, imperial examination or Traditional Chinese medicine. I also think the Yongle Encyclopedia and Kangxi Dictionary are of wider general interest than the Tang Code. Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While Chinese law may be different than law in other countries, as Cobblet said, we shouldn't list law by country. I also don't see the Tang Code as having a similar impact as other documents such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Napoleonic Code. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Why oppose? Chinese law is, in my opinion, as vital as Sharia and Tang Code is vital in history of the world for its high legal quality at the time.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

'We learn from history that we do not learn from history.' --Thi (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Tyrrhenian Sea

Every big island and landmass touching this small sea is listed (Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Italy itself) and the sea that the Tyrrhenian is a part of (the Mediterranean) is also listed. There isn't much more you can learn about the area from this article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I have to believe that things like Strait of Messina, Capri, Elba and Stromboli are of greater general interest, and it's hard to imagine us adding any of those either when so much other geography stuff is missing; so this should definitely go. Cobblet (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

As an aside, is the Black Sea normally considered part of the Mediterranean? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Under the IHO definition, no. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Based on that definition, I've gone ahead and given the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Sea of Marmara separate listings. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add New York

Third-largest state by population, and largest from 1810 to 1970 (160 years). Extremely politically influential during that time. If we are going to add another state, it should be NY.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Let's add more geographical topics!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support there is enough of New York State outside of New York City that is important to know. Gizza (t)(c) 05:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Astro Boy (character)

There are some cases where the Character article is better like Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Bugs Bunny. Others where it is not. For long running comics we list The Adventures of Tintin which is better than Tintin (character) which we don't list. We list Asterix not Asterix (character). I think following the same idea for Astro Boy is better. There is overlap, but the character article seems to get less attention, is in less languages, less links to it, and it covers the in universe plot more, while the other article covers real world information more. If I'm honest, although I think the Astro Boy article below is better, I'm not 100% sure if we need Astro Boy at all, which is why I put the add and remove separate. Astro Boy seems less influential than Japan's other listed character Godzilla. Although I am a little concerned that most coverage of comics is American, with a few French/Belgian, but those characters simply are more world famous (eg Superman etc). However the vital articles does contain Manga and Anime, (Which I think it definitely should). So Japan's influence on comics and animation is covered by those overview articles, which no other nation has so.... (Also don't forget we list Pokemon too which is in many forms including animation.) I am also conscious of the fact that, if we wish to keep our eyes on quotas, we need room in Arts for the literature by nation/language articles I brought up recently. This could make room for Japanese literature for example, which is probably more vital than Astro Boy.  Carlwev  01:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  01:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support as a swap with Astro Boy. Gizza (t)(c) 01:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add statutory interpretation

Definitely a vital concept in jurisprudence.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support statutory interpretation is a fundamental legal concept especially in the English-speaking world. One of the most discussed ideas in the legal world. Statutory law or legislation is more of a category and isn't as vital to be honest. A bit like how case law is not vital as precedent (the former redirects into the latter now). Gizza (t)(c) 02:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support swap with statutory law only  Carlwev  03:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support swap with statutory law only. Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposition

Oppose This ought to be covered by statutory law. Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Disney added 5-0 and Honda removed 5-2

The following discussion is closed. Please 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 Walt Disney Company

I prefer this to Carl Barks who I'm suggesting to remove. And It kind of makes more sense to have this than Donald Duck too, or possibly even Mickey or Snow White, but I'll leave them alone. Yeah we have Walt Disney Himself, but it's one of the most significant companies, that's done a lot both before and after he died 50 years ago. Also there are other person/company duplicates we have; like Apple and Jobs, Ford and Ford, Gates and Microsoft etc.  Carlwev  16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support 00:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC) PointsOfNoReturn
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Seems like an important enough entertainment company to be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose What is the logic for including some companies and not others? Are companies like Honda, Mistubishi, etc. already on the list? I'm okay with having maybe the top 10-100 companies with largest assets or revenue, longest history for a minimum size, or otherwise easily arguably influential (I do not consider Disney, which is just one of many huge Hollywood production entities, like Paramount or Universal Studios or 20th Century Fox), or swap some out for companies with controversial history like Bayer or certain oil companies for example. I don't know where Disney ranks. Some have said there is no "logic" for inclusion. I think we should try to have some. Just because some editors like cartoon characters like Donald Duck is not a good reason IMHO. I'll look into what is going with companies, but my knee-jerk reaction is Disney probably does not make the cut. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I see Disney is pretty big. Now I'm on the fence. Still the list of companies makes no sense to me... --David Tornheim (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd support this as a swap for Honda. The list of companies looks stupid as it is, half of them being car companies. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I hate to go back on what I said earlier, and it definitely makes more sense to list this over the other things you've pointed out – I too can see other things that seem less vital than this company. But I just don't feel great about singling Disney out as a studio or a media conglomerate. I doubt we're going to remove Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse anytime soon, and there's already a place to cover the studio's achievements as a whole in history of film. Maybe pop culture would be better served by adding history of television, but there's hardly any coverage of TV programming on that page right now – it's mostly about the physical technology. Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow of the 19 companies, 6 are car companies? That's crazy! I will say keeping Microsoft and Walmart is a good idea based on their huge size, and Microsoft's huge impact on society. I think the company list needs some work. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

While I support adding Disney, wouldn't a listing under mass media make more sense? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think PointofNoReturn has supported this proposal twice, which makes the close too early. 49.181.140.81 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove Honda

To compensate adding Disney above, both Car companies and Japanese companies are well represented.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support If we're going to have six car companies (too many IMO), we should at least have the six largest (Honda is #8). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Not convinced by supporters' rationale. Jusdafax 06:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Although I'd still suggest having Sony instead of it's co-founder, Akio Morita.  Carlwev  11:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

We'll see – Sony's not doing too well these days. Cobblet (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I support Sony over Honda--car companies over represented. At same time, we should not just have American car companies over-represented either. Sony. has a long track record with things like the Walkman. Very significant electronics company on the level of Apple, which I believe is on our list. If you have the two exchanged I'll support that, but not Disney over Honda, which is too Ango-American focussed. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Jewish literature

Support
  1. As nom. By adding this we do not need to add Hebrew literature and Yiddish literature to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Iamozy (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Although Jewish is a race and religion, the article is mainly about Jewish languages but mentions Jewish literature written in English, German etc too. I was wondering, this article would support a case for literature of other religions. Christian literature, Islamic literature, Buddhist texts and Hindu texts. Are those worth thinking about or not, I haven't given it much consideration yet, they could be quite listy. We list numerous philosophy of religion articles already.  Carlwev  16:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 1-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Civil–military relations & civilian control of the military

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose no more vital than Doctor–patient relationship and other such articles. Gizza (t)(c) 00:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per DaGizza above. In addition most of this would be covered by rule of law, which is much central to limiting military but also all other governmental abuse of power. Arnoutf (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Don't see how this really expands on military organization or command and control, which are both listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Lakshmi Mittal

There are many businesspeople less vital than the recently removed Ingvar Kamprad. Apart from being very rich, Mittal has not done anything that can be said to be vital. He's even less vital than Amancio Ortega. Gizza (t)(c) 02:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are actually Indian businesspeople that did something substantial like Verghese Kurien and Azim Premji. Also, Dhirubhai Ambani is probably a better choice than his son who is currently listed. Gizza (t)(c) 14:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Hermann von Helmholtz

The 2007 edition of Britannica's Macropædia contained 699 articles, 91 of which were biographical. The only one of them not on our list of ~2000 people is Helmholtz, who was one of the first people to quantitatively study problems concerning animal physiology. His success in doing so sounded the death-knell for vitalism because it showed that physical laws continued to hold in a biological setting and no "vital force" was needed to explain biological phenomena. It also resulted in him being the first person to clearly state the law of conservation of energy. Besides this, he revolutionized the study of the eye by inventing the ophthalmoscope, and also made fundamental contributions to the study of electrodynamics, acoustics, non-Euclidean geometry and fluid dynamics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --David Tornheim (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  11:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There are many interesting ideas in the Macropædia. It may be the list with the most similar goal to the lists in the vital article project, that is a group of articles which should be prioritized over others. It has many biases and deficiencies which have been rectified in our lists but it is useful in its own way. Public finance or "government finance" as it is called in Britannica, looks like a worthy addition. Gizza (t)(c) 11:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Astro Boy

Support
  1. Support The first important anime franchise and one of only a few that's received significant attention outside of Japan. Given how prominently that genre figures in today's global pop culture and how poorly it's represented on the list, such a cultural landmark has to stay. Cobblet (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I think Astro Boy is more vital than Pokemon, being the first successful anime outside Japan. Ever anime since has followed in its footsteps. Gizza (t)(c) 01:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article is already included

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

Add Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

In the 12th century, Latin translations of his work on the Indian numerals introduced the decimal positional number system to the Western world. Al-Khwārizmī's The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing presented the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations in Arabic. Some words reflect the importance of al-Khwārizmī's contributions to mathematics. "Algebra" is derived from al-jabr, one of the two operations he used to solve quadratic equations. Due to this he is often considered one of the fathers of algebra. Algorism and algorithm stem from Algoritmi, the Latin form of his name.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Arman (Talk) 09:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I just found that this article is already listed as a Level 3 Vital Article. Why is it not appearing on the Level 4 page? Sorry this nomination may be unnecessary if this is a technical glitch. Arman (Talk) 10:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Arman, you may be onto something. I thought we fixed the problem of some higher level vital articles missing on the lower levels but maybe they still exist. I can't find al-Khwarizmi in the list of scientists and mathematicians here when he should be. Gizza (t)(c) 11:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
He is there. Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/People#Ancient_figures_.2824_articles.29 Scientists, inventors and mathematicians (234 articles) > Ancient figures (24 articles) > Post-classical (12 articles) >... Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi...
At the top of the sci inv math section, ancient/classical people sub list, not in the mathematician sub list, I can see how he could be missed. We're free to discus moving him if we think it necessary.  Carlwev  16:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out. For me the confusion was created by the phonetic marks in the name which are not present in the current article name. For this my search did not work. I have now removed the phonetic marks to make consistent with the current article name. This nomination should be closed. Arman (Talk) 02:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove The Merchant of Venice

Shakespeare is the cornerstone of English literature, but even so, putting nine of his works on the list (the four tragedies, Romeo and Juliet, Midsummer Night's Dream, Tempest, the sonnets as a whole) might be a tad excessive. No other writer has more than two works listed. If something has to be cut, I think listing one of the early romantic comedies is sufficient (we don't list any of his history plays, after all) and A Midsummer Night's Dream is surely the better known and more popular of the two.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support No other author has anything like the number of works on the list that Shakespeare does. I think there's also a case for cutting The Tempest. Neljack (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support, would support Tempest too I think. Both are Significant, but hard to justify so many Shakespeare works, when many other topics are missing. Slightly lower than others listed.  Carlwev  18:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Hansel and Gretel, and Fairy Tales?

