Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:10, 7 January 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 behavior

Psychology is usually defined as the study of mind and behaviour. Mind is listed, as are several related subtopics (consciousness, thought, dream, mental disorder, and I've nominated memory above) but behaviour is not, even though it is one of only a handful of psychology articles listed on m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have (and is identified as a top-priority article there), and several aspects of human behaviour (e.g. motivation, perception, learning, interpersonal relationship, social norm) could reasonably be considered vital articles in their own right – only emotion and some specific emotions currently appear on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support - The nominator makes a convincing case. Jusdafax 00:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Sunrise (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:44, 7 January 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 to remove 3ish-1 Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 26 January 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 Rocky Mountains

I'm not certain the Rocky Mountains are vital and not merely large. RJFJR (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. RJFJR (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support would probably prefer removing Mount Everest first as the Himalayas is already listed. Gizza (t)(c) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support if Replaced... - Excluding human geography, geographic features of the Earth are under-represented - Mountains however, already have 5 other vital articles. I agree that significance of the Rocky Mountains is important, but not particularly vital. I prefer removing the Rockys for another Geographic feature instead such as the Amazon Rainforest. Currently, the Amazon River is on the list, however there are no Forests. The Amazon Rainforest represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforests, and is one of the largest and most biodiverse. The article also includes important aspects of Biodiversity, Deforestation, and forest Conservation and has little overlap with the Amazon River. Aeonx (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I call this vital. The range extends 3,000 miles across most of the USA and well into Canada. Seems worthy of a listing here. Jusdafax 23:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


Discussion

I think physical geography needs bit of a rethink. There was a discussion on removing the lakes which ended up as no consensus. At the moment there are five articles on mountains, four rivers, four lakes, one desert, one coral reef, one canyon and no forests. We should probably have more rivers than lakes as the former helped foster human civilization. I think it's worth having something more on forests. Either an actual forest like the Amazon or something like park/national park. Then there are other features worth considering like beach. Gizza (t)(c) 06:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, is it so necessary to list rivers that fostered human civilization when we already list those civilizations? The Amazon rainforest is the obvious choice for a forest but is subsumed to an extent by the river. I would pick coast over beach. Cobblet (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought about coast too. Beach is just one type of coastal landform but has more human significance than any other. People go to beaches. The fact that people go to see the Grand Canyon is what makes it more vital than the general canyon article. Coast is still a good choice. I also thought about waterfall. With regards to articles being subsumed by others, the Great Barrier Reef is part of the Coral Sea which in turn is part of the South Pacific Ocean. Even "non-civilization" rivers generally seem more vital than lakes. Compare Lake Victoria with the Congo River. The only thing in Lake Victoria's favour is that the countries it is part of are not listed whereas Democratic Republic of the Congo is. Gizza (t)(c) 08:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at by comparing Lake Victoria to the Congo. The region surrounding Lake Victoria (and the rest of the African Great Lakes) is one of the most densely populated regions in Africa. Coast is about so much more than landforms like beaches: it's also about harbours and estuaries and littoral zones where the most productive fisheries are located and where a lot of human settlement and maritime trade takes place. I don't think waterfalls are vital at this level; I also don't think the Grand Canyon or the Great Barrier Reef or Mt. Everest are necessarily vital, although they aren't the first things I'd remove from the list. Any article about a river will necessarily discuss the river basin in detail and most of the Amazon basin is covered by the rainforest. There's much more overlap between the article on the Amazon and its rainforest than there is between the Great Barrier Reef and Pacific Ocean articles. (That being said, I can still accept that the rainforest might nevertheless be more vital than the barrier reef.) Cobblet (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Frida Kahlo

is she really one of the 10 greatest artists of all time?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Interesting article but not a vital biography (IMO). I'm not reading about the vast impact on the arts that I'd expect and claim she is the most famous artist doesn't seem to be in the article. RJFJR (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Per the same reasons provided last time around. Kahlo is nowhere close to being the first to go from the ten artists IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 06:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

This was most recently brought up less than a year ago. Cobblet (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Replace Miguel de Cervantes with Voltaire

This follows up on this recent discussion. Voltaire is a key historical figure (e.g. see Voltaire#Appreciation_and_influence), and has been mentioned as a good candidate several times now. By contrast, Cervantes' major work is Don Quixote, which is already on the list.

Support
Oppose
Discussion

Wouldn't you rather remove Don Quixote instead, you wouldn't include Hamlet and remove Shakespeare; I think Voltaire is more vital than many people we have though don't mind adding him. Does anyone mind too many people from the same nation, another French person?  Carlwev  19:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the difference is Shakespeare is famous for a large number of works. Miguel is famous for just a few, in fact if you look at Miguel's wiki page, his legacy almost entirely relates to Don Quixote. In any case, I think the story Don Quixote is more influential than Miguel was; or rather most of Miguel influence came from that work. Aeonx (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Aeonx. When a writer is only truly famous for one work of literature, that work is usually a better choice to add than the writer. Vyasa and Ferdowsi are also not as vital as their works. Gizza (t)(c) 22:47, 7 January 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.
Withdrawn Cobblet (talk) 00:22, 26 January 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 Ada Lovelace

The list of scientists includes no computer scientists and one woman, thus adding a female computer scientist would be rather wise.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
  1. Oppose Alan Turing is listed and Ada Lovelace would definitely not be my choice for a second computer scientist. Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 26 January 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 Numerical digit

Propose removing Numerical digit since we already have Number.

Support
  1. Support as nom. RJFJR (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Either numeral system or positional notation would be better, although only the latter appears on the level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Not vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support I'd support numeral system at level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 11:50, 9 January 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 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 26 January 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: Add Major depressive disorder, Remove Schizophrenia

Depression is a far more widespread and significant mental disorder than schizophrenia. 350 million people are affected by the former while the latter only affects around 21 million people. There is nothing else special about schizophrenia that makes it more vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Agree completely and was one of the things on my mind, I'm also questioning the vitality of Autism at the 1000 level.  Carlwev  14:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Sunrise (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose adding Major depressive disorder. We already have Mental disorder, and adding this more specific group doesn't add very much. (The Mental disorder article doesn't do that great a job of summarizing mood disorders generally or specifically major depressive disorders, but it probably should.) Support removing Schizophrenia, however. --Yair rand (talk) 02:54, 14 January 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 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 26 January 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 Protein

Following up on the discussion in the previous section: proteins are one of the four main categories of biological molecules, the other three of which are already represented on the list. They are central to all known life and are the primary component of most active biological processes.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Sunrise (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support definitely vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support As vital as DNA or RNA; the product of gene expression as dictated by the central dogma of molecular biology, and thus a central object of study in molecular biology. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 09:48, 23 February 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 Brahmagupta

The facts that he was the first to give rules to compute with zero, his studies greatly influenced Islamic mathematics, and Metawiki's equivalent page listed this figure mean that he is absolutely vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose straight addition – although adding an Indian mathematician is a good idea, we have eleven other mathematicians (the ten listed as such plus Newton) and I think that's enough. IMO Pythagoras can be removed (his exact contributions to Greek mathematics are unclear – he almost certainly did not invent his eponymous theorem – and as a philosopher he's less important than Socrates) and I'd support a swap. Cobblet (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:56, 7 January 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 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Louis Pasteur

Metawiki's equivalent page listed Louis Pasteur (it is even bolded!), while Mona Lisa is not listed, meaning that a small Wikipedia should create the article on Pasteur first, then Mona Lisa, and [1] lists Pasteur, meaning its author regarded Pasteur as one of the Top 100 influential figures in the 2nd millenium indicate that Pasteur should be listed here.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Pasteur is definitely very important, but part (although obviously not all) of his legacy is covered on this list by pasteurization. IMO listing both Pasteur and pasteurization creates undesirable redundancy on a list this short. (BTW, you might notice that several of the people on the list you linked to aren't even on the Expanded list – if you've ever wondered why I oppose so many of your proposals to add people to that list, it's because there are a lot of historical figures you haven't considered.) I'd support taking the Mona Lisa off this list. Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, currently there are plenty of vital figures not even on the Level 4 list, e.g. Alcuin and Reza Shah, and I've only nominated a small proportion of them for addition (e.g. Apollonius of Perga), and currently the list can only have 2,000 people, thanks for reminding me. By the way, Mona Lisa should be kept since it is the most studied and parodied artwork in history.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And at this level both Louis Pasteur and pasteurization can be included, as Pasteur not only invented pasteurization but also developed, though not invented germ theory.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus 2-0, although Voltaire was added in a later discussion Cobblet (talk) 09:48, 23 February 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 a French writer

The list includes three British people, two Russians and two (plus one) Americans but no French writer, which I cannot find acceptable. At least one of the following should be added, but I would prefer to hear the community′s opinion on who this one should be:

Thank you.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discussion

I'd say Voltaire is the best choice: he's been brought up more than once on this page. Chateaubriand isn't even on the Level 4 list – I've wanted to add him there for some time, but I have other priorities on Wikipedia right now. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:48, 23 February 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 Edmund Burke

The list of philosophers includes the father of Liberalism and the father of Socialism. I believe that it would be better if it included the father of Conservatism, too.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Support
Oppose
Discussion

In reference to your link, John Locke is the father of liberalism, not Adam Smith who is the father of capitalism and free market theory. Smith's sphere does overlap with Burke's quite a bit though not entirely. Gizza (t)(c) 01:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@DaGizza: I thought I had written “the father of Libertarianism”, to be honest.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:10, 14 January 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 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 09:48, 23 February 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 a philosopher of religion

There may be a separate list of religious figures, but I believe that having a philosopher of religion in the list of philosophers is needed, as this aspect of philosophy should be represented in that list. Again, I prefer not to nominate a specific one but let the community choose. The first that come to mind are

Support
Oppose
Discussion

Please suggest some removals if you want to add all these biographies – the number of articles on this list is capped at 1000. I for one am generally not in favour of adding more biographies, although I make some exceptions in the interests of having a list that is representative of humanity. I'd consider Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna, Nagarjuna and Adi Shankara to be religious philosophers. Also I'll point out that Boethius and Swedenborg are not even on the level 4 list, which contains 10,000 articles. Cobblet (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to all your recent nominations, not just this one. Cobblet (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 4 February 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 Civil liberties

Is it really necessary to list civil liberties at this level when both human rights and political freedom are also listed?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support and agree with swapping political freedom with liberty per Carlwev. Also feel that colonialism overlaps a lot with imperialism and the colonial history articles (European colonization of the Americas, Scramble for Africa, British Empire and Russian Empire). Gizza (t)(c) 01:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

My instincts say it's Liberty if anything we should be listing at this level. Freedom redirects to Liberty, I would consider it better than both civil liberties and Political Freedom. It appears in more than double languages compared to the other 2 and is more of a parent topic. I haven't checked page views, but wouldn't be surprised if liberty is the highest of them; I'll check later. We list privacy in the 1000 which I think might be slightly lower down but vaguely similar idea, a philosophy concept idea, something that most people want to some degree; I probably wouldn't list it before liberty.  Carlwev  20:53, 9 January 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.

Hildegard of Bingen?

Is she really someone who can be considered vital to history? I'd suggest replacing her with with someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.35.220 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 11:37, 22 March 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 Natural science

This seems like an important oversight, given that Social science is on the list, as well as more specialized fields like Biochemistry and Molecular biology.

Support
Oppose
Discussion

On the other hand, we don't list formal science, applied science or humanities either. Out of these only humanities appears on the level 4 list; even natural science isn't listed there. I think the social sciences have more in common with each other and have a longer tradition of being regarded as a single discipline, only beginning to split into branches around the mid-19th century; out of these macro-groupings of disciplines they have the best case to be on the list. Cobblet (talk) 00:55, 11 January 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 Cobblet (talk) 23:09, 24 February 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 Libertarianism

Support
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:35, 22 March 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 history of North America and history of South America for history of the Americas

To make room for some articles which are actually vital at this vital, e.g. sheep and protein, we should remove histories of North and South America and add history of the Americas, which is not only vital at this level but more vital than these two history articles currently listed at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If anything we need more history articles, not fewer, and especially when it comes to New World history, which isn't well represented to begin with; e.g. none of the Maya, Aztec, or Inca are listed. Plus there's no consensus to re-add History of the Americas to the Expanded list and as long as that remains the case we cannot list it here, since the lists are supposed to nest. Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:40, 27 January 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
No votes in 30+ days Gizza (t)(c) 07:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Replace simple machine by machine

Since simple machine is merely a sub-article of machine, it would be better to include machine instead of simple machine in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Following the same logic listing machines wouldn't be necessary either since they're just tools with a power input. It's specifically the simple machines (which according to that definition aren't machines at all) that need coverage; we list plenty of other types of machines. Cobblet (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 03:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Of course I want to have both simple machine and machine in the list, but since now the list contains 999 articles, and I want to add analytical chemistry, we'd better replace simple machine by machine, which sounds more vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 09:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC) substituted 999 for 99

Of course you would. But "sounds more vital" is a meaningless statement. Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason that simple machine is less vital than machine is because the latter is more frequently heard.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
If name recognition was such an important criterion for vitality than analytical chemistry would be a very bad choice for the list, and far worse than simple machines, which are taught in primary school. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
But analytical chemistry is in fact as vital as physical chemistry, and simple machine should be replaced with machine, since simple machines are a subset of machines.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The truth of the first statement depends on who you ask (I'm not going to get into this further since this isn't the right thread for it), and I've already pointed out the fallacy of the second argument in my !vote. Why list machines either when they're also a subset of tools? Cobblet (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Since machines are useful and frequently used.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In that case, why not also add things like cookware and bakeware, tableware or cosmetics? These too are frequently used things, and unlike machines vs. tools, they're not an obvious subset of anything else on the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 5 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.
FAILED
1-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 11:40, 22 March 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 Physical chemistry

The intersection of Physics and Chemistry (or application of physics to chemistry) both of which we already have, so it isn't vital and we can free up a slot by removing it.

Support
  1. As nom. RJFJR (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose It's a well-established, fundamental branch of chemistry, as vital as the others we list. In essence, this is the field that tries to quantify aspects of chemical reactivity; that it happens to borrow from the laws of physics in order to do so does not make it redundant with physics any more than classical mechanics is redundant with calculus, or the whole of physics with math. Cobblet (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet, who makes a good case for retention. Jusdafax 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose physical chemistry is a fundamental branch of chemistry, just as vital as biochemistry. Gizza (t)(c) 01:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

If one article has to be removed from the chemistry section it should probably be electrolysis. Redox ought to be listed first. Cobblet (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

My preferred way of reducing the number of chemistry articles by one if we have to is replace acid and base with acid–base reaction. Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In that case we'd have to add acid–base reaction to level 4. Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It already is. See Talk:Acid–base reaction and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences. And you proposed this swap in October 2013, now in the archives. Gizza (t)(c) 06:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was already listed. I thought it wasn't and I wasn't going to bring up that proposal again for that reason. Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 6 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.
FAILED
4-3 after more than 30 days, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 09:38, 8 April 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 Frida Kahlo

From the FAQ, the topic must be essential to the subjects listed- which Kahlo simply is not. She is arguably better known for her personal life than she is for her art- unlike the other artists included. Kahlo's exclusion would not be on the same level as the exclusion of Michelangelo or Monet- neither creator of masterpieces nor vanguard of art movement. Her impact on Mexican art has been far less than artists like Diego Rivera or David Siqueiros, who fostered the Mexican muralism movement (Mexico's most important contribution to modern art). Her inclusion may also suffer from recentism, as her influence/popularity is almost wholly contemporary. I'm assuming she was added for being female and geographical diversity- that is not enough. Were she to be taken out, the overview for art history would change little and would not have as big of an impact on Mexican art history as some may believe.

