Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 23

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 23)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Cobblet
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Albert Speer - what category should his "nomination" be filed under?

Hi - I think Albert Speer should be included in the list of 10,000, but firstly, I do not know into what category he would best be placed, as he was first Hitler's architect, then Armaments Minister in the Third Reich, next he was a Nazi war criminal, and finally best-selling author. How would one categorize him? Where to propose placing him? And this is important I think because if I understand correctly, someone/thing else would have to be ejected from the list to facilitate Speer's inclusion, no? Please advise, as I have never contributed to discussion concerning this list of 10,000 before. Thank you. joepaT 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for participating. Typically, yes, you would need to propose a swap thread whereby Speer would be added and another entry removed. However, at the present we have about 150 or so spots vacant, so a swap thread is not completely required. You could merely suggest a straight add thread. As far as how why should categorize him, well, I'll leave that for others! Perhaps User:Curly Turkey would like to weigh-in. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's awkward. I'm not committed, but I guess since his architecture and writing are remembered because of his political involvement, he might best go under "Politicians and leaders" (assuming he goes on the list at all). Maybe the best solution is a restructuring of the categories, but I'm not going to get involved in that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Definitely under "Politicians and leaders". His legacy is the association to Hitler and the Nazi movement overall (the architecture is incidental) and his skill as a war-time administrator. Keep in mind though: at least a half-dozen other Nazis should almost automatically qualify if Speer is on the list. And I'm not including generals in that.
Peter Isotalo 21:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reduce target number for geography?

The amount of articles for geography is far below its target number due to large amounts of deletions in recent months. I think that the target number should be reduced, as most additions to that part of the list are not approved. I am not sure which sections will have their goal numbers increased, though. Perhaps People? --Dagko (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dagko. The Geography quota should be reduced and the People quota increased. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and change it.--Dagko (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry not to contribute to the discussion sooner, but I've reverted this. I agree the Geography quota should be reduced, but I don't think that People quota is the one that deserves most to be raised. That list is currently under its quota, after all. User:Rsm77 and I have previously suggested that we raise the Arts quota. I also don't see how it's going to be possible to reduce the size of Philosophy and religion, Astronomy and Earth science to their current quotas. If we're going to reduce the quota of Geography by 100, I'd suggest raising the quota of the four areas I mentioned by 25 each. Cobblet (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a general agreement to drop the Geography quota by 100, I've gone ahead and done that. We can discuss where the 100 spots should be distributed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with that. Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you think, Dagko? Are you okay with adding the extra 100 spots to Arts, Philosophy and religion, and Astronomy? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It's fine. --Dagko (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to add Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dario Fo

One of the most influential playwrights of modern era, recipient of Nobel Prize in Literature, 1997.

After three months, none of the adds or removals in this box has consensus. Nillson doesn't either, but I voted in that, so I didn't close it. pbp 14:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. Support - as nom. Zayeem (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Looks like there's no support for this. I wonder if anyone thinks Commedia dell'arte is something worth adding though. Cobblet (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Silvio Rodriguez

Cuban trova artist known throughout the Latin world.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support A pioneer of Nueva trova. He has won great acclaim for the poetry of his lyrics, in particular. Neljack (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Jose Alfredo Jimenez

The main developer of contemporary Mexican ranchero music, and author/composer of most of the best known ranchero ballads known throughout Latin America.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Yes, the leading figure in ranchero music seems like a worthy addition to the list. Neljack (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add The Chieftains

Essential exponents of Irish music worldwide.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Huge role in popularising and developing Irish traditional music. Awarded the title of "Ireland's Musical Ambassadors" by the Irish Government in recognition of this. Six Grammys and 18 nominations. Neljack (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Why Irish folk music in particular? I don't see how this remedies anything. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Um, didn't we either vote to remove them, or have a failed add proposal, within the last 6 months? pbp 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it failed. I am giving you a chance to remedy that error.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Move Julio Iglesias to "Non-English language singers"