I think Fairy tales are important, but what separates this one from others like, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Rapunzel, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, Pied Piper of Hamelin, Rumpelstiltskin, Pinocchio, Puss in Boots and many more, like from the multiple categories, Category:Fairy tales. We might need some but is this the best one to have. Some others seem better. Hansel and Gretel has had less attention in modern media than many other tales, not that that is the only reason. Or maybe this could make way for articles like German literature, English literature and many others?

Also whilst on the subject, I'm wondering if it should be in characters. They are two characters who always appear together never apart, and the article is about the fairy tale. The singular characters Cinderella and King Arthur and others are listed in characters section, but who's article also covers the whole story/legend/fairytale similar to Hansel and Gretel. However we do the opposite with cartoon characters; the singular Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Bugs Bunny and more are in characters, but the Tom and Jerry Duo are in TV shows. (we could also discus which of the articles Mario, Super Mario or Mario (franchise) is better to have and where that belongs, characters or video games with Pokemon and Tetris? but that's another thread.)  Carlwev  11:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree that Hansel and Gretel isn't essential, and I wouldn't hesitate to move Tom and Jerry into this section – it looks like nobody else noticed this discrepancy until now. Cobblet (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove Hansel and Gretel

Reasons above, not a terrible inclusion, but there are many fairy tales, some equal or higher importance in my opinion, that we don't include.  Carlwev  01:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  01:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support The Brothers Grimm are on the list; so are Cinderella and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film). Even if we absolutely had to replace this with another fairy tale I would be inclined to choose something that didn't come from the Grimms. Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Do we list anything of Hans Christian Andersen? I don't think we do. He's a pretty big player, big enough to include a story of? maybe not, many are quite notable but there isn't a single stand out massive one. (We have the writer himself though obviously). I believe he actually authored his "fairy tales" too, as opposed to merely collecting them. Not that makes things any more or less vital but still.  Carlwev  02:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of Andersen's stories are vital on their own. I'd consider authors like Jean de La Fontaine, Charles Perrault or E. B. White more serious omissions. But that's just me. Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
How about Sinbad the Sailor?  Carlwev  01:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure – the Sinbad stories were added later by European translators to the Arabian Nights and I'm not sure how well even that to begin with actually represents Arab culture – those stories seem to have been more influential outside of the Arab world than within. Compare Layla and Majnun or Nasreddin. Cobblet (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Sleeping Beauty

A classic fairy tale.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We don't list any characters from Aesop's Fables, commedia dell'arte or American tall tales (in fact, we don't list any of the articles I linked to), or modern (re)creations like Pinocchio and Jack and the Beanstalk; and that's just within Western culture. All of these things are "classic". Not all of them can be included. So we need some really good reasons to include a second one of Perrault's fairy tales after Cinderella, and why that's a higher priority than listing the author himself or Tales of Mother Goose. Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Another way to put this proposal in perspective: of the 18 writers on the level 3 list, I believe only Homer, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy have more than one of their works included on the level 4 list. Does Perrault belong in this company? Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Criticism of religion

More essential topic than post-theism. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

That's undoubtedly true and this is a very interesting suggestion. How far do we go with this type of article though? What about criticism of atheism? Criticism of democracy? Criticism of capitalism? Anti-consumerism? Anti-globalization movement? Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Seven Deadly Sins

Widely known vice classification that has inspired and influenced many artwoks, as well as culture and everyday life.Gonzales John (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.Gonzales John (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per recent discussion. Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Seems fairly important but Failed before, probably fail again even if I were to support it, and we list sin already too.  Carlwev  16:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Energy drink

With what else is left on the list of food and drinks, and what's been removed of late, I don't feel like this makes the grade anymore. Seems to me to be no more vital than, say, root beer or cappuccino, which we don't have and probably never will or should. pbp 17:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. Arnoutf (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Lemonade also looks out of place to me. If there was one beverage I'd add I think it would be tequila. Other drink-related articles that also might be vital are coffeehouse and tea culture. Cobblet (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Per nom, Caffeine is the only vital part of energy drinks. Gizza (t)(c) 12:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Perhaps swap with Pepsi to complement Coke? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Yes, Cappuccino and root beer are vital, but this does not mean that energy drink should be removed. In my opinion energy drink is more vital since Taiwanese persons consume energy drink much more often than Cappuccino and root beer.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Removed the word "fact"
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add G20

Intergovernmental organization of the world's largest economies (including the EU). Currently in the process of replacing the G7.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. I was just thinking about proposing this myself. What a coincidence! Gizza (t)(c) 12:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

If anything, the G7/8 and now the G20 is more vital than many of the international organizations on the list. It is one of the few orgs which is part of Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items (nearly all of the ones listed are not ITN recurring items).

I suspect international organizations is the most untouched section in the entire expanded list. The last major change to it was five years ago when scouting was added in June 2011 ([5]). Two articles have after that time been moved to other sections but there haven't been any additions or removals since. Gizza (t)(c) 12:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering what we list in the vital 1000, this should at least be vital 10'000. Doesn't it go hand in hand with G8 though? Should we have both? or include one and exclude the other? One is older one is newer, one is bigger one is smaller, and the bigger, newer one is probably replacing the smaller older one. I haven't searched but I don't recall there being an overview G? article.  Carlwev  16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Statutory law

There's absolutely no reason to keep this on the list if we're going to add statutory interpretation.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support swap with statutory interpretation  Carlwev  03:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support swap. Gizza (t)(c) 05:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: far more important that statutory interpretation.
  2. Oppose I don't see the virtue of removing the most common form of lawmaking around the world. Yes, we have legislature, but this article actually covers the products of those bodies. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Add organ donation

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose a straight add. Open to a transplantation swap. Gizza (t)(c) 10:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too similar to Organ transplantation IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

May be too similar to Organ transplantation, which is already listed.  Carlwev  18:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Alex Ferguson?

I've been thinking about suggesting Ferguson for a while. His article shows what he's done, "He is regarded by many players, managers and analysts to be one of the greatest and most successful managers of all time" according to article. Long manager career, a decorated sir overseeing multiple cup wins, etc etc. A swap is probably better as People are at limit, and having too many sports people has long been looked down on. Although he seems more significant than many biographies among sports, an association football swap may or may not be best due to it having many biographies listed already. Within Football he seems more vital than Mia Hamm and Bobby Charlton. (although do we want to remove the only woman? Or do we list Hamm mainly because she's a woman?), Charlton seems slightly below George Best, who was removed a while back, coincidentally both Charlton and Ferguson. He seems more significant than several people dotted about athletics, winter sports, national sports. But giving more weight to association football may be seen negatively. He appears in more languages (66) and has more page views that over half the sports bios we have. For people that are already listed and significant to football off the field, we have Michel Platini UEFA guy currently banned, wasn't that significant during his playing years; and Franz Beckenbauer who was significant both as a player and manager. There are a few coaches/managers among other sports. Other Football managers who are important could be Arsène Wenger but he is lower in importance, and José Mourinho lower again. What are others views? A swap with Charlton or Hamm or someone else or not vital?

I found an interesting site called Pantheon not sure completely how it works it, ranks over 10,000 wikipedia biographies based on language appearances and page views among other things, it can be category sorted. Ferguson appears at 13th among sports biographies. Obviously not a definitive authority, but an interesting insight tool.  Carlwev  10:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If we were to have only one sports manager/coach, it would probably be Ferguson. I guess it depends if we want to go down that path. Having a coach at this level also increase the argument for having a player at Level 3 (most likely Pele although some would suggest Muhammad Ali). I don't know yet. I haven't formed an opinion but I'm open to it. Gizza (t)(c) 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. Lev 3 We only have 4 articles for sport altogether, including sport itself: sport football athletics Olympics (and physical exercise and game perhaps). Ali? easily the most known boxer, but we don't even list boxing itself there, nor an overview kind of article like combat sports or martial arts. We already removed the games of cricket and chess. As sports themselves take up so few slots there, sports themselves should surely be considered before sportspeople? I would support Pro Wrestling at lev 4 too, Although I think it failed twice already, sure it's not a sport, more of an entertainment, we list things like rodeo, bullfighting, acrobatics, numerous forms of dancing and extreme sport, circus all of which perform for an audience.  Carlwev  18:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
While I acknowledge the force of the argument for Ferguson, I'm a bit reluctant to start including sports coaches because I'm not sure we could confine it to just Ferguson - while he has had an outstanding career, there are other coaches one could also make powerful cases for. Rinus Michels and Helenio Herrera arguably had a greater impact on football than Ferguson. Then there are other sports to consider. For instance, there have been some extraordinarily successful American sporting coaches - Red Auerbach, Phil Jackson, Vince Lombardi, etc.
I'm inclined to think we could trim the football section a little. Charlton, Yashin, Maldini and Eusebio strike me as possible candidates for culling. Neljack (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with cutting Charlton but think the others should stay. IMO Yashin, Maldini and Eusebio are the most notable athletes of their respective countries, while the same is not true of Charlton. Yes, we include a lot of soccer players, but that's because it's the most popular team sport in the world. It's on the level 3 list for good reason. Cobblet (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

How significant is a coach's impact on history compared to managers in other walks of life? Can Sir Alex or the coaches Neljack's mentioned be said to have affected more people's lives than, say, the founder of IKEA, for which there is now consensus to remove from the list?

Also, what does it say about us when the nomination of Ferguson gets more discussion than the woman on the British 5-pound note. Maybe I should've mentioned that when I nominated Elizabeth Fry. Cobblet (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Straits

Do we need all these straits, often in addition to the seas, and or other straits on either side of them. Do we need Sea of Marmara, the small sea between the Mediterranean and Black Sea, plus Bosphorus and Dardanelles the straits that connect the Sea of Marmara to the Mediterranean and Black sea. That's three articles about the water that connects The Black and Med Seas that cuts through Turkey, in addition to the Black and Med Seas as well too obviously. We have The Strait of Dover, in addition to the English Channel, and North Sea, and the Irish Sea also. Although it failed, we've had discussion about whether to remove Great Britain and Ireland, but we have all these straits and seas around the islands? Do we need Yucatán Channel, and Straits of Florida in addition to Florida and Yucatán Peninsula and Cuba, Caribbean, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico?. But we don't list Gulf Stream which seems a bit more significant than Florida Straits. I know they're often busy shipping lanes but to me it seems akin to listing several isthmuses in addition to the peninsulas they're connected to. Also we list several straits around the USA and the strait between the NZ islands Cook Strait, Plus both the Islands too, but not the straits separating Japanese islands like Tsugaru Strait, Kanmon Straits etc. (Although we do have Seto Inland Sea).  Carlwev  12:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I share your concerns. You could ask the same thing about some of the islands. It's insane that we list five Canadian Arctic islands but not British Columbia, Alberta, Calgary or Edmonton, for example. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I think straits can be significant for shipping, piracy and environmental reasons. If none of these apply, then I support removing the strait. Gizza (t)(c) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

English/Chinese/Arabic Literature etc.