Support
  1. AuroralColibri (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Her inclusion smacks of blatant tokenism, maybe we should just admit that history and society as a whole as neglected female artists and their contribution (its not our fault that we don't have the sources to give credit where credit is due) and give the slot to Women artists.--KTo288 (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Maurreen (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think one can find many people who would point to several of her paintings as masterpieces – just google "Kahlo" and "masterpiece", or go to any exhibition of her work (which nowadays seem to occur as frequently as for any other famous painter). Just because she founded no specific movement does not mean she lacks influence; and her legacy certainly transcends immediate developments in Mexican art, but I don't see why this should count against her – Bach's music was virtually forgotten for the first couple of decades following his death, and look at where we are now. The bottom line is that Kahlo is one of the most widely studied artists of any kind in the past century. Adding something like women artists reeks even more strongly of condescension – just because society once neglected female artists does not mean that we should continue to do so, especially when there's plenty of literature on Kahlo. I think each of the ten woman biographies (is that a lot to ask, when we have 133 biographies in total?) currently on the list are good choices in their own way. The last substantial discussion we had on Kahlo is archived here. Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Removing Kahlo from this list removes a lot. pbp 22:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per the reasons already articulated here, here, here and above. The rationale doesn't convince me. Recentism usually refers to the subject matter itself being recent which makes us less able to assess its long-term significance. Something which was originally not well-known but in hindsight has become renowned isn't a case of recentism. The Mona Lisa was not famous at all until it was stolen in 1911. I would only support a removal if there was a significant cut to biographies across the board because Kahlo is nowhere near the first to go even among the artists. Gizza (t)(c) 09:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:48, 23 February 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 Nuclear technology, Add Radioactive decay

Now that it appears there's consensus to take out Cervantes, I'd like to bring up another source of redundancy on the list: nuclear technology, nuclear power and nuclear weapon are all listed. I've tried to remove the umbrella article before; while there were those in that earlier discussion who suggested keeping it while removing the more specific articles, I think nuclear power and weapon are easily vital articles within the contexts of energy and weaponry and should therefore stay. For example, I can't see how one would justify leaving out nuclear power while keeping wind power (especially when renewable energy is also on the list), or leaving out nuclear weapon while keeping sword.

While nuclear power and weapon cover the most important applications of nuclear physics, we have no articles that cover the science itself. I think adding the article on radioactivity (a redirect to radioactive decay) in place of the umbrella article on nuclear technology would improve the list. It would also be reasonable and obvious to add nuclear physics instead, but given that radioactive decay receives many more page hits than nuclear physics, I'm nominating the much more highly viewed article. If you prefer (or at least don't mind) adding nuclear physics instead, say so and I'll change the proposal if there's consensus.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support as per last time. Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Sunrise (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev  09:16, 5 February 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 to add 3-1 Cobblet (talk) 11:45, 29 April 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 Sheep

I think we could use another animal or two, and sheep have been brought up several times on this page as a notable omission. Sheep are one of the most useful domesticated animals; many civilizations practised sheep husbandry and this remains an important economic activity in many parts of the world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I see the logic of this addition but think we already have plenty of animals. RJFJR (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I have wondered if we should add any groups of species here, but it might be a big no no and a mine field. Things like, Primate, rodent, crustacean, mollusc, possibly worth some thought, but might be an area to avoid out of too many to choose from, and other issues. Also, how about pet?  Carlwev  20:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've nominated rat and cat before and would still support those. Rodent is a reasonable alternative to rat; if we list cat and dog maybe we don't need pet, although I guess I'd support adding pet instead of cat too. Before we go crazy on adding animals maybe we should take a look at what else in biology isn't on the list. Cotton, the most important natural fibre nowadays, isn't listed; neither are any of the four major classes of biomolecules (although RNA and DNA individually appear on the list and so does sugar; protein is the most serious omission.) Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
For some reason I thought protein was already on the list. That really needs to be changed. :-) Some other good candidates that come to mind are transcription, translation, natural science, and human evolution. We already have mammal, insect, etc as groups of species, but I'd support adding primate. Sunrise (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Sunrise, since you're the biologist here, do you want to write the proposal to add protein? BTW, the level 4 list is also very weak when it comes to molecular biology. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I would support removing Antonie van Leeuwenhoek and adding protein, primate, human evolution and maybe natural science. Van Leeuwenhoek is mentioned in articles History of medicine and Microscope, biography in Level 4 is enough. --Thi (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've written proposals for protein and natural science. :-) I agree that Leeuwenhoek is redundant as he's primarily known for his work in microscopy. I don't have any objection, but is replacing a biography with a non-biography likely to pass? As an aside, transcription and translation could also be represented together as Central dogma of molecular biology. Sunrise (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. If we take out Leeuwenhoek I'll support the addition of Louis Pasteur proposed above. I think the best overview of transcription and translation is gene expression but I'm on the fence as to whether we should add it; the article on molecular biology really ought to cover gene expression but it's in very poor shape right now. Cobblet (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Domesticated animals are already well covered. Cattle, dog, horse, animal husbandry and domestication are all listed. Either rodent/rat or primate/ape/human evolution would be my next choice of animal instead of sheep. I even prefer a famous wild animal like lion, bear, elephant or gray wolf (although gray wolf is partially redundant to dog). Gizza (t)(c) 02:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I've nominated rat before. I like the idea of adding human evolution more though. I don't think wild animals need to be added any more than plant species that aren't major food crops need to be added. Cobblet (talk) 07:57, 14 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.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 11:46, 29 April 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 analytical chemistry

Is it acceptable that the Level 3 List only contains biochemistry, physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry and organic chemistry, but not analytical chemistry, which is a vital sub-discipline of chemistry as well? Besides, Meta-wiki's equivalent list contains analytical chemistry.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose, too detailed. We're already at the max number of articles for L3. RJFJR (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. Now the list only contains 999 articles because of the removal of civil liberties.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 11:46, 29 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.

Treemap

Playing around with Graph stuff...

Looks like a decent balance of topics. --Yair rand (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making this Yair rand. It would be interesting to see how a treemap looks when the articles are divided by nationality/geographic region. Obviously this is only relevant for some sections since many sections have universal topics. Gizza (t)(c) 01:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Add Mecca Remove Mumbai/Delhi

Mecca is the most holiest city in the world. India already has 2 cities... I know Saudi is here but Saudi is Mecca / Medina / Jeddah / oil capital / most influential and most richest country in the whole Arabia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.38.245 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding Mecca but certainly not at the expense of Mumbai or Delhi. I think it's entirely reasonable to list two cities from the second most populous country in the world. Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Could remove a lake or Mount Everest?  Carlwev  09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with removing Mt. Everest. Cobblet (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I think at least two cities are required for South Asia. I could be persuaded to swap Mumbai for Karachi but that's about it. Gizza (t)(c) 13:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I only support a straight addition. Mumbai and Delhi are important cities in India, and Karachi is a key city in Pakistan. Also Mecca is the holiest city to one religion, not the entire world. That being said, Mecca should still be on the list. Sao Paulo could be removed, but it should be replaced by Rio so that South American cities still have decent coverage. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:44, 29 April 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 Learning

One of the most basic aspects of human and animal behaviour. Yes, we also have education, but that is more about the interplay between learning, teaching and the school; learning itself is a more fundamental psychological topic, covering issues like classical conditioning or play or problem solving.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. OK. Maurreen (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - Logical addition and obviously vital. Jusdafax 09:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

What would you delete? Maurreen (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing. We're currently an article short. Cobblet (talk) 03:26, 19 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.
FAILED
1-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 02:28, 21 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 George R. R. Martin in writers

Game of Thrones is marking history. The show currently has very large audiences (close to 7 million viewers on average for the last season)[1] and very positive critical acclaim, the author of the books on which the series is based, in my opinion deserves a place among the authors in the vital articles. Ralphw (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No. A lot of writers who have stood the test of time and have more name recognition are not on this list. Maurreen (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Maurreen. Martin isn't even close to being the next fantasy writer to add to the list. Tolkien, Rowling and Lewis are far ahead of him among others. Gizza (t)(c) 13:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/game-of-thrones-season-five-ratings-36234/
Tolkein, Rowling, and Lewis already are Level 4 Vital Articles. More fantasy/fantasyish authors who aren't even that who have been more influential than GRRM: Michael Moorcock, Fritz Lieber, Robert E. Howard, HP Lovecraft, Stephen King, Terry Pratchett, T.H. White, Diana Wynne Jones. And that's just off the top of my head, and limited to fantasy in the 20th century, and limited to US/UK authors. I also couldn't support this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as well, much for the same reasons as above. The fantasy genre is probably already overrepresented due to the profile of most editors (mind you I am a fantasy fan myself!) Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with the above arguments. --Iamozy (talk) 21:35, 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.

Add Charles Babbage

Babbage was an English inventor who is considered the "father of the computer". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

We already have Alan Turing and I don't think we need a second computer scientist. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps swap the two? It seems to me that the inventor of something would be much more important than someone who came after him. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Babbage invented a mechanical device which was quickly forgotten and had no influence on subsequent developments in computing. Meanwhile Turing invented a scientific field and his ideas continue to influence the way we think about theoretical computer science. For me the latter is much more significant. Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:33, 12 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.

Swap. Add Mecca

I'd still like another country like Argentina or Morocco. But Mecca has been bought up several times, does seem to be on vaguely similar terms as the listed Jerusalem. And it has a longer history than the listed state of Saudi Arabia and other suggested states such as Argentina. It is very culturally and religiously significant. It seems higher priority than the listed Jakarta for example.  Carlwev  09:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Just so you're aware, User:Carlwev, but Argentina's been added. Cobblet (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support I like this straight addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Mecca has had profound cultural influence. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support; Mecca is one of the most culturally significant cities in the Old World. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Jakarta has an urban area population of more than 30 million people. It is the second biggest in the world behind only Tokyo. It's huge and has a 1600 year history. Mecca is vital too but for very different reasons. Hard to compare. Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 24 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.
Failed 5-4 Cobblet (talk) 14:59, 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.

Swap. Remove Mount Everest

Both from geography. The only individual mountain listed. Mount Everest has very short history, only being named in the 1800's and then first ascent in 1953, although there were previous attempts. There are smaller mountains of greater historical and cultural significance such as Mount Olympus, Mount Fuji or many volcanoes like Mount Vesuvius. We already list the area or the mountain range Himalayas. We list the polar areas or the continent of Antarctica and the Arctic region. in the vital 1000 but we don't list the North Pole and South Pole, both of which have a slightly longer history of people exploring and trying to be the first to reach those points, or dying in their attempt; not unlike that of Everest. But we don't list them.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support in a way the feat of climbing the mountain because it is the highest point on Earth is more important than the mountain itself (Mt. Everest isn't the most holy mountain for even the Sherpa). From that point of view, you could say that Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay are more vital, not that they should be added at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 13:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Obviously humans have long been curious about reaching Earth's extreme points and that's why this is such an interesting topic; but so are the North Pole, South Pole and Challenger Deep (the last one's not on the level 4 list, btw). For me a vital article is one that adds to our understanding about what it means to be human and to live on this planet and in this universe. An article on Everest adds relatively little compared to something like an article on exploration – for me the latter is closer to the type of article that should be on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. It does seem rather out of place alongside articles like "land," "desert," or "forest," although it strangely doesn't include "island." Why don't we have a Mountains in culture article? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support While knowledge of Mount Everest as the tallest mountain may be a vital statistic, the rest of the article does not contain information that I would consider vital to an encyclopedia. For an article to be vital, it needs to be essential for further understanding of critical encyclopedic information. The Mount Everest article doesn't fit that description. --Iamozy (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The tallest point on earth should be on the list. It is the pinnacle achievement for mountain climbers, and is still a very important peak to the region. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - while other mountains may have greater cultural value and associations, the sheer height of Everest needs to be taken into account. Geographically, it is highly important. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per PointsofNoReturn. There's a business of taking travelers to the top, it's the biggest industry in Nepal, and was one of the last tasks for explorers on Earth. As for articles like exploration, they're broadness typically makes them of poor quality. I have to believe our readers would have more interest in Everest than exploration. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I think I suggested exploration years ago, but it never came through. We have Age of Discovery (which Age of Exploration and Discovery redirect too). But we have Space exploration and a list of "explorers". I would still support Exploration itself as I did then.  Carlwev  22:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to User:PointsofNoReturn's comments, I'd point out that popularity among mountaineers is not a reasonable argument for vitality (shall we add La Scala to the list because performing there is a pinnacle achievement for opera singers?), and in terms of cultural significance Mount Kailash ranks higher, while in terms of tourism the Annapurna Circuit is at least as significant as Everest. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
That is true, but the mountain is world-renowned for its difficulty to climb even among non-climbers (like myself). It is also a cultural icon, and is just as important a mountain as Mount Olympus or any other mountain given its altitude. Its altitude alone, as one of Earth's extremities, is enough for the mountain to remain on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Among mountaineers Everest is not considered a particularly difficult mountain – it has the fourth-lowest death rate among the 14 eight-thousanders despite being far away the most popular mountain and one that attracts a disproportionate number of underprepared amateur climbers. (Not that this has anything to do with vitality.) I've already pointed out that we do not list any of Earth's other extreme points, and I'd argue the South Pole is at least as culturally significant. Compare the fame of Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton with George Mallory and Andrew Irvine. Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Mount Everest is one of the most well-known mountains to the general public. That, and mountain being the highest point on earth, make the article vital at this level. There is also no other specific mountain on the list right now. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Really, you're going to trot out that argument? There are a lot of exceptional things this list doesn't include, e.g. most people know who Marilyn Monroe is and there are no other actresses on the list, and yet she isn't listed. Everest being exceptional does not make it automatically vital. If you want to be a culturally literate human being in the 21st century, there are much more important things to learn about than the dispute over what to call Everest, or the geology of the mountain, or its flora and fauna, or the different routes you can take to get to the top, or how much it costs to hire a guide to help you climb it. Those are the facts covered in the Everest article: for the vast majority of people those facts are interesting but not vital. Cobblet (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Mount Everest is one of the first places taught to children in Elementary School in geography class. It is vital to at least know about the existence of the mountain. Obviously, one must not need to know about every detail about the mountain, but the same could be said for other sections of articles on the list, such as the childhood of pretty much any historical figure. Just because specific sections of the article are not An encyclopedia cannot be complete without an inclusion of an article about the mountain. If you would like to cut any articles on terrestrial features, I would recommend cutting the article on the Alps, the least significant mountain range on the list in terms of the length of the range (but not the peak height of the range). However, I would prefer to keep the range and leave the list of mountains on the list as is. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
By suggesting that, it sounds like you're saying that it's more important to know about the existence of Mt. Everest than the Alps. I wonder how many people would agree with that. There are at least four articles on the list that contain the fact "Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth": Earth, Mountain, Himalayas and China. It's not like removing Everest from this list will somehow deprive readers of that piece of trivia. This is not a list of "1000 things whose existence you should be aware of;" this is a list of "1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles." It sounds to me like you think there's no difference between the two; I couldn't disagree more. Cobblet (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I've always felt that six articles on mountains is quite high compared to two about deserts and one covering forests/national parks. Some important generic terrestrial features are also missing like cave and coast/beach. Gizza (t)(c) 13:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We are also missing island, tried once and failed, would support again. Amazon Rainforest or Rainforest could be considered for adding also. We also include Great Barrier Reef, and Grand Canyon, which aren't terrible, but some could argue they are less vital than Everest. Possibly?  Carlwev  18:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If the Great Barrier Reef or the Amazon Rainforest were to hypothetically disappear overnight, the world would be screwed. Human civilization would be in immense jeopardy because of the catastrophic environmental consequences. That's isn't the case with Mount Everest. Gizza (t)(c) 09:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I would support adding the Amazon Rainforest. In general, I would rather have articles on specific features than of a general article like "cave". While it is important to know what a cave is, for obvious reasons, specific examples of those types of features both make for a more interesting read as well as being forced to explain what type of feature it is. That is not to say, of course, that articles such as star are not more important than some random star 1000 LY from us. It really depends on context, which is of course what makes our discussions on this talk page interesting. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that specific examples can often be more vital than the generic article. I think that is true in the case of island, which is just any piece of land surrounded by water. There is nothing really of value when reading an article about islands. Also, there is no real difference between island and continent. Like sea and ocean or mountain and hill, it's just a matter of size. Caves are a different story since they are landforms that have a common geological history, all going through similar processes to be formed. Caves as a whole are very important to paleolithic humans. And there are no caves in the world which stand out from the others. It's the same with beaches. There's a lot to write about caves or beaches as a whole unlike islands. Gizza (t)(c) 09:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that statements like "it has one super important fact about it", "it's more interesting than X", "everyone knows it exists", and "it's popular with a tiny group of people" do not support the argument for an article's vitality. A vital article needs to cover a topic that is necessary to understand other fundamental subjects. There is nothing in the Mount Everest article that provides essential understanding any further than what is already covered by the Himalayas. --Iamozy (talk) 22:01, 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 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 23 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.

Swap: Add Vladimir Lenin, remove Shaka

I would like to suggest that in the Level 3 "Politicians and leaders", we add the GA-rated Vladimir Lenin to the list. Lenin was a highly influential figure, who not only led the world's first communist revolution and established the world's first communist state, but he also was a core influence on the formation of Marxism-Leninism and the development of the global communist movement which was of such importance to the history of the twentieth century. As the historian Albert Resis stated, Lenin "must for good or ill be considered the century's most significant political leader". For balance, I would suggest that we remove Shaka from the list. Granted, it is nice to have a fairly 'global' coverage that isn't entirely Western-centric, and for that reason there is an argument for retaining Shaka as a vital article, but realistically the Zulu leader's influence was largely restrained to Southern Africa; conversely, Lenin's influence was global and long-lasting. Fundamentally, Lenin remains a more globally significant and influential figure than Shaka, which is why I believe that such a replacement would be legitimate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support It's really hard to argue that Shaka's more vital than Lenin. Cobblet (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Lenin is vital enough to be on this level. An encylcopedia without Lenin is not complete. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support For the sheer result of his work. While I understand this ill-thought impulse to represent the global south and mind gaps, vital means just that. Shaka, while important for his region, didn't have global impact. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support this is a clear improvement. Gizza (t)(c) 12:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. I had known Lenin before hearing of Shaka.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose

Discussion I agree with removing Shaka. Southern Africa is represented with Nelson Mendela now anyway. From a diversity perspective, there are other regions of Africa with more significant leaders like Menelik II/Haile Selassie who successful African resistance against European invasion and Musa I of Mali who transformed Timbuktu into one of the greatest cities in the world in its time. Gizza (t)(c) 02:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Or Kwame Nkrumah! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Shaka to be specific was a leader of a part of South Africa. In the list of political leaders, this makes the number of South Africans on par with Egypt, Rome, Greece, China, the UK, US and Russia/USSR (for the moment) and more than India, Germany, Mesopotamia, Central Asia, South America, the Islamic world as a whole (one each) and Japan with none.
Lenin obviously has had a huge impact in every corner of the globe and I support adding him. Once he is added though, it will increase the emphasis on the early 20th century and on violent, non-democratic leaders. Going forward, it would be good to add influential leaders for other reasons and/or leaders covering missing periods of history like Emperor Meiji, Ashoka and Attila the Hun. Gizza (t)(c) 12:57, 9 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 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 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.

Remove Sundial

Covered by clock. Mobile phones are now more common than sundials. Regular topic in children's history books, but not essential in this level.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support There are technology topics not listed like cement that are just as important historically and continue to be hugely significant today. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Iamozy (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support RJFJR (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  16:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support Relatively obscure these days. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

A few tech kind of articles were on my mind, this was one. I was thinking about irrigation for adding, but haven't thought it through a lot yet. Cement, not too bad. We list building materials like stone wood iron steel. There is also brick, I was thinking about for add, again haven't though it through yet. Overlap with stone?  Carlwev  21:53, 25 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) 14:59, 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 Male and Female

We already have Sex, which covers evolution of sexual reproduction, sexual reproduction, sexual reproduction in animals, plant reproduction, mating in fungi, sex determination, and sexual dimorphism. The "male" and "female" distinctions are far more limited topics that don't add very much to our understanding of sex. We also already have Reproduction and Pregnancy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Iamozy (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support agree with nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  22:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

At first they kind of seem important. But sex is a listed article that provides the biological overview of male and female in humans, animals, plants and more and how reproduction works etc. Man and Woman have or could have the social, psychological/emotional, cultural aspects of being a man or a women, and the man and woman articles do also have biological/anatomical information as well too, so covers what male and female for humans is anyway, possibly in slightly less detail but still covers it, nothing's stopping us improving it further anyway.  Carlwev  22:47, 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.
Added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 14:59, 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.

Add Louis Pasteur

Per above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Pasteur's contributions to science go beyond pasteurization. Definitely an essential article. Iamozy (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support I think pasteurization is more important than Louis Pasteur. But Pasteur did a lot more than just invent pasteurization. RJFJR (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support as per my comment for Leeuwenhoek. Sunrise (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support swapping the two people  Carlwev  18:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It should be noted that pasteurization is also on the list. But I'd comfortable with removing that since milk and cheese are both listed and cover this topic as well. Cobblet (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of cheese at this level. Don't know why it is singled out as the only dairy product ahead of yogurt, ice cream and butter or why it is part of a small group of two along with bread as the only processed foods on the list (why not sausage?). I'd prefer adding another staple like cassava or an important food category like cooking oil. Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
If the article Dairy product wasn't so much a list we could consider adding that and removing milk and cheese. RJFJR (talk) 20:08, 7 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 Cobblet (talk) 14:59, 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 Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

Van Leeuwenhoek is mentioned in History of medicine and Microscope. Biography belongs to 10,000 list.

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Louis Pasteur would be a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support if replaced by Louis Pasteur. Sunrise (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support swapping the two people  Carlwev  18:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support major impact in microscopy but we have microscope and he's less significant than Pasteur. RJFJR (talk) 20:55, 2 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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:42, 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 Autism

Depression is common, autism not so much. There are many many different kinds of conditions effecting the mind, behavior thinking etc. We removed schizophrenia and a few more already, including conditions that typically effect older people. Someone suggested adding Down's Syndrome ages ago - but no one seemed to like the idea. We list an overview article Mental disorder. We are now singling out autism as more vital than all others, which seems odd. The historical documentation or historical impact of autism seems smaller than other conditions, only really started being studied at all less than a century ago, and studied properly even more recent. Although diagnoses seems higher in the west, Article states autism effects 21.7 million people world wide in 2013, there are things with more people missing, be they conditions or countries or religions. One example of many Bipolar disorder (previously called manic depression) depending on severity and diagnosis effects according to the article, between 0.5% and 6.4% of the population. Which would be between 36 million and 467 million world wide, and has been documented for around twice as long as autism has as well. Another condition: the number of cases of dementia worldwide in 2010 was estimated at 35.6 million, and the condition has been documented since ancient times, and its modern study is still well over a century.  Carlwev  23:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  23:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support It's too specific. But I would support swapping it for Autism spectrum (14.7 per 1,000 prevalence per CDC) or Neurodevelopmental disorder (more globally inclusive) Iamozy (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 05:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 11 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) 19:42, 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 Humour

Humour has been on my mind for ages. Although people may disagree on what's funny the concept of things being funny is universal to all cultures in all the world and all history. We have whole genres of art and performance and media dedicated to it. Covered only by wider articles like emotion etc. Although we do list list comedy. In my head having comedy but not humour would be like removing Love and fear and including romance and horror instead of them. Humour exists outside of film and theatre and literature same as love and fear do. We're pretty much full. Things like gyroscope and tower caught my eye as possible removals, but need more time to look into it. What are people's thoughts? Also there is/was another WikiProject similar to this one called Core Topics, a list of only 150 important core articles - who ever compiled that list included humor. "see here".  Carlwev  23:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  23:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support I guess on condition that some of the removal proposals below are successful. Gizza (t)(c) 23:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support If nothing else, it's more fundamental to my understanding of what it means to be human than anger, which is already listed. Cobblet (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
I'll support it. You can swap it with autism. Gizza (t)(c) 10:15, 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.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:42, 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.

Swap: Remove Acid and Base (chemistry), Add Acid-base reaction

The list is now one over our self-imposed quota of 1000 articles following the addition of Mecca, so something needs to be cut. In modern chemistry, the concepts of an acid and a base are inextricably linked (see Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory and Lewis acids and bases) and any high school or first-year university class in chemistry will teach "acids and bases" as a single topic, not two separate ones. Listing them separately here makes about as much sense as listing good and evil rather than good and evil.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Iamozy (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Possible problem that acids react to things that aren't bases so that would be included in acid but not in acid-base reaction. RJFJR (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Any chemist would understand that the idea that "acids react with things that aren't bases" doesn't make sense because "acid" and "base" aren't absolute categories of chemical compounds (many compounds like water are both): they're just labels you give to each reactant in an acid-base reaction. In other words, a chemical is not an "acid" unless it is participating in an acid-base reaction as an acid. If you're trying to dissolve a corpse with sulfuric acid Mafia-style (doesn't actually work, BTW), the sulfuric acid is acting as a oxidizing agent, not as an acid, despite its name. (The corpse isn't a "base"; it's getting oxidized.) Since acid-base reactions are common, the labels "acid" and "base" are also common, but the vital concept at stake here is the reaction itself, not the labels you give to the reactants. It's a bit like how the high-quality article Wikipedia should have is battery, not positive terminal and negative terminal, even though if you're trying to jump-start your car your attention is better spent on hooking up the right terminals than worrying about the redox reaction happening (or not happening) inside your battery.
This is not a perfect analogy either, but saying that "acid" is more vital than the type of reaction because chemicals that can behave as acids in some contexts can behave differently in others is sorta like saying heat pump is more vital than the concept of refrigeration because if you took the heat pump out of a refrigerator and installed it in your wall, it could act as an air conditioner. Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible problem is that by removing the individual articles, one loses some of the content specifically about acids and bases, not just the reaction. That being said, I am leaning towards support, but I am curious on everyone's thoughts about this possible dilemma. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The most defining/essential information to know about acids and bases is how they relate to each other, which would be covered by the Acid-base reaction article. Other information like nomenclature, strength, and other chemical characteristics fall squarely in the "further reading" category. Iamozy (talk) 12:10, 24 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) 15:47, 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 Lake Baikal

Propose removing Lake Baikal, also under Lakes. It's large, but is it vital?

Support
  1. as nom. RJFJR (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Makes more sense than removing Caspian Sea. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Known as deepest lake in the world, but doesn't appear to have much significance otherwise. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If anything we should be listing more bodies of water, not fewer. Cobblet (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I agree that it's less vital than the Caspian Sea and it we should be listing more bodies of water, although those bodies of water should be rivers. I would probably support removing Lake Baikal though. It's main claim to fame is being an answer to a trivia question, in this case, "Which lake is the clearest and oldest in the world?" similar to Mount Everest. It is probably more important than Mount Everest because of its mild biodiversity but that isn't really enough to keep it here. Gizza (t)(c) 11:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that more rivers should be listed, or perhaps seas like the South China Sea. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:05, 13 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) 12:43, 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.

Swap: Add Rio de Janeiro, remove Sao Paulo

Rio may been a smaller municipality than Sao Paulo, but it is more important to Brazil culturally. Part of the city is a world heritage site. The city is also very popular with tourists. I am open to a straight addition if that is preferred, although a swap would probably be better so that Brazil, like most countries, only has one city on the level 3 list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose As opposed to the global influence of Mecca, Rio has only had a significant influence within the borders of Brazil. Indeed, one could argue that other unlisted cities such as Athens, Berlin, and Madrid have had more global influence than Rio. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

Sao Paulo's metropolitan area is 75% bigger (one of only three in the Americas with a population over 20 million) and it's an alpha world city while Rio is beta. This is not an obvious improvement to me. Cobblet (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I get that. That is why I was wavering whether or not to support a straight addition or a swap. Both cities are important for their own reasons. Sao Paulo is the only South American city on the list right now. I am open to striking out the removal if there is support for that. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
If I had to add one more city besides Mecca it would be Shanghai. I don't consider adding Rio a priority when cities like LA or Buenos Aires and countries like Colombia or Peru aren't listed either. Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I can see that. Shanghai should definitely be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the logic for the inclusion of some cities and countries and the exclusion of others? I think cultural centers are of more importance than size alone, although I suppose a combination of the two is warranted. I do notice that Moscow is on the list, but Saint_Petersburg, which is was the cultural center of Russia with artists like Fyodor_Dostoyevsky, Vladimir Nabokov, Yevgeny Zamyatin, Ivan Turgenev finding their inspiration there. I can definitely see an argument that Rio over Sao Paulo for cultural significance, but population-wise and the extreme poverty of Sao Paulo make it a reasonable choice too. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's an objective answer: everyone has their own opinion about these things, which is why we have these discussions. The introduction to this page takes care to avoid saying that this list contains the most vital 1000 articles. I think many people would agree that having one Brazilian and one Russian city on the list is reasonable; I'm personally satisfied with the ones we chose. Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 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
Not removed 2-5. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:29, 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 Caspian Sea

Propose removing Caspian Sea. It's large, but is it vital? Not sure it is as vital to humans as some other things.