I was thinking about topics per country/region/civilization past and present. We have many. We have History of many countries and regions. I won't list them or link them, but if you look around the different pages you can find we also list many or a few articles listed in each of the following topics... Music of...., Cuisine of...., Cinema of...., Architecture of..., Art of...., Mythology of...., and Religion in...., Philosophy of.... Whether it's cinema of Nigeria, Chinese cuisine, African art, Korean mythology, Roman Architecture etc and loads more. In literature we have 201 articles including 171 works of literature, but we don't list any country/region/language/civilization specific literature articles like other arts/topics. At first glance the ones I would consider may be something like...English literature, Spanish literature, French literature, Chinese literature, Indian literature, Arabic literature, Italian literature, Japanese literature, Russian literature, American literature, German literature. All of the other Topic of nation lists have their main parent topic article in the vital 100 or (vital 10 for history and art), literature is also a vital 100 article and an important topic, so this follows suit. I don't want to try and weigh one directly against the other too much, or suggest any removals, but I would expect an article like English literature, and a few other nation's literature to appear in English language Encyclopedias more often than other nation specific topics we list like Slavic Mythology, Soviet Cinema etc, not to pick on them in particular but it's true. I would presume, the literature of nation articles were just not thought about when the list was compiled rather than being deliberately omitted, I don't recall them ever being discussed. There seems to have been an effort to list many writers and works, with an effort to have at least one/some from specific important nations (recently Voltaire was added to vital 1000, part of the discussion was there were no French writers, other writers from Asia where suggested with similar rationals) But the overviews literature articles have never been mentioned. We would still need to discus each one on it's own to decide which we wanted. Discus removals and/or section quotas to compensate if several of these were added. It would be easy to ignore this, and say we've done all right so far, but that would just be taking the easy way out, we should at least discus it. The ones I mentioned is just a starting point, some may not be worthy, some I may have forgotten.

In short, literature is important, we already list 250 writers, 170 works and 30 other articles in literature. We have followed suit with music of... cuisine of... and all the others I mentioned above. I would expect literature of... to appear in encyclopedias too if articles like cuisine of.. and all the others were included.  Carlwev  16:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's logical, since we've previously added articles on architecture and art by region. I find it hard to believe that there are more people who'd appreciate a well-written articles on Investiture of the Gods or Dashakumaracharita than well-written overviews of Chinese or Indian literature. On the other hand, people seem to be balking at the idea of doing something similar for music, and I'd like to know why (neither you nor Gizza have commented on the proposal below). To the literatures you've suggested I would definitely add Latin American literature, African literature, Persian literature and Scandinavian literature, and possibly also Polish, Turkish or Jewish literature; and I wouldn't add American literature since English literature deals with English-language literature in general (British literature is a different article). With some minor tweaking of the quotas and moving of articles to other subpages (artist's tools and pottery/porcelain to Technology?) we could probably fit all of these in. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Cool, like I said my list was just a starting point, you're right, I was a little unsure or American, I thought about Scandinavian but weren't sure; one from Americas that's not USA like Brazil, or Mexico I wondered, but Latin America is good idea. Got Arabic for Middle East, Persian is another language and region/nation that is notable though. Didn't think of Jewish (Jewish can be race or religion I know), religion ones like Hindu literature, plus Christian, Islamic, Buddhist are also out there. Plus notable extinct languages mainly, Latin literature, maybe more. Religious and extinct language literature articles may have some overlap with Mythology articles, but how much if any I'm not sure. I also wondered if it would be an issue about nation/language, eg what does each term mean and include, does English include American? does Spanish include Mexican. But it doesn't seem to be a crippling issue. That's an issue for the articles more, and they seem to be on top of that anyway. The articles exist, we just decide which ones to include at this time.......Music below, yeah wasn't as sure on Music as I was literature but seems good, especially when they have 4 support. To be honest, it took me so long to write the above passage I ran out of time, been busy lately, life beckons, but they've been there ages I know. I guess we'll soon be discussing these nation/language literature articles case at a time soon then...... and possibly Ancient Egyptian literature?  Carlwev  05:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Yup, I forgot about the classics: Ancient Greek, Latin and probably Sanskrit literature (even though there's some coverage of the latter in Indian literature) ought to make the list. Cobblet (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
If we are to go down this path of adding literature overviews, I would prefer adding them on the basis of language rather than country or religion though in a few situation country might be better. Something like French Canadian literature would be covered under French language literature since Canadian literature is unlikely to be listed. Still not a big fan of adding these types of articles especially if the main literary works of a language/country are already listed. It may be useful when the literary works from a particular region are not vital on their own but collectively they are important to know. Gizza (t)(c) 04:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Most of the articles Carlwev mentioned refer to the literature of the language, not country; I think the biggest exception is Spanish literature which does not cover Latin America. I actually think these articles are very important in filling all sorts of gaps. Our list of writers omits many significant names, and our coverage of drama, poetry and the short story in languages other than English is generally poor to non-existent. (Three random examples: no Guy de Maupassant or any of his works; no Chinese poems – poetry being more highly valued than prose in Chinese literature; no Chekhov plays or short stories.) Cobblet (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand the opposing point of view, but overview articles like this are just what I would expect to find. We list both overviews and examples for the other arts/topics, even if the overviews could cover the examples. We list the Pyramids, Colosseum, and Parthenon in addition to Ancient Egyptian, Roman, and Greek architecture. We list the overview articles about the mythologies of ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece, and also list individual examples of characters, gods and stories from those mythologies. I could probably find many more examples from those or other arts/topics, if I tried. If we do not list an example of a notable subject, then it's all the more reason to list the overview. Either way it covers more ground, it's what I'd expect in an encyclopedia, we do it for other topics, and they are truly are vital topics, in my opinion anyway.  Carlwev  19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we need Knot (unit)...or Henry (unit)

A knot is one nautical mile per hour. We list nautical mile, and of course hour. We do not list Miles per hour, Kilometres per hour or metres per second, which are arguably more used, as many people travel on land more. It's lucky that it has a word instead of a term, if it didn't we would be a lot less likely to list "nautical miles per hour". We list no other unit of speed (Other than speed of light if it counts as?). It is used on sea, in the air, and in meteorology. But we don't list units or terms used on land or space anywhere else. From it's various areas of use, we don't have Aeronautics, Beaufort scale, Wind speed, Seamanship. It is however, probably not the least known/used unit, used more than Steradian, Lux, Katal, Henry (unit), Siemens (unit), Weber (unit) perhaps? Is it odd we have 3 articles for units of radioactivity (Becquerel, Gray (unit) Sievert) but only one for speed? It's not an SI unit but The knot is a non-SI unit but is "accepted for use with the SI". Should we keep Knot?

Also...going off on on a tangent with my thoughts.... A while back I believe we added all SI units. Are we sticking to that. Do we really need Henry (unit), in addition to inductance, for example? just a question. Are there still any SI units we don't have? I know we don't choose what the units are official SI, but I notice we have Weber (unit), and Tesla (unit). Weber is a unit of Magnetic flux, which we don't list. Tesla is a unit of magnetic flux density, which redirects to Magnetic field which we have, other than density itself I don't think we list the "density" of anything in addition to the main topic, only because SI have decided this density to be an official unit. There are a few density kind of things that seem more notable like, Relative density, Energy density and even Population density (also how about? world population, population growth, population?) I also came across Centimetre–gram–second system of units, not sure how important that is. We list Radian but not Radius, Diameter, or Circumference. Many of those seem more important than others like Henry (unit), just not official SI units.  Carlwev  08:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. I think a lot of people would be surprised to know we have an article on km/h at all. People rarely have the need to look up a unit when the definition is literally in its name. Knot gets nearly six times as many page views as kilometres per hour. The fact that it's accepted for use with the SI despite not even being derived from the metre testifies to its practical importance. I don't mind keeping it.
  2. At this point the only derived SI unit I'd be comfortable removing is katal – most people have continued to use the non-SI enzyme unit instead. All the other ones are more or less in common use in their respective areas. When push comes to shove I recognize that swapping the gray for nuclear medicine is an improvement; but if getting rid of some units is just going to give RekishiEJ more of an excuse to propose adding tofu-coagulating agents, I don't see how that helps us.
  3. As for units vs. the quantities they measure: yes, we don't list magnetic flux density, but we list both flux and density. It's comparable to listing metre and hour but not kilometres per hour. "Magnetic flux density" is just a fancy way of saying "magnetic field strength" which is hardly an obscure concept.
  4. Definitions and formulae for radius, diameter and circumference can be found in circle and there's really nothing more that can be said about them. The radian is a basic unit of angle measure and some people have proposed making it an SI base unit (that link being just one example); there's no question this is vital. CGS units are almost completely obsolete – we don't need them.
  5. We could probably use more coverage of demography, although population density is again a pretty self-explanatory concept and not really more important than the stuff listed in Demography#Common Rates and Ratios. Human overpopulation is the core social issue; that's what should be vital. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I say definitely keep knot. Not too familiar with henry, but if it's commonly used in its field, I'd say keep. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Add remaining elements

There are 118 elements, but only 105 listed. Should we add the remainder? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 43#Swap: Remove 13 transactinide elements, Add Transactinide element. It is difficult to argue that elements with extremely short half-lives and no foreseeable practical use are more important than fundamental chemistry topics we don't list like stoichiometry or stereochemistry. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for enlightening me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove The Birds (play) and The Clouds, Add Lysistrata

I don't see any compelling reason to list two of Aristophanes's plays when Aeschylus and Sophocles are each only represented by one. And Lysistrata has been revived much more frequently than the other two plays; its article gets more hits than the other two combined – more than even Aristophanes's biography, in fact.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support: Lysistrata is by far Aristophanes' most referenced play in this day and age. Consider Chi-Raq. pbp 13:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I mentioned above that Homer, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy were the only writers on the Level 3 list with more than two works listed here. If I'm not mistaken, the only other writers with two works listed are Euripides, Dickens and Hugo. It's a very exclusive club. Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Untitled