Support
  1. as nom. RJFJR (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. I disagree with Cobblet in that Everest is the highest point on Earth. The Caspian Sea isn't known for anything. Assuming this cut is to bring us back to 1000, I think there are probably better choices but removing Caspian isn't breaking my heart. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose No way in hell is this less vital than Mount Everest. Cobblet (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The Caspian Sea is known for being the largest inland body of water in the world. The world's largest lake. People actually use it and rely on it for transport, food and water. Mount Everest is inconsequential in comparison. Only important for mountaineers really. It's definitely should be the last of the four lakes proposed for removal. The Caspian Sea is also a politically disputed area. Gizza (t)(c) 10:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Vitality to humans is not required to be on this list. The Caspian Sea, apart from being the largest inland body of water, is very important ecologically, anthropologically, and politically. Iamozy (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Highly notable body of water and a strategic area in Central Asia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Very notable per above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

I think that a lot more people are going to look up Mount Everest than the Caspian Sea. Not having a good article on Mount Everest is going to be noticed and make the encyclopedia look bad. RJFJR (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This page is about Wikipedia's most vital articles – the articles that are most needed "to understand other fundamental subjects" (e.g. why was Stalingrad so strategically important during World War II?), as User:Iamozy succinctly put it in the previous discussion on Mt. Everest. For a list of Wikipedia's most viewed articles, the vast majority of which are not vital in any sense, although Wikipedia would literally look a lot better if they were all high-quality articles, see WP:5000.
Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Or let me put it this way: to me, saying Everest's more vital than the Caspian is like saying Denali's more vital than the Great Lakes when it comes to US geography. I think that's just absurd. Cobblet (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
If the definition of vital is that it helps explain or understand other topics then what does the Caspian Sea (it's a big hole in the ground full of water) explain/elucidate? Water, lake, sea would help understand the Caspian Sea but I don't see much that the Caspian Sea explains. (And with that I am going to go work on other things for a few weeks so I don't cause any more todo.) RJFJR (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The Caspian Sea if well written would explain itself and its importance to all of the people that use it. The Caspian Sea is rich in resources from oil and natural gas to fish and caviar. The five countries that border it, Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, are all in a power struggle over its resources and transportation routes (historical powers in the area have always tried to extend their influence over the Caspian). As of yet, maritime borders within it have not been established. There is a reason why Russia is particularly hard on the republics bordering and close to the Caspian such as Chechenya, Dagestan and North Ossetia.
Both ecologists and international law experts are fascinated about whether the Caspian is a sea or lake. It has characteristics of an ocean including being high in salinity and has ocean-like waves but is also enclosed by land. Its brackish waters and isolation have given it a high level of biodiversity. Changes to the Caspian Sea's level are more marked than the world ocean and examining the effects of these changes have been a useful case study to see what would happens in case climate changes eventuates to a significant degree. The sea vs lake debate is important for legal reasons because having one status or the other under international maritime law would affect the rights and responsibilities the five countries have with respect to the body of water along with outside powers like the United Nations. The Caspian Sea is also becoming more important for tourism.
In comparison, Mount Everest isn't known for much apart something that mountaineers want to tick off their bucket list. Despite also straddling the border of more than one country, it isn't part of disputed territory and only the Himalayas as a whole have geological and cultural significance. The world would move on normally if Mount Everest disappeared overnight unlike the Caspian Sea. At the most K2 will get more visits and climbs and appear more in trivia quizzes. In some ways, K2 is more significant than Everest as it is arguably the most dangerous mountain in the world. Gizza (t)(c) 12:01, 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.
Removed 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:39, 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.

Remove Gyroscope?

Bought up several times, several people said they may support removing, I don't recall anyone defending it; yet. Less vital than compass, and there are more vital/used/common mechanical things missing, such as gears for example, nor do we list lever here.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  21:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support very interesting subject but not vital and we're very tight for space (currently at 1001 so one over). RJFJR (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support belongs to 10,000 list, not 1,000 most vital list. Arnoutf (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Do people like Gyroscope? should we remove it? Mentioned several times by myself and others, is sticking out as less vital. Not as significant as the compass. There are many missing mechanical things like gears among other things. Perhaps something like Geodesy or even tide would be better.

I'd support its removal. RJFJR (talk) 20:57, 2 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) 22:46, 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 History of Oceania

We have every other continent's history, why not Oceania? The Polynesian civilization, for example, dates back to at least the first milennium, while Australia has been inhabited for 40,000 years or so. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support If we can list all four fundamental forces or all the planets of the Solar System, we can afford to list histories of every continent. Cobblet (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Plus don't forget that Papua New Guinea has some of the oldest agricultural sites in the world. Gizza (t)(c) 12:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support RJFJR (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 19:35, 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.

Natural selection?

We have Evolution and under that Natural selection. Comments on whether we need the latter? RJFJR (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think not. It seems redundant. Maurreen (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's any more redundant to evolution than learning is to human behavior. Evolution relies on three key ideas, genetic variation and heredity being the other two, and we also list the last one separately as well as genetics which covers both. Whether you want to remove things like these depends on whether you feel the natural sciences are overrepresented on the list. The redundancy that still sticks out to me the most is male and female vs. sex (in addition we also have man and woman). Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree that of the two, Evolution is more important. Having three major articles related to evolution (including Charles Darwin) greatly over-represents this topic. Social Darwinism and its misuse of Darwin's concepts is the dark side of evolutionary theories that is important not to forget. Even worse, I see zero architects and just a jumble of famous tourist destinations under architecture. Hard to believe. Yet, we have Egg on the list as vital? Indeed science and technology make up 1/3 of the vital articles (which does not include the inventors). I do think science/technology is over-represented. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The lack of architects (although we do have Michelangelo) and weird choices for architecture are both issues that have been brought up in the past, although we could not agree on an architect to add. There is clearly scope for improvement in the way architecture's represented on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


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) 21:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You have my full support for this at level 4 vital 10'000 articles. This is level 3 vital 1000 articles, not so sure about adding it here.  Carlwev  21:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The distinction between architecture (focusing on design) and engineering (focusing on materials and methods) is a pretty modern one. I'm frankly surprised that separate history articles exist at all. Cobblet (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input. I didn't realize that this was the Level-3 section, so I'll move it over to Level-4. Thanks! --Iamozy (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

at 1,001

We are currently at 1,001 articles. Are there any articles that look likely to be removed soon? RJFJR (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Could start by winnowing down the number of cities and countries, especially since the latter have only been around for 500 years at best? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the cities and countries are among the most vital countries especially. Some countries are old, some new; countries can have histories longer than their official government or constitution has existed by virtue of successor states, common cultural/ethnic/religious identities of peoples that have survived well over the centuries. Many countries or their cultural identities as peoples in Europe or Asia are older than virtually all cities in the Americas. Only my opinion, I would like slightly more nations, but that's another discussion. Also if a nation's youth is a potential issue there's always historical empires with huge influence. We have none from the Americas, but we do have one overview article. The articles I like the least off the top of my head are specific works of literature, and architecture, mona lisa, and some lakes. And also another big redundancy is having sex, male, female, gender, man, and woman......Also 500 years? fairly long time but not ancient but a massive chunk of our articles about events, people, arts, technology and media are younger than 500 years, many a lot younger.  Carlwev  20:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing Mount Everest doesn't look like it's going to be successful. I think having man/woman and male/female is the biggest overlap by far on the list. Removing one of these pairs will give us two extra spaces. We also have computer, computing and computer science. Two out of the three may be sufficient. Not a fan of autism at this level. Gyroscope looks slightly out of place. We could remove some of the lakes and film directors too. Gizza (t)(c) 02:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 17:56, 5 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 Garden

I noticed that the 2007 edition of Britannica's Macropædia contained 699 articles and two of them dealt in part with gardens: "Garden and landscape design" and "Gardening and horticulture." This list contains no similar topics, although Level 4 does contain garden, gardening, horticulture, landscape architecture and park. I think putting one of these on the Level 3 list is reasonable: as long as civilization has existed, gardens have been valued as a form of agriculture (especially in the past), recreation, and art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. I have thought about garden or park in the past. Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 5 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 to swap 3-1 Cobblet (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap Scramble for Africa with New Imperialism

We currently have the article Scramble for Africa, but that event was only part of a larger movement called New Imperialism, including European expansion into areas such as China and Southeast Asia as well as U.S. and Japanese expansion in events such as the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese Wars.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Sounds like a reasonable enlargement of scope. RJFJR (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I get why people want to do this, but I think what we should really be doing is adding Western imperialism in Asia to complement European colonization of the Americas and Scramble for Africa, instead of replacing these regional histories with more abstract topics that lump them together. For example, I don't think it would be a good idea to suggest removing European colonization of the Americas just because it's arguably covered by Age of Discovery. Cobblet (talk) 00:38, 8 October 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.

Proposing a new Vital articles list for women

Browsing this and I notice (as you'd expect) is is extremely highly stacked with male biographies. I was wondering if anybody would support a Wikipedia:Vital articles/Women list which can identify more women of importance from all of the relative fields and give the Women project something to work for on it? I think it would be important to address systematic bias and identify more articles on women. In some fields I barely count a single woman article! Obviously there's dozens more important women from each field but couldn't be included because the male ones were more prominent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list of all the women listed in Level 4 Vital Articles list: User:Yair rand/VitalArticlesWomen. --Yair rand (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how the list of women in Level 4 was compiled but I find it strange that the 17th-century Christina, Queen of Sweden with less than one page view a day is included while Margrethe II of Denmark with over 1,700 a day is not. It might be useful if the list could be sorted by area of involvement. At first glance, it looks as if there is an excess of singers and other performers. I was surprised to see Hillary Clinton was not included.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't a fair balance of women in all fields I don't think. I don't think it would harm to create a Vital Article list for women, even if it was just for the purposes of the women project. I suggest we create a Vital Article list for women organized by field with 1000 articles in total.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of this. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea too. Note that one major reason why Margrethe II of Denmark gets more page views than Christina, Queen of Sweden is because of recentism. Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande and Coldplay get more views than every musician on the list but they're still not vital. Page views are a useful metric when the comparing two topics that are similar in time, geography and field of study but are otherwise affected by biases. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this intended to be a list of biographies? RJFJR (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Why michael jackson's page not listed here? His talk page says that is a featured page and which has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People.Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhiljaxxn (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Because this isn't the level 4 list. This is the level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 27 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 Inca Empire

We've previously discussed adding more civilizations to diversify our coverage of world history. In particular it's been pointed out before that we lack the major pre-Columbian empires/civilizations of the Americas. Since the list is now three articles short, this seems as good a time as any to discuss adding these. I'd certainly consider the article on the Incas more vital than the article on Machu Picchu, which is listed under Architecture.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --David Tornheim (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
In fact these are currently covered by Mesoamerica and Andean civilizations. However that sort of overlap hasn't stopped us from listing Sumer and Assyria in addition to Mesopotamia, or Middle Ages and Islamic Golden Age in addition to Post-classical history, or Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russia. Cobblet (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Can't agree with you more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:40, 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.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 27 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 Maya civilization

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:40, 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.
Added Aztec, since that's listed on level 4 while Aztec Empire is not 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 27 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 Aztec Empire

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

On these three proposals. A little concerned of the overlap, but not too much. Prefer these to Machu Picchu, and probably even Andean civs, the overview is needed less if we covered by these, and overlap exists elsewhere. Reading the articles, the empires lasted for a shorter time than I realized. Other empires that had large history, area and/or population could be Umayyad Caliphate in the Mediterranean/Middle East, ruled 10% of world land and nearly 30% world pop, but only for about 90 years, it's less well known though. I've been thinking about another S American nation too, Colombia perhaps?  Carlwev  16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I am bothered by the overlap of Aztec/Maya/Inca. I'm not going to mark myself as opposed since there are enough people are already marked as supporting for it to pass (and because as soon as I do someone will object that I am not permitted to have a view since I'm dissenting) but I'd like to leave a record that I'd prefer not to use up three slots on three so closely related articles since to me three slots from our 1000 is a lot. (We definitely need an article on these as vital but we have Andean civilizations covering Inca and I'd like to find something that covers these as a set and discusses the relationships.) RJFJR (talk) 20:37, 23 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.
2-3, not swapped Gizza (t)(c) 00:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Akira Kurosawa, Add Emperor Meiji

Japanese people are over-represented in the arts but underrepresented in politics. There are three Japanese biographies relating to the arts while there are none from China or India for example. On the other hand, there are zero Japanese leaders while there are three Russian leaders listed. Japan has made both cultural and political contributions to the world and as such should be represented in both fields.

Of the three artists, Kurosawa is the weakest. Murasaki Shikubu wrote the world's first novel, which is at the foundation of modern literature while Hokusai's painting and woodprint blocks were a precursor to manga and anime, now a part of global pop culture. Kurosawa hasn't had the same worldwide impact.

Emperor Meiji transformed an average feudal society to an industrialized world power, the first outside of the West. He is one of the few rulers who presided over the transformation of a country low in natural resources from poor to rich in a generation. Lee Kuan Yew is the only other leader that comes to mind but the industrialization of Japan obviously had a far greater impact on the world than Singapore, from the cars we drive to World War Two and much more.

Adding Meiji also reduces the emphasis on violent despots and cliché wartime heroes in the list. We need leaders who changed the world without killing people represented here.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. In fact, Industrial Revolution occurred before the Meiji Restoration, meaning the restoration is not as vital as DaGizza claims. Also Kurosawa was quite influential on earth, hence the article about Kurosawa is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose: Kurosawa is a well recognized and important film director. We already have too few film directors. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  3. I would rather see Kurosawa kept, even if Meiji is to be added. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

@RekishiEJ:, no see Industrial_Revolution#Japan. The industrial revolution occurred at different times for different countries. There are countries that are still not fully industrialized. To use your language, Meiji is more "influential on earth" than Kurosawa is. Gizza (t)(c) 10:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, Japan's modernization occured during Bakumatsu rather than Meiji Restoration, see ja:慶応の改革.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More detailed vital articles list

It may be a suggestion to add any symbol to the left side of all vital articles. The template Template:Icon/doc contains all of the symbols and the list below shows the level 1 vital articles with any possible symbol.

1. Earth

2. Life

3. Human

4. History of the world

5. Culture

6. Language

7. The arts

8. Science

9. Technology

10. Mathematics

86.22.8.235 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed 5-1 Rreagan007 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Remove Egg as food

...To make room for irrigation there are several food articles I believe are slightly less significant. Nut (fruit), Egg as food, and possibly cheese. Nuts are a broad type of fruit, although quite important and of some use and eaten for millennia they have never really sustained huge crops or populations, possibly due to their often small size and time consuming to crack open, we also list seed which covers some of the same ground from a biology POV. Fruits or types like citrus, banana or apple could be argued more important as a food than nut. The one I dislike the most is Egg, we don't list the Chicken, the giver of most eggs, nor do we list sheep, goat or pig, which although covered partly by domestication and meat are probably still more vital than egg, which is also partially covered by domestication. I could just as easily suggest removing a person, most people are probably less vital than the concept of irrigation, but I'll try and keep it at least vaguely similar area and suggest the egg as a remove to complement irrigation.

Support
  1. as nom.  Carlwev  03:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Chicken is obviously more vital to me; since that isn't listed (and it's probably not the next animal I'd add) I don't see how an article on the culinary uses of eggs is more important. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support as too many other food sources for this to be vital. RJFJR (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support still think cheese is even less vital. Gizza (t)(c) 13:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 6-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Zoroastrianism

At the moment we list Zoroaster but not the religion, Zoroastrianism. If my count is correct The man is is about 99 languages, and the reliogion is present in 115 languages. Also looking at the page views, the biography gets an average of 1200 daily page views compared with over 6000 daily page views for the article on Zoroastrianism which is very close to 5 times as many views (VEIW). The article on Zoraster covers information on his life, his philosophy, iconography and views of him of followers and people after him. It says majority of information about him is primarily from Zoroastrian texts themselves, and is quite thin, third party sources even more rare. The century and location of his his birth and life are not even agreed upon, and although only one view there is one line of thought that suggests he may not even be a real person at all similar to some views of Moses. No body denies the religion existed/exists though, and the amount of information available on the religion is much greater. The Zoroastrianism article covers the religion's beliefs, practices, theology, views, philosophy history etc. How it was the dominant religion in Persia, one of the most significant centres of population, power and culture for 1000 years before the Arab conquest happened. It would also make more sense for the religion article to include key information about the founder than it would for the biography article to go into detail of the practices of people who lived centuries after, so much of the important info on Zoroaster could be covered in the Zoroaster article anyway. in In short, one article focuses on little information of one man's life and works and how followers view him, the other on the cultural historical belief system of millions of people for a millennia in one of the most significant regions of the world....I think the article on the religion is a much better choice. I would suggest a swap with the biography, if people prefer that I suppose I would support a swap. But I have not, as I thin the biography is not the worst we have, but I would still support a swap if others prefer that option.