Latest comment: 8 years ago263 comments18 people in discussion

The far-northern part of Europe, in the list called Scandinavia, should be renamed "Nordic countries" (as long as Finland is included, as it should be). The Scandinavian languages are Germanic; Inuit, Sami and Finnish are not. --Hordaland (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the Geography list – I changed Scandinavia to Northern Europe where applicable. Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Richard Burbage

As above. Compare Philip Sidney (twice as many page views) or Thomas Tallis (three times as many page views, and has absolutely no chance of being included on the list as a composer) or Hans Holbein the Younger (nearly four times as many).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  09:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Mont Blanc

The most famous of the Alps and the tallest mountain in Europe if the Caucasus are considered to be Asian. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. One mountain from the Alps is quite reasonable. Gizza (t)(c) 04:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Lysimachus, Add Themistocles

Leonidas I has had a well-known movie made about him, but Themistocles is generally credited as having contributed the most to fending off the second Persian invasion of Greece, thanks to his strategy of building up the Greek navy and his successful command at the Battle of Salamis, widely considered an important turning point in history. Lysimachus's role in the Wars of the Diadochi is nowhere close to being as vital, and we already list several participants in that conflict, some of them much more important than Lysimachus (Antipater, Seleucus I Nicator, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Antigonus I Monophthalmus, Ptolemy I Soter), while omitting others (Cassander, Perdiccas) who are about as important as him.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  10:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Zenobia

We list Boudica, Vercingetorix, Arminius and Decebalus, but none of them threatened the existence of the Roman Empire as seriously as Zenobia, whose story and legacy inspired historians and artists long after her time.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support No doubt Palmyra deserves a leader on the list. Either Zenobia or Odaenathus should be listed. Gizza (t)(c) 01:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - Clearly vital. Article needs work, however. Jusdafax 20:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Andaman Sea

Again a small sea with little significance. We're better off having the Andaman Islands, which is one of the world's hotspots for uncontacted peoples. Gizza (t)(c) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not the next sea to go. It's bigger than any of the seas within the Mediterranean that we list – 50% to 90% bigger than the Black Sea, depending on who you ask. The northern end of the Malacca Strait opens into it so it's vitally important to international trade. It's one of the most overfished seas in the world (Thailand is the world's third biggest exporter of fish) and this has led to human trafficking becoming a serious problem. "The Thai seafood industry is today globally notorious for being one of the most abusive and destructive economic sectors in the world." Its coral reefs are the largest in South Asia and important to the tourist industry in Thailand. Cobblet (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Since you brought up the Sentinelese, we could consider adding uncontacted peoples and Negrito. Cobblet (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if there are better articles to discuss the above issues like human trafficking and a well known Thai tourist destination like Phuket or Koh Samui. I've thought about uncontacted peoples and Negrito before. Gizza (t)(c) 00:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Human trafficking seems significant, I think I would support it. Although I would support poaching too, another problem/crime/issue perhaps known more in the developing world, but we removed that ages ago.  Carlwev  19:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 3-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Porto

A city with a history since before Roman times, has been an important port since then. UNESCO world herotige site, was the centre/capital of historic Kingdoms/regions in northern Portugal, and it's name is linked to the origin of the name of Portugal itself, and is famous for Port wine. Although the municipality itslef is quite small, there 1.4 million in the urban area of Porto, and 1.8 million population of the Metropolitan Area of Porto, according to the article. Portugal is more important than it small population alone would suggest. With Portuguese language and 2 Portuguese explorers. (Ferdinand Magellan and Vasco da Gama) appearing in the vital 1000, but not Portugal itself. History of Portugal and Portuguese Empire are in the vital 10000. Portugal has 10.5 million people, we list only one city Lisbon. Compare with Netherlands 17 million 3 cities listed, Switzerland 8 million, and Scotland 5 million both with 2 cities each.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - per nom also gave port wine its name. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Porto's port is insignificant in modern times, even by European standards. Antwerp is more historically significant than Porto and remains one of the world's busiest ports today. The OECD compiles population statistics for metropolitan areas in its 34 member countries. According to it Porto's metro population in 2014 was 1,313,829. Larger OECD metros not on the list are Katowice (2.59 million), Portland, Sacramento, Toluca, Kansas City, Baltimore, Columbus, Austin, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, Torreon, Tampa, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Sendai, Calgary and Lille. Sure, Porto is more historically significant than most of these cities; but I want to make it clear that Porto is nothing special when it comes to size or economic importance. For all its historical importance, Portugal today is an economic and political backwater compared to Switzerland or the Netherlands. I'm not opposed to adding Porto, but for me the most glaring omissions when it comes to European cities are Antwerp and the agglomerations centered on Katowice and the Ruhr. Cobblet (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

OK...Antwerp was on my add list, I'll open it here since it seems better.  Carlwev  20:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
It's worth noting that we don't list the Champagne region of France nor Bourbon County/Kentucky despite the fact that champagne and bourbon whiskey are much more famous than port wine. Gizza (t)(c) 11:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 4-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Gothenburg

Sweden's second city, and the fifth largest in Scandinavia, we list the others, which are all capitals. Biggest port in Scandinavia. nearly a million population in the urban area. Also culturally significant for film, music, sports, museums and universities. Home to several big companies, such as Volvo and Ericsson. Same as Portugal, Sweden is more important than it small population alone would suggest. Sweden has 10 million people, we list only one city Stockholm. Again Compare with Netherlands 17 million 3 cities listed, Switzerland 8 million, and Scotland 5 million both with 2 cities each. Sweden and Scandinavia has many many people listed, like sports people and explorers among others, but not many cities, only their capitals listed. I cannot see, individual tennis players, golfers skiers as more vital than Gothenburg. We have at least 3 Swedish athletes, Annika Sörenstam, Ingemar Stenmark, Björn Borg and more Norwegian and Finnish. I would have thought Gothenburg is more important to Swedish and Scandinavian history, culture and identity than some of these. But I don't know, I'm not Swedish. Gothenburg appears in over 100 languages, compared to the modern Swedish golfer Annika Sörenstam who appears in about 22. It looks more known in the rest of the world comparatively? (I know it's awkward comparing people to cities)  Carlwev  10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Far more important cities outside of Europe need to be included first. Cobblet (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Calgary

Only city of 1,000,000+ in Canada not listed (third-largest) and pairs nicely with the addition of Alberta.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  09:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

You're arguing for Calgary's vitality on the basis of its municipal population, and the metro population in the case of Honolulu? :-) There are several bigger metropolitan areas in North America not listed. Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also the fifth-largest metro in Canada and our other four Canadian cities are the ones with metro areas larger than it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
We have previously removed cities as big as Portland or Goiania (back when the list badly needed a trim) and I would frankly rather re-add those cities than add Calgary. Cobblet (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, Calgary is the center of Canada's oil industry (fifth-largest on Earth), and a Beta world city according to GaWC (ranking above U.S. cities such as Charlotte and St. Louis which are on the list), so Calgary deserves to be on here more than some of these cities. Personally, I think that we should look at countries like the U.S., China, and India and pare back the number of cities we have on this list from them. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Katowice

The article says the city is a center of science, culture, industry, business, trade, and transportation. Although the city proper has a population of only 300,000, other definitions that use urban area, or metropolitan area give populations of 2.75m or even 5.3m. Eurostat lists is as the largest urban area in Poland and the 10th biggest in the whoe of the EU (European_Union#Urbanisation), and also the 16th highest economically powerful city in the EU.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Poland's biggest metropolitan area. IMO a better choice for the list than Wrocław, Bratislava or Dnipropetrovsk. Cobblet (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Evil removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Good and Evil and add Good and evil

The first two articles are now redirects to the third one.Gonzales John (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support removals. Good and evil is already on the list (it's on level 3 too.) Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support removals --Iamozy (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support - Logical move. Jusdafax 18:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Good is a disambiguation page but evil does indeed redirect to good and evil. Since good and evil is already listed, evil can just be removed without discussion. There is an unwritten rule here that redirects can be removed on sight. Gizza (t)(c) 11:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Anu, Nanna, Enki, Enlil, Shamash, and Ninhursag

We need more Mesopotamian deities.Gonzales John (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gonzales John (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose You'll have to explain why – I'm simply not seeing the vitality here. There are far more prominent mythological/religious characters not listed, e.g. Durga or Guanyin or Job (biblical figure). Cobblet (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose If we have any Mesopotamian mythological characters, we should add Gilgamesh (Epic of Gilgamesh is level 3). I also agree with Gizza and Cobblet's comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

It doesn't make sense at all to include Ninhursag before Durga or Guanyin, that's for sure. I could accept one or two Mesopotamian deities at most (Enki, Enlil and Marduk have the best cases). After Greco-Roman, the most well known mythology in the English-speaking world would either be Egyptian or Norse, and Norse itself only has 3 deities listed. Baldr, Tyr and Loki are more vital than nearly all of the suggestions made here. Gizza (t)(c) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Middle Eastern cuisine

A unique cuisine available all over the world these days much like Chinese, Italian, Indian and French.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I understand our aversion to articles that are a bit vague in scope, but I think listing this is better than trying to identify one Middle Eastern country's cuisine as being especially vital. While some distinctions exist, they're all related to one another, just like how the regional cuisines of India and China have commonalities despite having notable differences as well. Foods like pita, kebab, hummus, falafel and couscous are shared throughout the region and are also known globally. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. pbp 13:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Lemonade

I believe this to be less vital than energy drink. We list Soft drink, which includes Lemonade and Cola and more. Cola was voted off already. I'm not quoting a source, but as a supermarket manager of many years (joy) I believe Cola to be more popular than lemonade by quite a bit. Although we do list Coca-Cola but that is more about the company. Lemonade is just one flavour of Soft drink. Other flavour of things we don't list in addition to their parent article that are popular are Orange juice, Apple pie, Chocolate cake, Chocolate biscuit, chocolate milk or milkshake nor any other kind/flavour of cake, pie, biscuit, juice, tea, coffee, soft drink etc.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support We already have juice, and no other subtypes. I don't see why lemonade is more important than any of those. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support - Time to remove it. Good catch! Jusdafax 20:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nomination withdrawn. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Brown University, Dartmouth College

Only two Ivy League schools not listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Ivy League is already listed. I don't consider Brown and Dartmouth the most significant American universities not on the list. If you think we have too many American cities, surely we have too many American universities? Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

@Cobblet: What's your reasoning behind listing the other Ivy League schools then if Ivy League itself is already listed? Why not just remove them? Brown and Dartmouth are two of the nine oldest colleges in the country. Personally, I feel that if Brown & Dartmouth aren't worthy of inclusion we should dispense Cornell and Penn (and possibly Columbia) in favor of Georgetown and possibly Texas. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I could get behind removal of Cornell. Our Universities list is very Ivy League-heavy. Harvard and Yale, sure. Princeton next. Anybody else I can take or leave. pbp 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I also agree Cornell and Penn are not absolutely essential. The list used to feature a lot more universities that we removed a couple years back (you can dig through the archives), and while the list is better than it was before it could definitely use more work. IMO the most important omissions are Imperial College London and National University of Singapore. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Union of South American Nations

We have other major continental organizations such as the AU, EU, and OAS, plus more regional orgs like ASEAN, CIS, and Arab League, so why not UNASUR?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support It's pretty new, but apart from that I don't see why it shouldn't be added. Cobblet (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Iamozy (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 8-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Western (genre)

An important genre in films, television, comics, fiction and radio. --Thi (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. pbp 18:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Iamozy (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. Support - An obvious call. Improves the integrity of the movie section. Jusdafax 18:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose


Discuss

This has been on my mind for ages. I'm glad someone opened this, and it's already got much support. It appears we have made an effort to list a western of some kind in the form of Gunsmoke TV/Radio show. The genre is known for its movies, I don't think we list a western movie, we could try and single one out, but the genre itself is better. Not sure if we list a western book, but they are quite significant too. Actors we list, like Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and Gary Cooper are known, a lot for their work in westerns so with that and Gunsmoke the list already suggests by this that the genre is significant, and I think it is. This just makes me wonder if fiction and its genres should go under arts not literature, as horror, sci fi, romance, and western are all genres of multiple arts, like book, tv, film, radio, games and more, not only literature. But that's another discussion.  Carlwev  18:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 2-6. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add The Wire

Many television programs on the list seem old-fashioned today. I would like to add some serie from 2000s to keep the list relevant. The Wire is known for its social commentary and many consider it as one of the greatest television series of all time.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm leaning toward oppose. I know people who follow this closer than life itself, but I have a hard time believing it's one of the 10,000 most vital topics or 15-20 most vital TV shows. pbp 18:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  18:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I have to agree with pbp. I rather think our coverage in this section is a little arbitrary and US-centric. (No EastEnders or Coronation Street?) Plus, I agree with Carlwev that there are other US shows which are more important. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I would rather remove more of the old TV shows. Honestly I still think listing Television in the United States is a better way to represent America's disproportionate influence on global pop culture and mass media than listing shows nobody remembers anymore. Cobblet (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose not vital by any definition. Iamozy (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Other modern US TV shows with more appeal could be 24, Lost, Friends, there are a few, this doesn't stick out to me, and we can't have them all. I think I would support removing I love Lucy, we have the lady herself. We don't list the Cosby Show in addition to Bill Cosby, not that he's a good comparison in light of recent news about him.  Carlwev  18:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I know, but this television drama has been praised by many sociologists and many sociology departments of universities use this as a wonderful teaching material to let students understand social problems in the U.S.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Thermoregulation

An important aspect of homeostasis in animals, with big implications in physiology and behaviour.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Among other things covers the idea of what used to be called warm and cold blooded creatures, and the differences between them. I would support homeostasis too.  Carlwev  11:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 10:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would rather add homeostasis itself. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 01:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add linear motion and circular motion

Both are concepts middle school students learn from science or physics textbooks, and I think that since the number of articles belonging to the physics section hasn't reached the quota they can be added.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No rationale for why these need to be listed when kinematics is already on the list. Cobblet (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Rotation is listed, already too.

Just realised that equations of motion is listed as well, making me lean towards oppose. The motion equations and formulas introduced in middle/high school are mentioned there too. Gizza (t)(c) 01:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Architecture of Mesopotamia

Since this style influenced Arabs a lot (as mentioned above), and it is of high level, it deserves to be listed!

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support If we have architecture of other ancient cultures such as Egypt, Greece, and Rome, I don't see why we can't have this one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - This seems obvious to me. Jusdafax 20:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Not sure about Iranian, does go back quite a way though, there is Ottoman architecture too. Also Babylonian architecture redirects to this Architecture of Mesopotamia.  Carlwev  18:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Iranian sounds more vital when you call it "Persian Architecture" although like last time, I'm 50-50 about it. I still think adding Persian carpet is a more creative and unique way to represent the region's culture. Gizza (t)(c) 12:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Scandinavian literature

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove The Incoherence of the Incoherence

The arts sublist is four over the target. This book is response to The Incoherence of the Philosophers (listed).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. The Incoherence of the Incoherence does not have any vitality on its own. There are better choices for IGA nonfiction texts like Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, Book of Optics and Al-Risalah al-Dhahabiah. Gizza (t)(c) 04:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Iamozy (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - The subject appears less than vital, and the article itself is poorly referenced. Agree that it should be removed. Jusdafax 18:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose


Discussion

I'd support raising the Arts quota slightly (e.g. take 5 from the Biology quota). I think it would be worthwhile to add Great Sphinx of Giza and a couple more examples of architecture not from Western Europe. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't look that vital to me, we already list the author Averroes; the work was defending Aristotelianism, which seems slightly better, but still probably not vital.  Carlwev  15:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 1-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung

Cult of personality is more interesting topic than the Little Red Book.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I disagree. Cobblet (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. However cult of personality should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Highly influential. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose the second most printed book in history should be on this list. --Iamozy (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-5. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add manhua, manhwa, American comic book, Franco-Belgian comics

I think that listing manga while not including these articles in the list is a huge mistake, since they are also quite influential on earth.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The first two aren't vital and we have plenty of topics related to the last two. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose the first two. The only vital comic cultures or regions are Japan, the USA and France/Belgium. Nobody else, including Argentina and Korea, has a vital comic tradition. Weak oppose the latter two since the overviews are redundant to individual comics as per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 12:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Gizza. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Overly specific. We don't even have comic book and we should have that before any of these. pbp 19:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to swap Cobblet (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Björn Borg Add Gerardus Mercator

Yes he was a dominant figure in Tennis for the late 20th century even though he never won a career grand slam set, but is he more dominant then the guy who came up with the Mercator projection in 1569, which is still used today? Yes his total career match win rate of 82.74% is impressive and the second highest (we don't have number one Novak Djokovic but will Borgs records still be here nearly 500 years on? Joe DiMaggio and his 56 game hitting streak is regarded as the most dominant sporting record of the 20th century and we don't have him listed either. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support remove, oppose add. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Borg isn't the next Swede nor the next tennis player I would remove. And I don't think Mercator's single achievement is ahead of other what other notable cartographers did like Abraham Ortelius, Martin Behaim, Gemma Frisius and Muhammad al-Idrisi. Gizza (t)(c) 10:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree that Borg shouldn't be the next tennis player to go - Sampras was much less dominant in a weaker era. Neljack (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm undecided on whether to support this – I think Borg is definitely the most famous of the Scandinavian athletes that we list, and we list the Mercator projection. On the other hand, there's a severe lack of geographers and earth scientists on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to swap Cobblet (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Miguel Indurain Add Urbain Le Verrier

We kicked off Lance Armstrong because of his doping but i still feel that he had more influence overall on the impact of late 20th century/early 21st century professional cycling and 4 is more then enough for cycling anyway especially when we do not have the guy who accurately predicted where Neptune was using mathematics which our own article describes as "The discovery of Neptune is widely regarded as a dramatic validation of celestial mechanics, and is one of the most remarkable moments of 19th century science."

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support remove, oppose add. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support removing Indurain. It seems to me that Merckx is definitely vital while the other cyclists are a step down (but very close to each other.) I think we have too many cyclists anyway and would support removing Anquetil as well. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose addition per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 11:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree that there are more important astronomers that we don't have than Le Verrier. And while Indurain is certainly less vital than Merckx, is he less vital than Coppi or Anquetil? I am not so sure. He is the only man to win five consecutive Tours de France, after all. Neljack (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Le Verrier is not the next astronomer I'd add, particularly after we just added the Herschels. I'd suggest Hipparchus. I also don't like adding one-hit wonders when so many scientists with multiple contributions to their field or fields of study have been omitted. Also is Indurain really the weakest choice among the five cyclists? Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-5. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Root beer, Cappuccino & Latte

Now that some people say that energy drink should be removed from the list for the former two ones I proposed are unlikely to be listed

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't feel like coffee needs to be expanded upon, and I'm not sure about the necessity of root beer either. I also don't understand the logic behind the nomination. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 03:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Iamozy (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  • We don't even have different varieties of beer and wine. Perhaps we should test if there is consensus for those before we add varieties of soda and coffee. pbp 13:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Robert A. Heinlein

The list contains the whole BACH quartet (Bradbury, Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein), Philip K. Dick and Ursula K. Le Guin. Heinlein is the most controversial figure. Polish author Stanisław Lem (not listed) is arguably more significant literally. Both Heinlein and Lem have sold more than 30 million books worldwide. Fantasy author Terry Pratchett is not listed, but he has sold more than 85 million books sold worldwide. I would support adding some contemporary North American author: Alice Munro (Nobel Prize winner), Philip Roth, Don DeLillo or Cormac McCarthy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support The number of modern science fiction writers is excessive. There are genres like horror (e.g. H. P. Lovecraft) that are completely unrepresented. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support indeed Pratchett, Lem, Munro and Lovecraft are all better choices. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I'm not sure "controversial" is the word you're looking for. Maybe he's the least significant, though. pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. The fact that he played a vital role in science fiction in the 20th century guarantees the article's vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Agree that Heinlein is vital. Jusdafax 05:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Krzysztof Kieślowski

In 2002 Kieślowski was listed at number two on the British Film Institute's Sight & Sound Top Ten Directors list of modern times.[1]

  1. ^ "Sight & Sound | Modern Times". BFI. 25 January 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2012.
Support
  1. As nom. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not going to support this unless someone else is removed from this section. We list plenty of people related to film. Cobblet (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add History of construction

I noticed that the History of architecture article is a Level-4 vital article, which leads me to believe that the History of construction should also be added to the list of added articles. This article covers all forms and process of construction throughout the history of the world. It needs a lot of improvement but it has potential. --Iamozy (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iamozy (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too close in scope. Even history of engineering is not listed; IMO it's too close to history of technology. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