Also, The biography states he influenced other religions too, namely Islam and Bahá'í Faith, but I've never known this be be of great importance, and the articles on those other religions, which are very long, do not mention Zoroaster even once, so that fact seems not of great importance, not in the way say Abraham is to multiple religions. Also compare with other religions at this level, we have always listed Sikhism but voted to remove it's founder and text, Guru Nanak, and Guru Granth Sahib from this level. Also although we will probably always list them all here, I doubt, if the list were smaller for example, anyone would choose to include Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Abraham at the expence of leaving Christianity, Judaism and Christianity off, for similar reasons.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support the swap. I don't think there's much in it though. Gizza (t)(c) 06:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support the swap, but oppose adding the religion and leaving the biography. Arnoutf (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support swapping in the religion in place of the founder/namesake. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support swapping the articles. The religion is more important than the man. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, though would support swapping Zoroaster for Zoroastrianism which would also handle the fact that we are already at 1000 articles. RJFJR (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed again 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Add analytical chemistry

I think that this article is as vital as physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry & organic chemistry, since all these four articles are about subdisciplines of chemistry, and analytical chemistry is vital in geochemistry & toxicology. What's more analytical chemistry is included in the metawiki page of vital articles.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose it's just part of chemistry, specifically the part that deals with figuring out what's in the sample. And being just as vital as physical chemistry doesn't work with me since I'm the one who proposed removing physical chemistry. RJFJR (talk)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The rationale is irrational. Cobblet (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed to add it before, however later it got failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Add_analytical_chemistry).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    I can support this if a removal from science is proposed. It is already the biggest section on the list by far. Gizza (t)(c) 04:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion moved to the Expanded list talk Cobblet (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Ted Hughes

I find it incomprehensible that Ted Hughes is not already included on this list. He is without doubt one of the most important poets of 20th century Britain, arguably more important than Larkin, Auden and the like. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. Strong Oppose He is not even listed on level 4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Surely you meant to nominate at level 4? The people you compare him to are not on this list, which has only 100-odd bios, not the ~2000 VA/E does. pbp 02:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, level 4 was where I intended to put this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Barnstars or other awards for VA promotion?

I'm working as a GA reviewer on a couple of Level 3 VAs (Heart and Iron), and I think it would be really cool if there were specific barnstars for VAs that I could award to the editors who are jumping through all the hoops to make an article into a GA/VA. Is there any precedent for what to award? I'm thinking a Barnstar of Diligence with a citation like "For the work involved in promoting (article) to (class)" for the editors working on the promotion. I also think encouraging VA reviewers would be appropriate for GAN/FAC contributors, but not sure what the right level of reward is for people who seek out and thoroughly review such articles. Is there any history of such awards? Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Swap Kahlil Gibran with Miguel de Cervantes; Swap Ernest Hemingway or Edgar Allen Poe with Walt Whitman; Add someone from India?

While I think the list of vital writers is good on the whole (I especially like the decision to include James Joyce), it seems to me that there's a real flaw in it in the shape of Kahlil Gibran. His popularity with New-Agey people notwithstanding, I think anybody can agree that he can't hold a candle to the genius and immense cultural influence of a Shakespeare or a Tolstoy or a Murasaki--or, for that matter, a Cervantes. Cervantes, certainly, should go in there regardless of what happens to Gibran. For one thing, I think anyone can agree that it's a mistake not to have Spanish, one of the world's major literary languages, totally unrepresented. But of course, Cervantes, as the major inventor of the modern novel, is also immensely important to the formal aspects of modern Western, and by extension world, literature as a whole. If Gibran is in there, we should have to include a few hundred poets, and scores more novelists, as well, because all those would be better and more vital to world culture than he is. And if we're going on popularity alone, we should have to include J.K. Rowling and Stephen King before Homer and Dante, and that would be absurd. Either of those options would be defeating the point of a list like this. Cervantes, on the other hand, can give anyone in world literature a run for their money in terms of wisdom and expansiveness of thought, even if he isn't quite the stylist that Shakespeare and Joyce are; he also remains immensely popular. I'm not an experienced editor nor an expert in literature, but I think anyone with a passing knowledge of literature and literary history would think this change a no-brainer.

The other changes I would suggest are less obvious, but I think still very much justifiable. For one thing, while I understand that Poe has been important to both American and French traditions, it seems to me that Whitman is the more global figure, and certainly the one more central to the development of a distinctly American literature and poetics. Anecdotally, my German-Jewish (later Argentine, as he fled shortly after the Nazis got power) great-grandfather, who was an unsuccessful poet, totally worshiped Whitman; and he continues to be an international symbol of liberation while remaining the ultimate American poet. There is also his immense influence on all the major American Modernists, including Eliot and Pound, and therefore international Modernism as a whole. Formally speaking, he was key in the triumph of verse libre throughout the 20th century. For all these reasons, I think it's safe to say he is more important than Poe and Hemingway, though with Hemingway I can understand that we would want a representative of the American Novel (although it seems to me that he's the weakest of the three overall). But certainly, either Poe or Hemingway should make way for the truly major American writer.

Also, if we're trying to get a really global perspective here, shouldn't there be someone from the cultural sphere of the Indian Subcontinent? Regrettably, I know very little about that, so I don't feel confident in seriously suggesting anybody, but it seems to be a gap here. Perhaps add Vyāsa? Of course he's a mythic figure, but then again Homer's existence is also quite uncertain. In particular, since the list is full, I think that Sophocles could be replaced by an Indian. Sophocles is certainly an important and great writer, but drama is already represented by Shakespeare, and the amount of Sophocles's surviving work pales in comparison to that of virtually any other writer on the list. Besides, we already have the Classics decently represented by Homer and Virgil. Otherwise, perhaps Franz Kafka could be swapped out, as much as I love him personally; Goethe already represents German, and it seems to me that Kafka's ultimate historical import has in large part yet to be proven, although I understand that we may want a Jewish author on the list. But really these suggestions are just me thinking out loud; all I know is that there should probably be somebody from India on the list.

Apologies for the long post, but I didn't want to clutter things up with three separate posts for each proposal. --One More Dilettante (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@One More Dilettante:, thanks for your comments. I believe the reason why Cevantes isn't currently listed is because we have his magnus opus Don Quixote instead. Because the list is so tight, there was consensus to limit writer/literature combinations to either one or the other. For example, we don't include Hamlet because Shakespeare is on the list. However, opinions can change and we can discuss this again.
Regarding a writer from India, the best two choices IMO are Kalidasa or Rabindranath Tagore. They are the best poets and dramatists of ancient and modern India respectively. FWIW, Tagore has pan-national fame and significance. He has composed 3 national anthems and was the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature (if you think about it, it means he won the Prize before any American did). Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I also believe Cervantes is not included because Don Quixote already is, just as Herman Melville is not listed because Moby-Dick already is (level 4). Poe should not be swapped for Whitman, because Poe is immensely influential, having invented the detective story. The list is not yet well-balanced, featuring four modernists and zero realist and postmodernist authors. One way to solve this is to add Joyce's Ulysses to the book list and then swap his name here for either Gustave Flaubert or Vladimir Nabokov.MackyBeth (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
No consensus to add 2-1 Cobblet (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Irrigation

Supplying water to people, crops and animals has been carried out since before recorded history into the present day. The earliest irrigation was at least as far back as the 4th millennium BC with some claims it was in use even earlier. In the ancient world it was used on all the inhabited continents, except Australia. In both modern civilization and many if not most ancient civilizations, without irrigation there would not have been enough food to sustain anywhere near the populations that areas have grown to. It is believed without sophisticated agricultural methods, such as irrigation, people would not have been able to live in higher numbers and concentrations needed to form cities and civilizations. Although dry land farming exists as does industry such as fishing, irrigation based agriculture creates a huge chunk of the world's food, and uses an incredible amount of the fresh water used by humans. There have been many methods and techniques used over the millennia, some of which we list in the 10,000 like Qanat, Aquaduct and other modern methods exist, like simple sprinkles and centre point irrigation. We list 23 articles under food, mostly plant/crops, or their product, and we list a few more food related articles, Agriculture, Fishing, hunting, domestication, Garden, Fertilizer, stove and refrigeration. Irrigation as important as some of those articles like single crops if not more, it is more wide spread, and many of these and other crops rely on irrigation to be as productive as they are. We also list canal, which can be channels for transport or irrigation, but usually refers to transport canals, irrigation seems to be more vital than canal to me...

Support
  1. as nom.  Carlwev  03:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support as major impact on agricultural productivity, but conditional on an article (probably Eggs as food) being removed to make space. RJFJR (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Out of the various technical aspects of the farming process, I'm not convinced this one is so much more vital than others like ploughing or harvesting and the technological advances associated with these (the use of draft animals, invention of the moldboard plough or the combine harvester, etc.) that it needs to be listed separately at this level. Our coverage of agriculture is weaker at level 4, but at this level I think it's basically fine. It's the only technology with a dedicated history article at this level, and one of the main things history of agriculture does is to lay out technological advances in agriculture throughout history, be it in irrigation or other areas. Cobblet (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Add Early human migrations

Ancient history, post-classical history and modern history are all covered in depth at this level. There are at least 12 articles dedicated to each one. However, prehistory is not expanded upon at all. There are no further articles covering the earliest and longest period of human existence. Early human migrations had global and fundamental importance. The article explains how we reached all inhabited continents of the world and is clearly vital.

As we are at the 1,000 article limit, something does need to go. If eggs are not removed, then we could look at removing one of the mathematicians (10 is quite high), possibly worship or prayer because of the overlap or a non very significant philosophy like pragmatism and abolitionism (which should be redundant to slavery and political freedom). There are many weaker articles than this.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I'd consider the articles on the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages and the one on the Neolithic Revolution as prehistory articles, at least with respect to the majority of civilizations that developed agriculture and metalworking before writing. Nevertheless it's true the list is extremely thin on coverage of humans prior to civilization; this is a great choice to fix that. IMO this is a much more serious omission than analytical chemistry or irrigation. Cobblet (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support RJFJR (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I just don't see it as needing to be represented at this level. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

I would like to add Neolithic and Paleolithic too. Mesolithic, possibly too, to complete the set of 3, but seems weaker though. We have Neolithic Revolution but not Neolithic itself. In the 10'000 we also have the upper middle and lower Palaeolithic, so listing just the Paleolithic here would be good. Ancient History and Prehistory are listed in the 100, but not been expanded much here, especially not having "eras", considering what we do have especially among the biographies, which I could go into, but won't here. The Stone age lasted millions of years, much longer than other eras, it covers the whole world, even the 2 or 3 eras of the stone age lasted many millennia and include many significant advancements.  Carlwev  06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
swapped - 5-1 support -  Carlwev  23:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap, Add Liberty, Remove Political freedom

They are similar and overlap, I think only one is needed, I think Liberty is better. Liberty is what I would look up myself for information on this general concept, it is a slightly wider concept than political freedom, as it does or could cover more in addition to just political freedom, like religious freedom, personal freedom. There are several other kinds of freedom articles too, like freedom of speech, education, religion, press and more, which are not really covered by political freedom and have their own articles, none of which we list here. Out of these two articles in the swap, Liberty is much more fleshed out and has about triple the page views and triple different language wikis compared to Political freedom. Liberty is in 79 languages, Political Freedom appears in 26 languages. Liberty has an average of over 900 page views, compared with just under 300 for political freedom. See here. This was bought up very briefly here, when we removed Civil Liberties. BTW Free will is listed in the 1000 too. Privacy is listed here too, a comparable concept, a concept or quality of life and society and interacting that most people want, Liberty is probably similar or slightly higher priority than privacy.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd prefer a meta proposal about the various 'personal freedom' ideas that have been brought up. I want a wider look at the various topics. (Also, find the cause-effect argument odd if applied widely). AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion

"Wideness", "fleshed out", page views and number of languages are not compelling arguments when we already have human rights listed which is even better than liberty on all counts. Do we really need both "umbrella" articles? Or would something more specific like civil and political rights be a more useful replacement for political freedom? Cobblet (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that liberty and human rights are complementary rather than one and the same. They exhibit, IMO, a cause-and-effect relationship, i.e. the desire for liberty causes the creation of human rights. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think Political freedom is probably a more important article than Liberty, despite the narrower scope. At least as the articles are now, I interpret the former to be focused on people's rights, while the latter is focused on philosophy and political ideology. Additionally, Political freedom is the redirect for Freedom, which itself can be interpreted as having a scope similar to Liberty.

On another note, I don't think Slavery should be nested under Political freedom (or Liberty), as it is now. I think the arrangement could be open to arguments that they are opposites or contrasts and therefore one could be removed, especially if this change is made. Sunrise (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm keeping my oppose vote for now, but think we can hash this out and might change it. So, right now, the list has Political freedom (with slavery as a sub-topic), Privacy, Human Rights, Democracy, Secularism, Liberalism, Justice, Abolitionism, Free will, Women's suffrage (Personal life too, which is on level 2 and doesn't really fit these other categories). Proposal is to have Liberty switched for political freedom. 'Civil liberties' used to be included and Cobblet mentioned 'civil and political rights'. Looking at this list, I think Political freedom and liberty both overlap with many of the other concepts that I would put more centrally (liberalism, human rights, and democracy, most notably). I'd vote for cutting political freedom and not replacing it. I'd also vote for cutting privacy. I think the remaining categories provide pretty good coverage of the issues on the topic and liberty, political freedom, and privacy are somewhat redundant. If we want to add to the list, I think we'd provide wider coverage with a 'negative' topic: oppression, political repression, or Power (social and political). Agreed that slavery should not be a sub-topic. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:07, 5 December 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.

What discussion has there been about representative breakdowns?

The archives for this project are vast and I am not familiar with them. Can someone share, has anyone proposed any scheme for attempting to make the vital article list reflect demographic, cultural, historical, biological, or geographical relevance? Does anyone know of any publication which does this, or what terms I could search to find insights?

Some example schemes that might be considered -

  • Country X currently has a population of Y, which is Z% of the world's population. The vital articles should include Z% of topics relevant to that country.
  • Empire A was powerful for B centuries, which is C% of recorded history. The vital articles should include C% of topics relevant to that empire.
  • Culture X has produced works which have been discussed in Y sources, which is Z% of all publications. The vital articles should include a proportionate number of topics relevant to that culture.

I am not sure how anything should be apportioned, but I am wondering how this list came to be and what sharing schemes have been proposed to allocate the slots. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues of systemic bias and diversity have been a running theme in discussions here, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 8#Eurocentrism and recentism in History, or Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 46#Women on the list in the context of 10,000-article list. However, I would describe our usual approach as not grounded on abstract principles like the ones you're proposing, but more analogy-based, e.g. "if article A is vital, article B should also be vital;" or conversely "if article C is not vital then article D shouldn't be either." I don't think that was a conscious decision on our part, but analogies so far have generally led to more productive discussions. Cobblet (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Cobblet Thanks. These were interesting big discussions. The issue that Malerisch raised about Eurocentrism in history was something that I wanted to see. In that case and many others, discussions still trend toward one-to-one comparisons. I will think more about this. It seems like Malerisch is on wikibreak. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Great question Bluerasberry. Cobblet has much more institutional memory than I do on these boards (I just came back after a long break from the project), so I defer to him pointing you in the right direction. However, I want to support his view that analogies have provided a more tractable approach (whether conscious or not) than using 2016 population (or some other 'objective' aspect) to somehow ascribe vital-ness through history. In some of the discussions it has been distributional like you are suggesting, but not with some equation like you are proposing. The Vital Articles list will always be biased, this is the result of canon-making. However, I'm not sure that the incremental, analogy approach is necessarily the worst way to address this. Indeed, I'd say that a list with moving bias might be better than one with fixed bias. Some of the best proposals on these boards that I've seen apply to fields where we can clearly see and think about correcting bias (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 34#Imbalances in the list of political figures. I think it is somewhat easier to approach distribution, different histories, etc. when it is grounded in one issue. (However, if you want the simplest scheme for redistribution: Women make up about 50% of world population, the vital articles list should include 50% women. We aren't even close.) My 2 cents, ignore as necessary. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with this "affirmative action" approach. We should not be creating a quota system to promote someone's concept of fairness. Let the consensus decide. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Chris troutman I agree. I am not trying to push any system. Instead, there always is a system, including now, and I want to know more about whatever strengths and weaknesses it has. No human can really understand multiple categorizations of 1000 or 10,000 concepts. Also, I am not really here because of the vital articles - I am more curious about how to prioritize small groups of Wikipedia articles (like 100) for various topics (like any school subject). I agree that we should avoid applying any controversial philosophy into these things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Collection of scheme ideas

100 people

I do not favor this idea, but I want to share one by Donella Meadows which is currently called "100 People". The scheme collects various demographics then rounds them to a whole percent, then reports on them. For 2016 the breakdown is:

  • By language
  • 12 Chinese
  • 6 Spanish
  • 5 English
  • 4 Hindi
  • 3 Arabic
  • 3 Bengali
  • 3 Portuguese
  • 2 Russian
  • 2 Japanese
  • 60 other
  • By continent
  • 60 Asians
  • 16 Africans
  • 14 people from the Americas
  • 10 Europeans
  • By religion
  • 31 Christians
  • 23 Muslims
  • 15 Hindus
  • 7 Buddhists
  • 8 people of other religions
  • 16 people with no religious affiliation

If anyone knows of other schemes for imagining representation of information then please share. Any sort of scheme - whether about all society, all of media and publishing, all of nature, or anything other sorting system would be interesting to consider. Thanks for any prompts which anyone can make. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at Britannica's Propædia and Macropædia before. Cobblet (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Cobblet Those are both insightful lists which I had never seen before. Thanks for sharing - this is exactly the sort of thing that I wanted to see, and I would not have thought to consider these. If I had even thought of this I would not have expected it to be in Wikipedia presented in this way. Thanks - I will reflect on this for a while. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic for discussion Bluerasberry. Just FYI, another user a few years ago conceived of a radical reorganization of the expanded 10,000 list (though the same principles could be applied here) where the list was to be restructured into 40 topics of equal size (125 articles or here about 12.5 articles each). Here is [link] This would mean that for example biology, literature and mathematics would all be represented by a similar number of articles unlike the current state. Biographies were also suggested to be integrated into the wider topic (so a physicist would be listed under physics instead of biographies).
While it may appear to "correct" bias, deciding what is a unique academic discipline is itself very subjective. In the proposal, engineering was split into four sub-types so in effect engineering would receive four times the coverage of medicine, economics or history. There is also the fact that most articles on Wikipedia can be classified under multiple disciplines. If you click on the talk page of most articles, you would notice that the majority of them have more than one WikiProject tag and even some that don't could arguably have one or two added. The choice of where to put interdisciplinary articles within any classification system will affect the emphasis and bias of the list moreso than how it is superficially structured. And of course, some areas deserve more articles than others IMO and so pursuing "equality" without anything else doesn't mean much.
In regards to the demographic breakdown, it is useful information to have but unfortunately I don't think we will be able to obtain similar information for historical periods. Reliable sources tend to give large ranges for pre-Columbian population of the Americas as an example because of the paucity of data and large number of assumptions involved. It's very difficult to get an accurate idea of what percentage of the world was Babylonian when Hammurabi was ruling. And as with topic, there are many ways to classify humans. In addition to geographic location, language, religion and gender (the main ones brought up so far) there is able/disabled, age, sexual identity, urban/rural/nomadic, social class/vocation, race (which overlaps but is not exactly the same as country/location), height/weight/body shape and even whether someone is left or right-handed. Within the classifications stated above, they can also be further divided such as East Asia, Central, Southeast, South, etc. or dialects of Chinese and Hindi which complicates matter even more. Addressing systemic bias is great but making the list into an exact microcosm of society is impossible. Nor do I see the value in doing so. Gizza (t)(c) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
DaGizza Interesting. I am not sure what next steps would be. In the longer term I suppose that Wikidata will be able to sort categories for these concepts and help us understand better where the weight of the coverage currently is. That is really interesting about engineering - we use one word "engineering" but actually that concept has overlap with all sorts of fields. In a non-English language they might compile a completely different list just because they do not have the peculiar language characteristic of calling many applied science fields "engineering". Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Take note of relative popularity on Wikipedia

I am not aware of anyone talking about relative popularity of content to prioritize its development on Wikipedia, with the exception of "low/mid/high/top" rankings for WikiProjects which divide all Wikipedia articles into one of those four categories. If someone wished to do more specific comparisons, then they might consider the following premises -

  1. If a topic gets lots of Wikipedia pageviews (described at meta:Traffic reporting), then the article for that topic can be presumed to be important
  2. Wikipedia's traffic reports are sensitive enough to make comparisons, such that if one article is getting more views than another, then the more viewed one is more popular
  3. More important articles should be represented in lists of recommended topics, like these vital articles or the priority queue for any other project

I am not advocating for this system to be used, but it is something to consider.

At User talk:West.andrew.g/Popular pages Wikipedia statistician West.andrew.g just provided a dataset showing the number of pageviews which an article had to have to be in a certain popularity ranking in 2016. For example, English Wikipedia has 5 million articles, and 1% of 5 million is 50,000. If someone wished to prioritize the top 1% of Wikipedia articles by popularity, then according to that dataset and assuming that traffic year to year is about the same, then any article getting 710 pageviews a day or 21,659 views in a month is in that top 1%. I am not suggesting that the top 1% is anything other than an arbitrary cut off, but until now, it has been easy to view monthly traffic for an article but not easy to understand the relative popularity of one article to another. Now anyone could cross compare with this chart and have some idea of how in-demand a topic is.

This could be relevant to the vital articles list because of most articles here are in the top 10% by popularity, but some topics which seem important actually are very unpopular, then perhaps that should influence selection choice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we take page views into consideration in many of our discussions, as entering "page views" into the archive search bar above will immediately verify: e.g. see Carlwev's opening comments in his proposal above to add Liberty. Several people have commented on the limitations of this approach, including myself, but it remains something we always take into account in our decision-making. Cobblet (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
2-3, not swapped Gizza (t)(c) 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap, Add Maria Martinez, Remove Fyodor Dostoyevsky

"What? Who?" Maria Martinez a prominent indigenous potters. I'm not going to make the case that she is more famous or her art more central to the canon as is Dostoyevsky. That would be absurd. However, traditional ceramics are one of the most important artistic expressions in the world historically and today and we don't have any on the list of people. I like Crime and Punishment a lot, but we have another Russian novelist already included and no exclusive ceramic artists, no traditional ceramic artists, and no Native Americans (Kahlo is 1/4 if that matters). That's the case. Dostoyevsky is more famous, his work gets more attention (it might even be more beautiful). But, pottery is historically and even today a more widely used artistic form that connects with the experiences of more of the world than will ever read Dostoyevsky. Shouldn't we have a representative of that form? I say yes and I think Maria Martinez who has art permanently at the Smithsonian is a good representative.

Support
  1. Support as nom. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Vital shouldn't just be judged on individual popularity. In this section, for instance, it means representing an art form that goes back to (literally) the beginning of humans on Earth. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I disagree with this RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality. You want to remove a more-known artist (by your admission) just to meet the imaginary quota. No thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Chris Troutman. Vital is vital. Jusdafax 18:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

Try getting her added to the level 4 list first, which still has very few women artists. I think it's too much of a stretch to say it's more important for Wikipedia to have a high-quality article on Martinez than Dostoyevsky. A parallel, and I think much stronger case, could be made for Zaha Hadid – we have no architects and no Arab women on the list, and she's much more famous than Martinez; but even then swapping Dostoyevsky for her feels like a stretch. Cobblet (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit it was a big swing on my first day back here. But, I'd still contend that pottery demands recognition. We'll see. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Would a topic article, rather than a biography be better, like clay or something similar? For native Americans, could we have an article like Pre-Columbian era or Indigenous peoples of the Americas. In general I think there are too many people, I don't think a potter is needed. Food is immensely important to people, but we don't list a cook, a farmer or a hunter even in the 10'000 list. In this list clothing is also not expanded at all from its appearance in the 100 list with articles, in the 10'000 are there any biographies about clothing people? perhaps shoe could be listed, perhaps not? Again for Stone Age techs such as pottery, we are missing the articles Neolithic, as well as Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, I think we would benefit from having these, ancient history is a bit light, and cannot really have biographies for those periods, as records of individuals that far back do not exist. Individual people compared to entire human eras seems obvious to me which are more important.  Carlwev  19:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's the quick answers to the question: I think it is important to have more categories of human endeavor recognized in the list of Vital people article. To respond more directly to Cobblet's very fair question: I think it is more important for wikipedia to have a featured article on a traditional artist than to have another one on an author. To ground this: Is it better for the project to have the top 10 novelists of all time have good articles about them or to have a good novelist article, a good poet, a good playwright, a good storyteller, a good lyricist (Mr. Dylan, for instance), etc? I say the later is more important. Longer answer: So Pottery is already on the 1000 list, and we may decide, that's enough. But I'm specifically here trying to get the persons diversified (not in terms of race, region, or gender, but in terms of categories). As long as we limit artists to 'What goes in galleries', the artists section is going to be very limited. So, I went with a traditional artist deliberately (over an architect, cook, or topic--although I'd be interested with those too). To nudge the artist list. Once again, I think having a wider range of people listed is good although I do understand that the scarcity of available space may result in us opting for 1. People have to be absolutely prominent and 2. Other important human endeavors will be captured in topics. That's fine, but figured I'd force the issue. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
To reiterate, the justification for this proposal is not to right any historical wrongs: It is to widen our understanding of what artists are understood as vital. The question is this: Is it more important for wikipedia to have 10 good articles on the most famous painters or a good painter, a good craft artist, a good architect, a good printmaker, a good calligrapher, a good animator, a good graffiti artist, etc. I say the latter: But my "mentality" is not to right any wrongs or diversify the (gender, race of) people on the list, that is just a positive effect of expanding the list beyond the current narrow focus on novelists, painters/sculptors, and classical composers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
So in your view, is it more important to include someone like Martinez who worked exclusively in that medium you think needs representation, or someone like Gauguin who wasn't exclusively a ceramist (albeit a notable one) but whose oeuvre as a whole was probably more impactful? Cobblet (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to firmly draw the line on exclusivity (especially with weirdos like Dali), but would push for diversity of art forms over an impact criterion. Would maintain my position that a traditional/craft/folk artist should be included. Maybe not Martinez (and maybe we settle on the category instead), but I'm sticking with: a list of vital articles that does not include an artist for the most important art for most people in the world (particularly when viewed historically) could be improved by adding one. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
If Ms Martinez is as notable as you consider her, you should start with adding her to the article on pottery, or an article on art/craft or indigenous crafts, or her specific culture, and see if you can have THAT article in the level 4 vital articles. its true that traditional pottery is a vital art form, but the individual artists are not notable. some cultures pottery is highly notable, such as early japanese and chinese, and some southwest cultures.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hildegard of Bingen

Why is Hildegard of Bingen listed with composers on the Level 3 page and writers on the Level 4 page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Because she fits well in both categories and nobody has bothered to make the categorizations consistent at every level. Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Cobblet, Would you care to take a look at this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No, because I no longer work on the Expanded list; and because I believe streamlining the inconsistencies is even more fraught with subjectivity, and discussions about it even less likely to be productive, than figuring out which articles should be on the lists in the first place. For example, on the level 2 and 3 lists it seemingly makes the most sense to put sleep in the Everyday life category, but on WP:VA/E/L there is no reasonable subcategory of that page for it to go into; it appears under WP:VA/E/BH instead. Or continent, land and sea which look right listed under Geography on levels 2 and 3 but appear under WP:VA/E/PS – in the case of the first this was an explicit decision that I no longer support. But generally such inconsistencies don't bother me too much – they serve as a reminder that multiple equally valid categorization schemes are often possible. If you try to fix them yourself you'll probably learn a lot about the list in the process. Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
O.K. I thought there was a mistake. I see now that it is just a foible of the system.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Swapped 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap: Add Cardiovascular disease, Remove Myocardial infarction

This is a proposal made originally by Cobblet in the discussion on removing Hypertension (see the discussion here). I think it makes good sense to have the more general term rather than the more specific case. May also mean removing stroke which is included under cardiovascular disease. If we want to, another alternative is Coronary artery disease which is the #1 cause of death globally according to the WHO, and which includes Myocardial infarction and other diseases but not stroke. I prefer Cardiovascual disease, but would support CAD instead also.