As mentioned before, the potential overlap between architecture and construction or the histories of them both is present. However both construction and architecture themselves are together at the level 2 vital 100 articles and I don't recall anyone ever bringing up the overlap there, except myself once years ago...but no one replied to the comment. I do think the concept of building....buildings is very important I don't mind a bit of overlap there. Although some are obvious some not, most or all distinctions or categories are man made, (depending who you ask) whether distinction between novel and short story, planet, dwarf planet, minor planet and asteroid, architecture and construction, rock music and rock and roll, etc etc. all of which we list btw.  Carlwev  20:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't list histories of such closely related concepts. We don't even list histories of the individual social sciences. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The most vital discipline missing a history article IMO is education. Gizza (t)(c) 02:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I'd support History of education too.  Carlwev  03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove The Gold Rush

OK, Chaplin was a genius and if we could include only one filmmaker among the vital topics I would choose him, but why The Gold Rush over The Kid, or Modern Times, or City Lights. Collectively they comprise an astounding body of work, but I don't think the justification can be be made for just picking one of his films.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support removing The Gold Rush. City Lights and Modern Times can be added. --Thi (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - A vital film that influenced filmmakers. Jusdafax 03:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-2. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Intolerance (film)

In the same boat as Dr Strangelove and La Dolce Vita: if you are going to go for a D.W. Griffiths film then you choose The Birth of a Nation, which was profoundly more influential and carried far greater cultural resonance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Again, one is enough. Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Arnoutf (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. --Iamozy (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - As the article notes, this film was influential. Jusdafax 03:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add The Jazz Singer

The first talkie. I am surprised this is not already on the list. It is impossible to discuss the evolution of cinema without discussing The Jazz Singer. A second rate film, a revolution in the art form.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. pbp 23:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support great suggestion. Gizza (t)(c) 13:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Articles like History of film and Cinema of the United States are more essential than second-rate melodramas. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Triumph of the Will

I expect this to face opposition, but documentary film-making is not represented on the list of films, and Triumph of the Will is basically the Citizen Kane of the docu-film.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Extremely influential in terms of both propaganda and film-making. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support key film of one of the most innovative directors of the day (albeit in service of an evil regime). A relevant alternative might be Olympia (1938 film) which documents the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Less influential for directing movies but probably more influential for filming technology, e.g. it introduced filming techniques still in use to record sports events. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Jusdafax 05:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just boring. --Thi (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Stagecoach (1939 film)

No Westerns are currently included on the list, and they are an important part of American cinema. It is to American cinema what The Seven Samurai is to Japanese cinema. If it's good enough for Orson Welles to watch 40 times, it is good enough to be on this list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - per nominator. Good nominaton. Jusdafax 05:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nominator's comments below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Buffalo Bill did so much more to create and influence the Western genre across all media than what Stagecoach did. Not convinced that this should be listed ahead of acclaimed Westerns like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Gizza (t)(c) 01:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

@DaGizza There is more to Stagecoach than just the mythology of the Old West; it influenced the very grammar of the genre. John Ford is probably among the top 3/4 American film directors and Stagecoach is easily his most influential film, even if some of his later films (such as The Searchers) surpassed it in quality. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a good film (and Once Upon a Time in the West is even better) but the Spaghetti Western was a shortlived phenomenon while Stagecoach essentially created the template for the genre, similar to the effect that Psycho had on the horror genre. Here are just some of the musings you can dig up on Stagecoach:

DGA: Paul Schrader (American Gigolo), who introduced Stagecoach explaining aspects that make the film a real game-changer: its revitalization of the Western genre, its elevation of the genre to serious adult drama, and the creation of the Western’s prototypical hero in the form of John Wayne.
Images Journal: ...arguably the most influential Western of all time, Stagecoach.
Classic Film Preview: Greatest Western of all time? Most influential Western? Archetypal Western? Stagecoach (1939) may be all three, depending on your point of view.
Joesph McBride: Stagecoach is for most people the archetypal Western
Fred Landesman:Since 1939, Stagecoach has been a reference point for anyone who has worked within the genre, as a picture either to be emulated or reacted against ... John Ford's Stagecoach is not just a classic in the annals of Hollywood; it is also a milestone in both the art and science of motion picture production ... Stagecoach revolutionized the Western. It defined Western archetypes and created a new frame of reference rich in irony and sophistication ... [It had] more influence on the genre than probably any Western before or since ... Stagecoach was the picture that changed everything.

So while I agree there are other Westerns out there that perhaps measure up to Stagecoach in quality, I don't think there is single film in the genre that has been as influential. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Dams

We have 4 different dams on this list. Do we really need any of them?

  1. Aswan Dam
  2. Hoover Dam
  3. Itaipu Dam
  4. Three Gorges Dam

--David Tornheim (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. These are engineering marvels that have had a profound impact on the economic development and ecology of the regions surrounding them. Cobblet (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Propose 'Formerly listed as Vital Article' template for Talk pages of delisted articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago171 comments14 people in discussion

Just as we mention former Good Articles with such a template, I suggest a template for articles formerly included here on any of the four lists. This template would be included on the Talk page of such articles.Jusdafax 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I can understand this, and it kind of makes sense. However to become a featured or good article, I believe there was always a procedure and requirements the article had to meet, even though they may be more difficult now than the past. Some articles that have been listed in this project get added through voting, then removed through voting, like potato chips among many. Some get added without voting by new comers, then usually removed. Some are removed due to article mergers/deletions. Some become, or always were, redirects to something else with the same meaning, or encompassing it (like baby and infant). We kind of removed all lists, but previously had many listed. Some articles were added ages ago before discussion, and were listed for ages, then were removed with or without discussion. These articles perhaps should never have been listed, they were added with no discussion, and when suggested for removal got huge unanimous support for removal. We have listed many many very non vital articles like Halo (optical phenomenon), relish, Wilco, Erewhon, Be Without You, Kevin Costner, Shania Twain, Bay of Pigs, American–Antarctic Ridge, lava dome, Victoria Land just among many many more. Among lists, redirects, early odd listings, etc Which would we include, and which would we not, as a "former vital article". I feel maybe it would be awarding a status to an article that doesn't deserve it, that just happened to be listed because early editors wanted to fill this space quickly, while there are some articles that have never been listed, but been suggested got much support, but only just failed to get in by one vote, sometimes more than once, there are several of these, David Attenborough and Gothenburg are examples, never listed, nearly got in, although I'm sure all would agree they are more vital than American–Antarctic Ridge which has been listed. Former good article status informs users that said article no longer meets the requirements but with a little more work users may be able to get article listed again. Informing users an article was listed here before but was removed doesn't mean they can work to make the topic more vital once again.
For these reasons, I don't know if I'm keen on this, perhaps if the criteria had set guideline, but I don't know. Which articles would we include, and which not?  Carlwev  18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
What would be the purpose of doing this for several thousand articles? Like Carlwev said, there was a time when anyone could put whatever they wanted on the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As Carlweb and Cobblet say, being a former vital article is not a guarantee of the article being almost vital. There were some ridiculous articles listed here. There still may be a few remaining. Celtuce is the one that sticks out the most in the mind. I also remember seeing office supplies before I was active here. Making a list of all of the former vital articles could be useful, perhaps. You can compare the removals with the current articles and get a feel of which former articles were wrongly removed or which current ones fit better in the former list and need to go. Gizza (t)(c) 10:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I quite like Gizza's suggestion, and reading the other comments, would prefer it to the original proposal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
You guys are welcome to start maintaining Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Removed again. Cobblet (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Doing so now! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
But why? What purpose would this template serve? Vital articles are supposed to be almost timeless. I'm afraid a template like this would just encourage people to try to force their pet articles in on grounds of popularity, not vitality. --Iamozy (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Ray Kroc

McDonald's was removed from the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support And now we're adding it back, so I don't really see the need for both McDonald's and the executive that made it successful. Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support the concept of franchising is also something to consider although we're out of space for now. Gizza (t)(c) 14:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Margaret Mitchell

The book Gone with the Wind is maybe more important topic than its author.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Iamozy (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --David Tornheim (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support there are other 20th century female "one-hit wonder" authors that are far more well known such as Harper Lee. Gizza (t)(c) 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Being the author of one well known story is more that can be said of Patrick White, whose works collectively are still not as famous. Nobody in Australia really cares about White at a level for him to be vital although I cannot comment on his status internationally. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Vangelis, Add The Velvet Underground

The Velvet Underground spawned the development of punk and alternative rock and should be regarded as one of the most influential musical acts of the 20th century. Broke new ground in both sound and subject matter. As much as I respect avant-garde classical music and would like to add someone like Ligeti, I don't think you can justify doing that while leaving out such a seminal group in avant-garde rock, which let's face it, has been heard by and has influenced more people. Vangelis is primarily famous for one movie soundtrack and hardly vital in terms of actual artistic influence.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - I agree with the nominators reasoning for this swap. Jusdafax 21:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support for removing Vangelis, although I don't care very much about VU.[6] --Thi (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support, VU is a much more enduringly influential name in modern music. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Great Sphinx of Giza

Very famous statue with famous missing nose.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the most recognizable sculptures in the history of art and exceptional in many ways, including its age and size. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Quite vital in my book. Surprised it's not already on the list. Jusdafax 03:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Iamozy (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

"Satisfaction" is not that great of a song and not as important topic as the band itself. The Rolling Stone magazine's list of notable rock songs seems to have influenced the list of modern songs.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support the song and album list is indeed very strongly influenced by Rolling Stone's great of all time lists. Nowhere else in vital articles do we rely on one source as much as we do we with modern specific music works, not even the Time 100. Gizza (t)(c) 01:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Iamozy (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support I'm not sure that any songs are vital. 1950s-1970s rock music in over-represented to the exclusion of other genres (Rapper's Delight?). Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Highly vital. Ranks at the top of rock music songs. Jusdafax 18:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Rock Around the Clock

"Johnny B. Goode" is the best example of early rock and roll.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support The weakest of the rock songs on the list. There's nothing musically special about it – it's just like any other song of the time. It just happened to go viral like Gangnam Style did a couple years ago. That's not enough for vitality. Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Bill Haley would be better, but probably not vital either.  Carlwev  21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Meets my criteria for vital. An influential hit song at the time and still vital to this day. Jusdafax 18:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Bugs Bunny

I suggest swapping Bugs Bunny for Looney Tunes.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support A reasonable swap. Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support: Though I wish that this and Looney Tunes were a unified proposal instead of two split proposals. pbp 19:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Bugs Bunny is a cultural icon of the U.S.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Hot dog