Support
  1. Support as nom. (And support removal of Stroke too). AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support the swap RJFJR (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 1-4 Cobblet (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Maya civilization, Aztec and Inca Empire

Well, the meta list does not mention them (Aztec is the only exception) at all, and their roles in the history of the world are not as significant as Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Song Dynasty, Ming Dynasty or the Russian Empire, since these civilizations actually do not influence civilizations outside the Americas very much, thus I suggest that these be removed.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose That makes as much sense as saying Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome should be removed because they didn't influence civilizations outside of the Old World very much. Cobblet (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose No. In this case, our list is better than the meta list and the meta list should be adjusted accordingly. Gizza (t)(c) 03:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While I could be convinced of removing Aztec or Inca from the list, Maya should remain regardless. Based on continental impact, continued relevance, and archeological importance, the Mayan civilization needs to remain on the list. Inca and Mexica/Aztec could be removed, but I would want to see what they would be swapped for. I think there's justification for keeping on the list at this point. I would also question the "do not influence civilizations outside the Americas" statement as probably too narrow. I mean, tomatoes were a weed in Peru, somehow created into an edible fruit by the Mayans, and have been fairly (or very!) influential on other civilizations. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for reasons state above. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I'd support an overview article on new-world civilizations that summarized and encompassed all three, but an outright removal of all seems a bit much. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gödel added in a different proposal Cobblet (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Kurt Gödel

The fact that he influenced 20th century philosophical and scientific thought immensely means that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely, should be here. I'd be OK with swapping him for Leibniz or Hilbert. --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support We can figure out whom to remove later. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose only because we're at 1000 articles and I don't see a need for more mathematicians. Change this proposal to a swap and I might support it. Cobblet (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree with Cobblet here. Prefer the double switch proposed above. (or Alps--seems like low hanging fruit at level 3). AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

We discussed above swapping in Emmy Noether but never reached consensus. If we swap in Kurt Gödel it's only fair that we follow through with the swap for Noether. I maintain the Hilbert-for-Noether exchange, and I support swapping out Leibniz for Gödel. --Blueclaw (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Rreagan007 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap: Add Dementia, Remove Alzheimer's disease

Similar to us recently replacing myocardial infarction (and possible stroke) with cardiovascular disease, I think we should replace Alzheimer's disease with dementia. To the average person, the exact cause of the dementia is irrelevant, and these terms are often used interchangeably in casual speech. Even trained doctors can have a difficult time determining the underlying cause of dementia. Since Alzheimer's disease only accounts for roughly half of all dementia cases, I think we should use the broader medical category. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Rreagan007 (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Broader topics should predominate at this level. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support agree. Gizza (t)(c) 12:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I support as this is an improvement, but reading the articles I have some thoughts on dementia. The article says in different places it effects 35.6 million and 46 million people world wide. 35 million is less than half of one per cent of the world population. It is becoming more widespread due to people living longer, which means it was historically less prevalent due to shorter life expectancy even in the recent past, especially in the distant past. I imagine there are several diseases/conditions, and religions and countries with a lot higher numbers than 35 million I would like to think about some of these. That being said, this is still an improvement.  Carlwev  17:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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) 23:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap, Add Emmy Noether and Kurt Gödel, Remove David Hilbert and Gottfried Leibniz

Emmy Noether is considered one of the most important figures of 20th century mathematics in part because she built the foundation for abstract algebra and paved the way for modern physics through her work on symmetry and conservation laws. I'm proposing the swap with Hilbert because they were contemporaries, Noether published work extending Hilbert's methods to other mathematical objects to create the foundation of modern algebra, and due to the restrictions on women in academia at the time, she also lectured under his name for a number of years. From the Wikipedia entry on Noether: "American physicists Leon M. Lederman and Christopher T. Hill argue in their book Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe that Noether's theorem is 'certainly one of the most important mathematical theorems ever proved in guiding the development of modern physics, possibly on a par with the Pythagorean theorem'". Currently the list contains no female mathematicians and no abstract algebraists, and Noether's work is important enough to the theory of relativity and other groundbreaking 20th and 21st century theoretical developments that she deserves a spot on the list. - Blueclaw (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I really should know better than to mix in on this project, but I would point out that that would leave no logician. The logician should probably be Gödel rather than Hilbert, though. --Trovatore (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If I had to remove a mathematician it would be Pythagoras – it's doubtful he invented many of the things that were ascribed to him by later Pythagoreans. Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
How about a counter-proposal: Double swap, Kurt Gödel and Emmy Noether for David Hilbert and Gottfried Leibniz. The case for Noether is ably presented by Blueclaw.
The omission of Gödel is very serious and hard to understand. He is the most fundamentally revolutionary figure of 20th-century mathematics. You cannot do mathematical foundations even tangentially without addressing Gödel. Hilbert is also very important to foundations, although largely by making a hypothesis that turned out to be wrong (also a great service!), but not in Gödel's class.
As for Leibniz — we already have Newton, though not as a mathematician, which largely overlaps Leibniz's mathematical contribution. Possibly Leibniz could be moved to "Philosophers", though I'm not sure whom I'd bounce. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not my field, so asked a resident mathematician. His response was Gödel. The rest on the list he said you could do away with, but Gödel and Gauss were the two that he said are necessary. I will note that the Brittanica Guide to 100 Most Influential Scientists includes the following list: Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolemy, al-Khwarizmi, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Euler, D'Alembert, Laplace, Sophie Germain, Charles Babbage & Ada King-Noel, Gauss, Ramanujan, Turing, and Gödel. In the end: I Support Add of Gödel and Noether. I Support Removal of Hilbert. I'm torn with the other removal. I do think we should consider whose work might be captured with the 53 Mathematical concept articles we also have (more than Health and Medicine and more than any other field except biology). It seems to me we could remove both Pythagoras and Leibniz and be just fine with the conceptual coverage below. (In addition, that could give us room to add a statistician like RA Fisher, John Tukey or Gertrude Cox). AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I had forgotten that Turing was there. I have to concede that he counts as a logician. But he's so associated with computer science, not so much with general mathematical logic, and this is the mathematician section. I think we should have a general mathematical logician, and Gödel is he obvious choice. --Trovatore (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep Hilbert and add Noether & Gödel. In order not to exceed the 1000 limit maybe Maya, Aztec & Inca should be removed, since these civilizations are not as influential as Mongol Empire and Ottoman Empire.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Between this discussion and the one below, it appears we can reach consensus on adding Noether and Gödel in exchange for Hilbert and Liebniz. Let us put it up for an explicit vote:

Support
  1. As nom. -- Blueclaw (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Nothing new to add to my previous remarks. --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. Agree with reason and justification as noted above. (This is a support for adding Noether and Gödel and deleting Hilbert and Leibniz). AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support the double swap suggested here and below (Noether and Gödel for Hilbert and Leibniz). Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support the double swap. Gizza (t)(c) 00:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Hilbert and Leibniz are vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removal of Leibniz. One of 5-10 most influential mathematicians pbp 22:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 1–1 Cobblet (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Prose

Not essential in this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. It's as vital as novel, which in my opinion should be kept in the VA list as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2017 (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 2–0 Cobblet (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please 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 literature

As important subject as histories of art, science, agriculture, medicine, mathematics and technology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I would maybe support a swap with Epic of Gilgamesh and/or Don Quixote not sure why they are singled out for inclusion, there are many stories of Greek Roman or other mythology more widely known.  Carlwev  14:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Requests for comment on Microscope article

Please comment on a few requests for comments on the Microscope article.

Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_how_a_scanning_electron_microscope_works

Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_ultramicroscope

Talk:Microscope#RFC_should_article_focus_on_instrument.2C_microscope.2C_or_technique.2C_microscopy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, --2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 10:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Fuel

Just Added to the lev 4 10'000. The concept of fuel is surely vital. The usage, acquisition, trade and waste of different fuels all have an enormous impact on most if not all societies of the world for most of history. We list several types of fuel, the main fossil fuels, and wood, but there are many other sources of fuel and the general concept of what fuel is, what can be used, how it works is of interest to industry, engineering, transport and also physics, chemistry and biology too. The "Core topics" project of only 150 articles lists fuel.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not a vital concept at all. Traditionally, fuel is simply "material for burning, combustible matter as used in fires, etc." (OED, def. 1a). Combustion is the vital topic (we don't list that, but we do list fire), just as nuclear power is a vastly more important topic than nuclear fuel – the latter is totally meaningless without the former. The way the article stretches itself to cover "nuclear fuel" is just a product of linguistic coincidence; there is nothing to connect the two concepts scientifically. Frankly, I would've opposed the topic's addition on level 4; every vital type of fuel is already listed there with the exception of biomass, which would've been a far better addition. Cobblet (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. The major types of fuel are already included (wood, fossil fuel, etc.). Just as we have many types of materials but not material itself. Adding combustion looks like the better option. Gizza (t)(c) 03:31, 10 April 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Right folks, I am setting this up to run May 15 to June 30 again...with the usual Amazon vouchers up for grabs. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No consensus 3–2 Cobblet (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Stroke

As noted above, we added Cardiovascular disease, which includes Stroke. Need for overlap? Maybe. WHO does separate them out in its list of deaths. I'll propose it since we are at 1000 and could use the breathing room, but if their are good objections, I'll withdrawal.

Support
  1. Support As nominator. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support under same logic that replaced heart attack with cardiovascular disease (though cardiovascular disease only mentions and links to both heart attack and stroke). RJFJR (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I see no compelling reason for the overlap on this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Technically speaking, the many types of cancer are all very different diseases from one other too but there isn't space at this level to include them. Gizza (t)(c) 00:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Retaining stroke is appropriate; generic CVD is very different than cerebrovascular accident (CVA), stroke, in that the debilitating long-term consequences of stroke are known and feared, and rightly so, in that CVA is the one form of CVD that provides instant, debilitating, likely long term, distinct decrease in function. Both have sufficient incidence, prevalence, economic impact, and social awareness that both should remain vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose After thinking about it longer and reading the comment on the above oppose by Jclemens, I think retaining stroke at this level is appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (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 1–0 Cobblet (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Play (activity)

It just have been added 6 months ago as 4 high level. In my opinion it is more inportant. I think it is on the same level as Video game, Gambling and Card game or Board game.

Support

Dawid2009 (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
Discuss

At this level, there may be too much overlap with recreation. See Recreation#Play.2C_recreation_and_work which discusses how the lines between recreation and play are very blurry. Arguably, play is just children's recreation, or active recreation (e.g. playing a game is active while watching a movie or listening to a joke is passive recreation). Gizza (t)(c) 05:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion of significant changes to featured Japan article

Please come participate in the discussion here. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

No consensus 2–2 Cobblet (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap – add Sappho, remove Kahlil Gibran

It's surprising to me that of the 18 "vital" writers in world history, 17 are men. At the least I would expect to see Sappho in there – her lyrics, thanks to widespread admiration among the Roman poets and, through them, the Romantics, are crucial to the language of all modern love poetry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Widsith (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Gibran is a best-selling writer most people in the English-speaking world have never heard of. Sappho is part of Western Civilization and ought to be represented here. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sappho before Socrates? Sorry, I don't buy it. Cobblet (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. Eh? Socrates didn't write anything. Widsith (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
      1. We decided not to include Socrates a while back. Socrates may not be a writer but surely his influence on Western thought exceeds that of Sappho's. Cobblet (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
        1. Undoubtedly – but not as a writer, which is the category I'm concerned with. I have no strong feeling on the most important philosophers, but I do feel strongly that Sappho is a more important writer than Gibran or Hemingway who are currently listed. Widsith (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. The removal. Though Sappho is no doubt a vital Greek female poet, her works are in fact, less well-selling than William Shakespeare, Laozi and Kahlil Gibran.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. Best-selling is not the criteria here. If it was, Stephen King would be on the list. Kiernanmc (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
      1. I know, since Stephen King is a pop culture figure, and this type of figures are generally less vital than high culture figures. However, since Kahlil Gibran is more influential than most other poets on earth (except Shakespeare and Laozi, and they are all listed here), he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

You make a good case for adding Sappho but does Gibran have to make way? There are other writers listed that aren't as popular. Also, there are actually 2 women in the writers' section (Shikibu and Woolf) and therefore 16 men. Gizza (t)(c) 23:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

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

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Archive 10/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of Vital articles.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of Vital articles, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Version 1.0 vital articles

This category contains many articles that are not actually listed as vital at any level (and shouldn't be). Articles like Samsung Galaxy 5 and Cousin marriage in the Middle East and probably many more. The problem is that this category is one of the categories used in compiling the popular pages report, leading to bizarre results of which "vital" articles are most popular. I'm not sure how what we need to do to fix this apart from manually checking all of these concealed categories. Gizza (t)(c) 00:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@DaGizza: for Galaxy it looks like simple copy->paste. Anyway, these are articles (currently 23 results), that are in Wikipedia Version 1.0 vital articles, but not in All Wikipedia vital articles. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Levels?

Where are the levels described? If they aren't, they should be here somewhere. If they are described somewhere, there should be a link to them from the pages like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/1. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's at the top of Vital articles and likely elsewhere as well. What the level is saying is that the level 3 list contains 103 articles. You can make it explicit with either logarithms or exponents but simply: level2=100, level 3=1000, level 4=10000. (That is actually the max number of articles because we occasionally slip under 1000 on the L3 list and L4 has room.) RJFJR (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I gathered that eventually. It doesn't explain what the levels are explicitly: I now presume 1-10n are considered more "vital" than 10n+1 - 10n+1. I landed in this area from the David Hilbert page trying to understand what it meant for him to move between levels. I heard a little of Vital articles, but hadn't encountered them before. The levels pages could use a more guidance describing them for a newbie like myself arriving here somewhat randomly. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Each level tends to include the lower level and then adds more detail (as well as more articles.) Changing level really just has to do where those who curate the list put the emphasis while trying to live with the constraints on number of articles at each level. RJFJR (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Abby Wambach, remove Bobby Charlton

Vital article related to American soccer icon and sports in general. Recently retired and GA. Only 1 other woman currently on list for Association football (2 in entire Team sports section). Hmlarson (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you might want that at Level 4: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. Bobby Charlton is not at Level 3 and Level 3 has a larger bias against pulses than the expanded level. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
PASSED
Added, 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap – add Electric light, remove Incandescent light bulb

Electric light was recently added at Level 4, and I think it would be much better to include it here at Level 3 than Incandescent light bulb. The technology of electric lighting includes the incandescent bulb, but also other types of electric light bulbs such as Fluorescent lamps and LED lamps that are becoming much more important as incandescent bulbs have been slowly phased out in many places in the last few years. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Agreed with the nominator. However, I want to point out one fact that incandescent light bulbs are still vital nowadays, but because fluorescent lamps and LED lamps are becoming more and more commonly used than in the past (thus no less vital than incandescent light bulbs), and this list can contain at most 1,000 articles, this proposal is better than just adding electric light.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not removed, 3–6 --Rreagan007 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc, listed under "Politicians and leaders," does not remotely rise to the level of historical significance needed to be listed here. Her actual achievements during her lifetime were relatively minor, and her enduring name recognition does not change that fact. Any reasonable accounting of history's most vital people would not include her. Kiernanmc (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support She may have been a "figure in the public imagination," but her accomplishments do not rate alongside those of Hammurabi, Genghis Khan, or Catherine the Great. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support The FAQ to the project says 'politicians and leaders' is capped at 25 people. We have 26. That is probably something we should change as a weird vestige of earlier eras, but it got me wondering which of the 26 folks we would cut if we were deciding to follow that suggestion. And I think Joan of Arc would be the person cut if we were to cut anyone. Her influence is probably the most narrow of anyone on the list. In addition, there is little to separate her from other national heroes who are omitted: Trưng Sisters, Casimir III the Great, El Cid, Rani of Jhansi, Naresuan, Shivaji, etc. All of whom have "cultural significance" equal or surpassing Joan of Arc. (Not to mention Timur or Ulugh Beg, but anyway). AbstractIllusions (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose She had a short life of limited political effect but she was a martyr and became a figure in the public imagination. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Very vital since she is of great cultural significance.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose pbp 00:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as per above, cultural and political importance after her death. Mehmuffin (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (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.

Salt

Salt is now a redirect to Sodium chloride. Should the link be updated? Separately, should it be moved from "Food and Drink" to "Chemical compound"? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Not while there is no consensus that that was actually a good thing to do (which IMO it most certainly is not). Cobblet (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The merge was made without any discussion (see Talk:Sodium_chloride#Salt_vs_sodium_chloride). It could easily be reverted since there was no consensus for the move. We could update it on the list here but be aware that sodium chloride and salt may be split back into two articles at any time. Gizza (t)(c) 04:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking this as a consensus opposed to the redirect, and reverting it. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say for a VA, consensus to merge or redirect should be established beforehand. I agree that was an inadvisably BOLD move and support the reversion. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and Sodium chloride was already a level 4 VA. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
FAILED
Not swapped, 2–5 --Rreagan007 (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Swap – add Los Angeles, remove Delhi

Los Angeles is a more important city to list at this level than Delhi. We currently list another Indian city (Mumbai) and another U.S. city (New York). I think going from 1 U.S. city and 2 Indian cities to 2 U.S. cities and 1 Indian city is reasonable.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose How is this "reasonable" in any way? Delhi has been the most important city in North India (and arguably the entire subcontinent) for ~800 years. I'm not even convinced LA is the second most important US city. Cobblet (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Delhi is far more important than LA. It doesn't just have a larger population, much longer recorded history spanning 2600 years and strategic importance (being the capital of two big empires). Delhi has three UNESCO World Heritage Sites while LA has zero. In the rest of the world only London has more with four. Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Delhi is the second most populous urban area in the world. We would, hopefully, all feel that a list that excluded the second most spoken language, second most followed religion, or second most populous country would be an incomplete list. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Maybe more attention to the overlap between countries and cities is warranted. 17 of the 18 cities listed also have their countries included right below in the Country category (Singapore being the exception). Many of these countries are vital largely because of the city: Israel/Jerusalem, Saudi Arabia/Mecca, Egypt/Cairo, Istanbul/Turkey, etc. We get pretty good coverage of 'Egypt' with 'Cairo' and 'Great Pyramid of Giza' and 'Ancient Egypt'. We get pretty good coverage of 'Turkey' by having 'Istanbul' and 'Ottoman Empire' on the list. That could create room for more cities to be included that have importance as examples of types of cities or cultural importance (my preference is Lagos or Vienna, but a case for the importance of Los Angeles is not bad--not that the U.S. must have two, but L.A.'s cultural importance is relevant). I think there might be a case to be made for L.A., but I think it is best not as a 1-1 swap but part of a larger decoupling of the cities and countries listed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Do we not have somewhat more than "pretty good coverage" of a country like the UK when Shakespeare, Woolf, the Beatles, Hitchcock, James Cook, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Turing, Locke, Adam Smith, Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth I, Churchill, the Reformation, the British Empire, London, Stonehenge and the English language are all listed? Would it make sense to remove the UK article because of this and the "overlap" between the UK and London? Cobblet (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Singapore is a city-state so although the article is listed under "Cities", it is a country too. This means that every vital city is from a vital country. There was a time when Jerusalem was listed when Israel was not. Apart from that, I can't remember a time when a vital city did not overlap with a country. It's hard to think of many cities that exceed their country in vitality. Dubai may be one although the UAE also has Abu Dhabi. Brussels could be more important than Belgium (being the capital of the EU) but I don't think Brussels has a shot at being listed here. Gizza (t)(c) 00:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
To Cobblet and Gizza: Good points. I don't want to write a long response, but I'll post a specific suggestion below following from your comments and my thoughts. In general, my position is within the 1000 limit, the trick is to capture as much of the universe as possible; not to just list the 1000 most important topics. We could start by adopting an anti-recentism bias that we have for people to geography (in which case, I think many cities become much more important than their modern countries, e.g. Mecca, Istanbul, Rome(?)). AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technical question: downloading articles; getting alphabetical list of all articles

Hello, I would like to have alphabetical list of all 1000 articles in category 3 and ideally download them in one batch. Is this possible to do automatically? How? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petr Flosman (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Countries and City Lists: 25 Most Populous

Proposal: Criteria for inclusion on the Country and City lists are only the 25 most populous of both types. Updated as the UN lists change. Advantages: 1. Stable and clear criteria, 1A. Makes clear an implicit criteria already used, 2. Captures key aspect of vitalness, 3. Has a bias towards recentism and population, but other biases are not included.

Support
  1. As nominator. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • For reference, the lists would become (already included are bolded):
Country: Bangladesh, Brazil, China, DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam. Missing: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Israel, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Spain.
City: Beijing, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Chongqing, Delhi, Dhaka, Guangzhao, Istanbul, Karachi, Kinshasa, Kolkata, Lagos, Los Angeles, Manilla, Mexico City, Moscow, Mumbai, New York, Osaka, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Tianjin, Tokyo. Missing: Hong Kong, Jakarta, Jerusalem, London, Mecca, Rome, Singapore.
As you can see, the country list changes a little, but the City list changes dramatically. Shanghai is the largest city that is not included by us currently (3rd largest city in the world). If we want to only include 20 cities, then we lose L.A., Moscow, Kinshasa, Tianjin, and Paris. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A few things I don't like about this proposal:

  1. I strongly believe there should be more countries than cities. The concept of a country is associated with profound notions of national identity and sovereignty, which cities lack. Is it more important for our readers to understand the reach of American cultural and geopolitical influence as a whole, or New York City's cultural and economic importance specifically? Adding more cities at the expense of countries also adds more bias towards urban areas. Although urbanization continues to grow, it was only about 10 years ago that urban dwellers began to exceed 50% of the world's population.
  2. I presume you are following the UN World Urbanization Prospects for your list of cities. The primary goal of that publication is to track historical trends of urbanization within countries. In other words, its methodology seeks accuracy and comparability of rates of urbanization across different time periods, not of absolute figures across different countries. Crucially, it is not designed to be used as a list of the "world's biggest cities". Quoting page 4 of the 2014 report: "No attempts have been made to impose consistency in definitions [of urban settlements] across countries." That list is unfortunately not the "stable and clear criteria" you seek, which simply does not exist when its comes to identifying the world's "biggest" cities. Anyone who's stumbled across the endless debates at Talk:List of cities proper by population over the years, or the unwieldy table that currently exists at List of largest cities, will appreciate this.
  3. By focusing only on population one misses out on all the other aspects in which countries and cities are "vital." I see the second and third listed points as drawbacks, not advantages. Cobblet (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I certainly see the points on all of these and did consider augmentation for the 1st and 2nd points (but opted for simplicity). I think it comes to what values to bake into the list: stability (even imperfect stability) or capturing myriad aspects of vitalness (with various biases--notably, pronounced eurocentrism). On even numbered days, I prefer the former: on odd numbered days, the later. I still think there is a strong case to make for stability, but it certainly has drawbacks. But I have a followup question for you: What would you think about 10 countries and 5 cities? (not selected by population) It seems to me that is sufficient to capture 'vital' examples of countries and cities and include other aspects of the universe elsewhere in the list. Thoughts? (Cobblet or anyone) AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Geography makes up about 12% of the level 2 and 4 lists, but only 9% of this list. I don't think any reduction of cities and especially countries is warranted. In fact, one of our aims in expanding the list of places has been precisely to reduce Eurocentrism and improve the diversity of the list. Since I showed up, we've added Poland, but also Argentina, the DRC, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam for countries; and Hong Kong and Mecca for cities. I think countries and cities are important enough that we shouldn't just be looking for a handful of "examples" like we do for, say, literary works. I'm not too worried about lack of stability – I think it's been about three years since a country was added and a year since Mecca was added. For me a bad list that's stable is still a bad list. Cobblet (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair points. Guess we're at the agree to disagree point. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Cobblet in terms of keeping the geography at least as big as it currently is right now. Countries and to a lesser extent cities have always been a major component of traditional encyclopedias. They are among Wikipedia's most visited pages. Only recent pop culture and current events topics, like Game of Thrones and Donald Trump, get more page views than articles like the USA, UK, India and Canada. And the pop culture articles fade away once they are no longer recent unlike countries which are always popular. I also don't see any section that needs to expand so much that we have to make cuts to geography. Gizza (t)(c) 01:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Obviously not gonna get traction. I'll withdraw the proposal. If there's objection to closing and archiving, say so. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. 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 Cobblet (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Personal life

Been bought up several times, recently removed from the 100 list, no one seems to like it. Awkward thing to write about, could include as little or as much as could be in one's life, could include almost anything. Don't recall coming across the topic as a top priority article in print encyclopaedias.

Support
  1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  20:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support As I said above, I just don't think it fits. It's a very awkward subject matter and I doubt a high-quality article can ever be made of it. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Something substantial can be written on conceptualizations of the individual in philosophy, incorporating aspects of identity, autonomy, agency, dignity, etc., but this is not the title I'd expect that discussion to fall under. It may be reasonable to replace this with something like self or individual or one of the other topics I mentioned instead. Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Carlwev's points are great. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discus
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mona Lisa

For a 1000 list. We already list the artist, Leonardo da Vinci, and no other work of visual art, excluding buildings. We only list 6 types of visual art, and 5 art movements/styles, to start listing individual paintings, with so few articles about art does not seem right. There are entire empires, nations, historical eras not listed. We do not list Prehistoric art, (although we do list History of Art). We have Leonardo, I don't think we need a painting, even if it is the Mona Lisa, in the 1000 list, save paintings for the 10'000 list.

Support
  1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  20:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Hate to see it go, but I can't justify a singular painting no matter how famous it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I see no reason why we have to include a painting on the list, and I'm not sure it even makes sense to ask what the "most influential painting of all time" would be; but even if it did, the Mona Lisa is definitely not it. Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support I think I'm closest to Rreagan's argument. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support per nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discus
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1–5. --Rreagan007 (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic

We do list Prehistory and Stone Age, but Prehistory is listed at the 100 list, so it's not unreasonable to expand on it here. The other eras, have been expanded much more than the Stone Age or Prehistory has. These eras covered most if not all of the inhabited land on Earth, and lasted thousands or even millions of years for the Paleolithic, so I would think an expansion on the simplified Stone Age is warranted, the eras are often considered very distinct from one another, humans discovered and invented many things in these eras, and the culture, society and even biology of people changed a lot in these eras. Due to their distance from the present, and lack of writing, there is little to represent these periods in the form of articles about people, empires, wars, compared to more recent eras (there are a few articles like Stonehenge, Neolithic Revolution), but these articles on the time periods themselves are good thing to include. Neolithic Revolution is listed, but is primarily a revolution of agriculture, which was important but not the only advancement of the Neolithic period. Mesolithic is in the worse shape of the 3 and seems less important perhaps, but the 3 normally come as a package. the 10'000 list includes, the Upper, Middle and Lower Paleolithic, I think listing Paleolithic itself here makes sense, it covers over 2 million years of human history.

Support
  1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  20:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm concerned that these are Eurocentric labels for subdivisions of the Stone Age that introduce further bias into our historical coverage. It's as if I proposed listing each component of Willey and Phillips's periodization of North American archaeology into Lithic stage, Archaic stage, Formative stage, Classic stage and Post-Classic stage. We don't even have Pre-Columbian era. Why don't we list that first? Cobblet (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose too specific. (And we're already at 1000 articles.) RJFJR 14:35, 12 October 2017‎
  3. Oppose Stone Age is probably sufficient at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Power~enwiki. --Thi (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 21:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm not sure if we should add these articles at this level or not, but in response to Cobblet's suggestion that these articles are "Eurocentric", I don't think that's the case at all. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The only article I was interested in was Neolithic because the invention of agriculture was revolutionary and arguably the most important moment during the "Stone Age". But I notice we already include Neolithic Revolution making that article redundant. Gizza (t)(c) 10:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
I'm withdrawing this nomination in favor of the English Literature nomination below--Rreagan007 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Beowulf

We currently list 4 literary works in this list: Don Quixote, Epic of Gilgamesh, Mahabharata, and Shahnameh. As this is the vital list for the English Wikipedia, I think we should also list the work that is widely considered to be one of the oldest and most important works of English literature. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Relatively influential medieval epic. Dimadick (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think our choices of individual literary works are odd; I don't think adding Beowulf helps. If we think coverage of English-language literature should be a priority for the English Wikipedia, I suggest adding English literature. Cobblet (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

@Cobblet Please specify which individual literary works that you think should be removed from the current list. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The presence of each of the four works you've mentioned has been questioned in past discussions. I would not object to removing any or all of them. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I would probably support removing most of them, especially the first two. We have no Shakespeare work. Some cultures are not represented at all, I don't see why individual stories of a culture be listed here. All are over 1000 years old except Don Quixote, which suggests that story is the single most important work of literature in the whole world for the last millennium, I'm not sure that is the case, although it is an important work.
I know it's an English poem, but set in Scandinavia. With the exception of the Viking Age, we list nothing from Scandinavia, no nations, people nor Scandinavia itself.  Carlwev  19:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to remove all the individual literary works than to add Beowulf. But we're under quota right now so there's no rush. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"All are over 1000 years old except Don Quixote, which suggests that story is the single most important work of literature in the whole world for the last millennium"

I would honestly consider one of the most important literary works of any era. It is a candidate for the first "modern novel", it is connected to the rise of the novel as a new popular genre in the 17th century, and was emulated by other novelists for centuries. :

"Don Quixote is cited as the first classic model of the modern romance or novel, and it has served as the prototype of the comic novel. The humorous situations are mostly burlesque, and it includes satire. Don Quixote is one of the Encyclopædia Britannica's Great Books of the Western World, while the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky called it "the ultimate and most sublime work of human thinking"" Dimadick (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1–5. --Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Country music

We currently list 6 genres of music (Classical music, Folk music, Hip hop music, Jazz, Pop music, and Rock music). I think country music is at least as important of a genre as some of those such as Hip hop.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Problematic choices made for the list in the past do not justify the making of further problematic choices. Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Hip hop music is the latest genre but it has worldwide popularity. --Thi (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose if there was another type of music that has become mainstream and dominant worldwide albeit recently it would be electronic music/electronic dance music. Country music isn't in the same league. Gizza (t)(c) 22:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose too regional to be on this list. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose to specific a type of music. RJFJR (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

@Cobblet Please specify which music genres that you think should be removed from the current list. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted to remove any of them. I do think country music is a considerably weaker choice than the others. To me it's as bad as suggesting we add NASCAR. Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a false equivalence. We list other comparable genres of music, but we don't even list motorsports at this level, let alone specific types of motor sports. Regardless, you referenced past "problematic choices made for the list" as an argument against this nomination, so I wanted to know what specific past "problematic choices" you were referring to? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Equating an analogy with a logical equivalence is the actual false equivalence being made here. I think a comparison between country music and NASCAR is appropriate in terms of their lack of popularity and influence outside of certain segments of the American population. In that sense, I disagree that we "list other comparable genres of music."
Among musicologists there is a growing tendency to question the validity and usefulness of the distinction traditionally made between art, folk and popular music, one that our list adheres to. The distinction is based on ideas of high vs. low culture and commercialization vs. non-commercialization that increasingly do not apply to the modern world. It also doesn't sit well with me that the only art music traditions we list are western classical music and jazz. Part of me wants to just list history of music and eliminate all the genres, but I imagine some would find that overly radical a change.
The whole arts section suffers from these problems to a greater or lesser extent. There's no rhyme or reason in the way we list art styles rooted in the historical periodization of Western culture; musical styles based on the distinction I described above; artistic, literary and dramatic genres based on a Western view of what music and art are and how they should be classified; and random grab-bags of individual works of architecture and literature. Unfortunately it's a lot easier to point out the problem than it is to suggest a solution. Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, 1–7.--Thi (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Sydney Opera House

A well-known example of modern architecture. More than eight million people visit the site annually and it is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It is also listed in Danish Culture Canon.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose well known but not sufficiently significant. RJFJR (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree that it's well known, but I don't think that's enough for it to be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rreagan007. It's on the Danish Culture Canon because the architect was a Dane. Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Being a biased Sydneysider who is fortunate enough to see the Opera House many days of the week, I would love to see this listed. But it's not just vital enough. Also I would say the city of Sydney should be in before the Opera House, and Sydney would only have a shot of making it in a list of around 40 or 50 cities, not 20 as we have here. Gizza (t)(c) 20:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose as per above, not enough room here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Maybe Grand Canyon and Great Barrier Reef are enough at this level. --Thi (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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/Archive_10&oldid=1137398207"