Anything important about hot dogs is already covered by Sausage, which is already a Level 4 vital article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Jusdafax 20:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Sausage and sandwich are enough. Gizza (t)(c) 13:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Although hot dogs are indeed sausages (I didn't know this fact until this July!), hot dogs are still crucial at this level since a lot of non-Westerners consume them and hot dogs are a symbol of the U.S.A, hence the article about hot dogs should still be listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 1-6. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Noodle

Anything important about noodles is already covered by Pasta, which is already a Level 4 vital article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose Excuse me, but it's the other way around. Instant noodles, ramen/lamian, chow mein, pho, pad thai, pancit, idiyappam and spätzle are all examples of noodles that aren't pasta. I would say the first five of these are about as significant to their native cuisine as pasta is to Italian. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose pasta is a type of noodle. Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Cobblet. pbp 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I guess I didn't read the articles carefully enough since I presumed that ramen etc. were included in pasta. Is there any support for removing pasta, then, since that seems to only apply to Italian cuisine? --Iamozy (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think pasta is at least more vital than bacon or Parmesan cheese. The things I'd really like to remove are entrée and main course, which make about as much sense to me as listing tooth brushing and dental floss in addition to oral hygiene. How many people still eat full-course meals on a regular basis? Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
So maybe eventually. I agree that parm could go, but bacon is at least eaten all around the world and isn't limited to a specific type of cuisine. I also agree with the removal of meal courses. --Iamozy (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-5. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Sorbet and soft serve

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Too specific. pbp 13:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Soft serve is just one of many types of ice cream, and definitely not the most vital IMO. Sorbet does not seem to be as vital as any of the other dairy products already listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose not vital subjects, no reason given for adding them. --Iamozy (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 03:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add McDonald's

This company has franchises in 119 countries and serves 68 million customers. Besides being the world's largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, it is a heavyweight advertiser and operates a massive charity organization. It has also played major political roles throughout history (see History of McDonald's). It's been the subject of many movies and at the center of several major controversies. The Golden Arches have become major social/economic/political symbols.

Support
  1. Support as nom --Iamozy (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  07:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

A kind of swap for the businessman who ran it for a while. Balancing the companies, presently heavy with internet, computer, tech, cars. An international company, more so than Walmart. More people probably eat McDonald's than some other food and drink we list. etc  Carlwev  07:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania

Not the most important Ivy League institutions and one could argue that other non-Ivy League institutions such as Georgetown or Stanford are more vital to the U.S.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support The US has too many universities on there. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Cornell University is quite well-known to non-Americans, while University of Pennsylvania is famous for its quantitative geography and so on, hence both are vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 02:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Trademark

Been brought up a couple of times while discussing copyright infringement and counterfeiting. We list intellectual property and the other two main types patent copyright. Seems more important topic than some companies we have etc, I think it fits in well.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose intellectual property is very well covered compared to other areas of law. The most vital legal articles currently absent from the list IMO are conflict of laws and criminal procedure (most of civil procedure is covered in lawsuit). Gizza (t)(c) 13:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

There is also an unlisted article, that is quite similar, and looks like it's of comparable importance, brand, might open that soon too. Maybe? maybe under advertising? or here?  Carlwev  15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're concerned with how well intellectual property's represented relative to other areas of law, this is probably the place to draw the line. Brand can cover this and trade dress. Cobblet (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
As Gizza said in the discussion on brand, it's much more of a marketing and economic concept rather than a legal one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove The Jack Benny Program

Old radio and TV show, not very well known worldwide.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  15:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-2. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Tom and Jerry

I think that Looney Tunes is better example of cartoons, then we don't need separate article for Bugs Bunny.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Iamozy (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose JerrySa1 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I feel like we should have representation of the animators, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. Having two biographies may or may not be too much. Their studio/company Hanna-Barbera can't really be added when Disney is the only studio here, other much bigger ones are missing. Or a cartoon, like Tom and Jerry, Scooby Doo or Flintstones.  Carlwev  15:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Looney Tunes

I suggest swapping Bugs Bunny for Looney Tunes.[7]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support as a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 02:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support: Though I wish that this and Bugs were a unified proposal instead of two split proposals. pbp 19:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove All in the Family

Much of 70's popular music remains popular, but TV shows look dated.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  15:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Gunsmoke

Maybe it's overrated[8] and the public remembers the western movies better.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support although I believe it was the longest running program at some point --David Tornheim (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  15:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Definitely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. The facts that according to John Dunning, among American radio drama enthusiasts, "Gunsmoke is routinely placed among the best shows of any kind and any time" and Gunsmoke is the USA's longest-running prime time, live-action drama, and American television dramas' high popularity in the world guarantee Gunsmoke's vitality--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kept 2-6. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove 60 Minutes

It's hard to tell the difference between news programs because I don't watch any.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Frankly I'd rather list investigative journalism. Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Pioneering show in terms of investigative journalism. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Presidentman. Jusdafax 18:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose-- agree with above two. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Presidentman. I'm not sure what those links overly critical and cynical of television journalism in general have to do with 60 Minutes. Gizza (t)(c) 11:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose --Iamozy (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm sorry DaGizza. I removed the humorous and the political links from nomination. They were pointless. --Thi (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Varna (Hinduism)

Articles Caste and Caste system in India (and Dalit) cover this topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support while these articles aren't identical, the overlap among them is too great to have four articles on the topic. Gizza (t)(c) 10:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Ventilation (architecture)

We list less deserving things among tools, rooms, building types and other places. It deserves a place distinct from HVAC as ventilation can be designed and used without an HVAC, in simpler, cheaper or older designs in buildings and vehicles. HVAC covers its use in modern multipurpose systems but not single systems in older building (as well many new too) But we also list heating and air conditioning (components from HVAC) separately already anyway.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  00:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Is a slightly lower-level overview of a topic that already has a higher-level overview article listed really the single most important thing that's missing from the Technology section right now? What's an article that deals specifically with ventilation and not with heating or cooling even supposed to talk about anyway? Ductwork? Chimneys? Fans? Are those things that can be covered together coherently, or are we better off adding those individual things instead? The article as it stands right now deals with none of those things – besides some stuff on standards, everything else duplicates what's covered in HVAC, only it's more poorly written here. Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Intolerance

Latest comment: 8 years ago156 comments20 people in discussion

Intolerance was closed as a "remove" above at #Remove Intolerance (film) by Presidentman but it still appears on the actual list itself at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Arts#Modern visual arts (64 articles). Is this an oversight or is the delay part of the process? Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I just fixed it, Presidentman probably just forgot. After a proposal is closed as successful, any change is as quick as a user can edit, should be no more than a few minutes.  Carlwev  18:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Removed 6-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Transhumanism

I never heard of this, even though I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering. Never heard of this "technology". AI would be more appropriate. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Definitely not technology, just a minor ideology. Gizza (t)(c) 11:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Ideologies belong in a different category, and this one wouldn't even be considered vital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  21:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Cybernetics or possibly cyborg would be better. Probably Cybernetics.  Carlwev  21:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-3 and 7-2 respectively. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Main course and Entrée

No one seems to like these. Partly covered by dinner. Not as much to write compared to dinner, lunch and dessert. Just courses of dinner. We list specific cuisines like French, which sometimes have these courses. We list restaurant, which is a place one would often be served different courses formally...Also covered by meal.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  08:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Obvious example of Western bias. These are even less vital than dish (food), which is at least a universal concept. Most people in the world do not take meals one course at a time. Cobblet (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support removal of both. --Iamozy (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support entrée, oppose main course per pbp. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support removing both. Dinner covers this. Jusdafax 09:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal of one of them: I think we should have exactly one of Main course and entree. We don't need both. pbp 14:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Both should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Sandro Botticelli

Botticelli was one of the definitive painters of the Italian Renaissance. He painted not just The Birth of Venus (listed) but also Primavera and other works.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Very surprised he isn't on there. Artists are perhaps unrepresented compared to other forms of culture. Neljack (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support - per Neljack. Jusdafax 09:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - Michelangelo, da Vinci, Raphael, and Botticelli are widely regarded as the four most influencial Renaissance painters and should all be included. Gpapazian (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both removed 5-1 and 7-3 respectively. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Menno Simons

Not vital enough.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support I'd rather have an article about the denomination than the founder, though Anabaptists would be a better choice than Mennonites. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: Didn't he found the Mennonites? Isn't that kind of important? pbp 00:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Charles Spurgeon

Spurgeon is England's best-known Baptist minister, but I couldn't find him from my encyclopedia which has 60,000 topics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Neljack (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Any lingering fame and impact appears to be limited to the UK, making it non-vital for the global context. Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, he is known as the "Prince of Preachers", he is "John Chrysostom" of protestants. --Igrek (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. From the lead of the article I clearly know that it's vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I'm not from England and not part of the community he speaks to, but I have heard of him. His list of works is impressive. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Articles like Jehovah's Witnesses, or Desmond Tutu seem more important to religion than these.  Carlwev  17:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are more familiar for modern people, but what about 100 years test? --Igrek (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure protestant religious leaders is where the fat is. If both of these pass, there will be 11 Protestant leaders on our list. That's 100 for 500 years of history, dozens of major sects, and dozens of countries. Even if we add Tutu, and we throw in Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy (currently listed as "Other Christians"), that only 14, which seems a tad low. pbp 00:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Everglades National Park

Large wetland in Florida, an International Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site, and a Wetland of International Importance (only site on all three lists).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Actually, the article says it's "one of three" locations to appear on those lists, and the citation dates to 1994; there are likely more now (I know of the Pantanal, Danube Delta and Fraser Island/Great Sandy Strait). And IMO the "International Biosphere Reserve" designation is of little significance. I don't think adding a fifth national park from the US should be a priority for us when there are only 15 on the list to begin with. The size of the Everglades also pales in comparison to something like the Pantanal which I think is a vastly better example of a globally significant wetland. Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Iranian architecture

This architectural style is definitely vital, as this style had been of high level before the Islamization of Iran, and it has influenced Arabs a lot, along with Ancient Egyptian architecture, Architecture of Mesopotamia and Byzantine architecture.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I've proposed to add it to the list before, however later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_42#Add_Iranian_architecture).--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-5. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Argentine comics

Since Argentine comics are one of the most important comic traditions internationally (taken from the lead of the English article), it is weird not to have this article on the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I could support adding Hugo Pratt. --Thi (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose For crying out loud. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 12:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Really? Argentine comics is vital, though not to the extent of manga and anime, since people in Taiwan read manga much more often than Argentine comics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 19:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC) fixed wording
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Persian art

I think this article should be listed as a vital article, it had a great impact on neighboring regions such as Mughal and Ottoman Empires, and according to the lead section of the article itself, it is one of the richest in the history. Also, it covers important topics such as Iranian architecture, Persian miniature and Persian carpet, currently none of them are covered by this project. -- Kouhi (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Articles about art traditions are very common in encyclopedias. --Thi (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Art is the most significant and enduring aspect of Persian civilization. Their poetry would come second. Gizza (t)(c) 10:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support (We need to include nom as a support too?)  Carlwev  17:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neither added 3-6 and 2-7. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Ben-Hur (1959 film) and Titanic (1997 film)

These two films are jointly holding the record of highest number of academy awards. Movies of much less importance are currently listed (e.g. 8 1/2, Mirror etc.).

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Arman (Talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Ben-Hur for sure. I'm not necessarily opposed to Titanic, but am swayed some bit by Betty Logan's comments, so I will decline to support for now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Two very deserving films for this list. Jusdafax 03:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Ben-Hur is hardly the pinnacle of film-making and when you think of films with long-lasting influence it is hardly a Citizen kane or Gone with the Wind. I think it is too early to consider Titanic as yet. It could be a forgotten film in 20 years. We shouldn't mistake popularity for importance. Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Betty. Cobblet (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Neljack (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

The members on the Wikipedia community should not be swayed too much by their personal opinion on creating lists like this. We should follow some recognized benchmark (if available) to evaluate which names to be included and not. The criteria for inclusion in the list here is not how classy the film is per opinion of the Wikipedia community, but how notable the film is for the reader of an English language encyclopedia.

The 2 names suggested above are the record holders for the highest number of academy awards won by single films. Granted Academy Awards do not cover the entire universe of films - but still to date they remain the most recognized authority to endorse the quality of a film. The recognition received by these two films should be enough to add them to any list of "Notable" films - especially ones which lists 20+ other films anyway. Arman (Talk) 02:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Academy Awards are handed out a year after the films are released. They are hardly a good indication of long-term impact on the genre. Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I think you've missed the point of Arman's comments. It's not just about "long-term impact on the genre". A film's importance can——and should——be judged on both quality and familiarity to the reader. That being said, I do agree with Betty in this case that we need to look at each film relative to their point in time, which is why I'm on the fence about Titanic. Ben-Hur, on the other hand, has remained notable even though it premiered almost sixty years ago. It's probably more recognizable to the average reader than, say, Un Chien Andalou or Rashomon. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I for one have watched Rashomon but not Ben-Hur. Just sayin'. Cobblet (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Bigfoot

Probably the most famous cryptid in North America, has counterparts such as the Yeti in Nepal, the Yeren in China, and the Yowie in Australia. We already have Nessie, Europe's most famous cryptid.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One cryptid is plenty. Is Bigfoot really more vital to one's understanding of the culture of the Pacific Northwest than Portland, Oregon? Cobblet (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

@Cobblet: I would say Bigfoot is indeed more important than Portland because it has spread out across the country through many variations (see e.g. Skunk Ape or Fouke Monster). Plus, as I stated in my original argument, there are non-American cryptids who are large, bipedal, hominid creatures as well. There is obviously a lot of interest in Bigfoot because there is a 40-page Category:Bigfoot compared to just 14 pages for Category:Loch Ness Monster or 19 pages for Category:Unicorns (not counting sub-categories), which are both listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"There are other cryptids like Bigfoot" is not an argument for specifically adding Bigfoot: reading about Bigfoot is not going to help me understand what the Yeti is. The only thing the size of a category tells you is how zealously some Wikipedia editor's gone around tagging articles that may or may not be related to that subject. If you don't accept that, then Category:Portland, Oregon has 19 subcategories and at least 500 pages within those subcategories, so I guess that makes it over 10 times more vital than Bigfoot. If you want to gauge reader interest, this might be a better indication of that. Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Would it make sense to add cryptid, rather than more individual examples of such? I'm not sure where, though, Loch Ness Monster is listed under Mythological creatures in Philosophy and religion, there *are* religious/mythological aspects to at least some cryptids, including bigfoot. Rwessel (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If Bigfoot isn't added, I would support adding cryptid. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Pub

We already have the more-inclusive Bar, and they are just too similar to both be in the "Preparation and serving" section. The article on bar says that "pub", "saloon", and "tavern" are all different terms for a bar. Pubs are generally restricted to refer to bars in the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. A "bar" is more worldwide. --Iamozy (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. Maybe add drinking establishment as the broadest term?Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support The list would be more balanced with additions along the lines of coffee culture and tea culture. Either that, or remove bar as well. Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 03:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Been up once before by the way. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_18#Remove_Pub prefer to keep this, important cultural and historical establishment, been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, and still going strong today. If we can have cuisines of countries, and drinks associated with one country like Sake, I think Pub deserves a place. Relevant in many countries, maybe not all, but more than just a few. Seems odd to have articles on 13 alcoholic drinks but not allow a centuries old establishment where they are often consumed. Seems more vital than several drinks to me.  Carlwev  21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm still not sure. I get that it might be weird for some people to call their local pub a "bar", but isn't it one? There are bars all over the world, and I'm sure they're all very unique and have specific types and cultures. Why is this specific bar type vital? "Bar" is inclusive of "pub", so it's not as if we're ignoring bar/pub culture altogether. --Iamozy (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I support removing sake. Japanese culture is one of the best covered outside of the West but sake isn't as well known or common in the rest of the world as anime, haiku, samurai, kabuki, etc. Gizza (t)(c) 03:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree. Sake's the only variety of rice wine that's well-known internationally and does a better job of representing East Asian drinking culture than something like gin or cider does for Western drinking culture (which is already much better represented to begin with). Cobblet (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd support removing gin and cider too. They are not even the most popular drinks in the countries where they originated (the Netherlands and UK respectively). Rice wine could be a better choice than sake. We don't list famous types of whisky like scotch whisky ahead of whisky itself. Gizza (t)(c) 09:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Yamaha Corporation

Since this conglomerate has been quite influential (lots of people ride Yamaka motorbikes, use Yamaha musical instruments or attend Yamaha music classes), this conglomerate is no doubt vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Everyone owns a zipper made by YKK: does that make it vital? Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. --Thi (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose there are more important companies missing including the ones mentioned below. Gizza (t)(c) 10:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Haven't formed an opinion (probably won't support), but I disagree with the comparison to YKK. At least, motorbikes, musical instruments and audio equipment are all individually more important than zippers. Gizza (t)(c) 09:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The point is that influence is not just about how many people use a certain company's products. We've previously removed Procter & Gamble. Cobblet (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Proctor & Gamble, Nestlé and McDonald's wouldn't look out of place in a list of companies that is still slanted towards the automotive and IT industries. Gizza (t)(c) 13:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add procedural justice

A definitely vital concept.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I understand why this might fall under law based on the definition, but the body of the article doesn't really relate to law. Due process would be more appropriate for this concept from a legal perspective. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose a subtopic of procedure and administrative law and therefore redundant to them. Gizza (t)(c) 00:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-2. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Television in the United States

U.S. television programming is an important part of American culture and also one of the most popular forms of entertainment worldwide. General article is better choice than listing many examples of tv shows.[9]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. U.S. TV news and television dramas are quite influential on earth (though nowadays BBC News & RT are as influential as CNN), hence TV in the US is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC) 18:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC) altered the rationale
  5. Support per RekishiEJ. Gpapazian (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I can see the argument for this, and would be open to a swap for one of the American TV programmes listed, but the TV section is already highly tilted towards the US and we don't have articles on TV in any other country. Neljack (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Neljack and V3n0M93 in the archives. This article is mostly not about popular American shows outside its borders. It is about how TV is domestically distributed, watched and regulated in the United States. Nobody in the rest of the world cares about that. Americanization is the article about the country's influence on global pop culture. Gizza (t)(c) 09:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Kept 2-5. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove I Love Lucy

Lucille Ball is listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd rather remove All in the Family if I were going to remove a sitcom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The TV show is more important than the actress herself. I would support a removal of Lucille Ball instead. --Iamozy (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. The fact that this television drama has been considered to be one of the best and most influential TV shows guarantees its vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Well known and is vital for entertainment. JerrySa1 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Gpapazian (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I agree that there should only be one. But what reasons do we have to conclude that an article on Lucille Ball is more essential than I Love Lucy? --Iamozy (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on that. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
For one, her biography consistently gets more page views than the article on the show. Cobblet (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point to indicate popularity, but what does this means in terms of vitality? Is there anything I'm unaware of that makes Lucille Ball vital besides I Love Lucy? --Iamozy (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the intro, Desilu Productions seems to be the next most significant thing about Ball herself, producing a number of well-known TV series (e.g. the original Star Trek and The Andy Griffith Show), but I doubt we'd listed anyone else solely because they were a major TV producer. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Hypotension

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support While I see Cobblet's reason for opposing this, we list hypertension, so why not hypotension? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by blood pressure. Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. --Iamozy (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 03:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

User:Presidentman, that's a false equivalence. Hypertension is a medical condition that increases one's risk for other cardiovascular diseases and is something that needs to be actively managed: people take drugs for it, change their diet, exercise, etc. It affects about a billion people. Hypotension is not even considered a medical problem on its own. It's not a legitimate comparison. Cobblet (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Add remote control

If we are including individual programming languages and things like computer mouse, it seems fair we should include the devise many people have been using for decades longer to control a range of devises, TV and entertainment devises, toys like cars, as well as some use in industry, military and space as well. Was in two minds picking from this and radio control, but this seems a bit better shape, and a bit wider including radio infrared and things like motion sensor and voice control too. We seem heavier on computer tech than other media broadcasting, even though some other things are a bit older and maybe more common often universally used.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  21:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I have long noted the inconsistency between the articles in computer tech and the lack of the equivalents in other areas. This is one such instance. Gizza (t)(c) 10:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gpapazian (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I wouldn't mind removing computer mice, but at least those are fairly complex devices to design and program. Remote controls are trivial by caromparison. Cobblet (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

We seem heavier on the computer side of tech, covering both devices and general techs of the same area. In other areas the articles Videocassette recorder, and Television set crossed my mind, although they seem unnecessary; we do however individually list the computer displays computer monitor and touchscreen.  Carlwev  21:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The other big inconsistency I see is having blog on the list when news article is not. Gizza (t)(c) 10:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_48&oldid=1137397609"