He is primarily a singer appreciated by non-Latin people, primarily interpreting already existing Latin music for a non-Latin audience he has not participated in developing any genre of Latin music.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - Iglesias is the all-time best-selling Latin music artist, so it seems appropriate to have him in the Latin sub-list. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
He is the best selling "Latin music artist" outside of Latin America perhaps.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Francisco Gabilondo Soler

Composer of children's music known in all of Latin America, even inspiring Walt Disney's "Jiminy Cricket" with his character Cri-Cri.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - We don't include any other children's or novelty music writers, and I am sure there are a few that are more notable to an English language encyclopedia than Soler; Raffi anyone? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - a children's music composer would have to be stellar to be included, and for this list a non-english songwriter would have to be even more so. doesnt qualify.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Luis Miguel

The voice that characterized Latin American music in the 1980s and 1990s. Known throughout Latin America.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support A huge figure in Latin American music. Neljack (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Secret account 19:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Shakira

I know I have tried this before. She is essential to contemporary Latin Music, as her grammy record over two decades shows (much more impressive than "Les Paul's" which was used as an argument for keeping him in musicians.).

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Has achieved great critical and popular success (she had the best-selling single of the last decade). Neljack (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This is not really diversifying the list when we already have five Latin American musicians but nobody of East Asian, Southeast Asian or Arab descent. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
That would be a weird comparison. Someone presented the argument that Paul's grammies meant that his notability was as a musician and not as an inventor. She has a lot more of them than he has, and she has characterized the development of the music of an entire continent for close to two decades.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Right on, but if grammys are any indication of vitality then why not Alison Krauss? I seem to remember you opposing her based on her genre or something. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose Alison Krauss, except maybe if the list was already overpopulated. And as long as Asia, LAtin America and Africa is so extremely underrepresented I will always support a non-American over an American. Right now when we are 70 under the 10K limit I think we can be a little more generous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Youssou N'Dour

Essential musician representing African music well known in the west as well as throughout Africa (severely underrepresented continent). We currently have one (1) African musical artist out of 175.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support A superstar in African music. Basically responsible for creating a new (and highly popular genre of music - Mbalax. Neljack (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Miriam Makeba

Essential musician representing African music well known in the west as well as throughout Africa (severely underrepresented continent). There is now exactly one (1) African musician out of 175.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Popularised African music around the world. Also won major international awards for her political activism against apartheid and in support of international peace and co-operation. Neljack (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Wolbo (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support, Sorry to reopen, I was thinking of voting this morning the close surprised me, I will support this as I don't want 4 users to be ignored, I don't feel like that is consensus, I think the add is OK but not great, and attempting to have more African musicians than 1, she is potentially worthy, I can't think of anyone better of the top of my head.  Carlwev  16:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
  • General comment: I believe musicians to be right-sized at this time, so I'd feel better if these adds were paired with removes pbp 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I dont think musicians is rightsized as long as it is as skewed as it currently is. I have already tried to remove as many as possible from the sections that are overrepresented such as classical music and musical comedy. I am not going to propose swaps anymore because it gives people a double excuse to oppose. And yes I will keep trying to globalize the music section with regular intervals. Consensus can and does change, and it is unlikely that the same clique is going to be running the list for ever.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Maunus, I feel your frustration on this one. For example, we were recently able to remove Lenin and add Mandela at Level 3, but I seriously doubt that a swap thread that removed Lenin in favor of Mandela would have passed; they had to be separate threads. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
closed, no consensus after 3 months only,  Carlwev  16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Leontyne Price

Not vital. Classical singers overrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my comment on Nilsson above. Neljack (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Remove Birgit Nilsson

Not vital. Classical singers overrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. support pbp 14:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Considering we have 95 entries in the "Folk and Popular Music" category, most of whom are singers (or bands of singers), I don't think that 12 opera/classical singers is too many. Neljack (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Opera is well represented by composers and compositions, so I agree that we don't need so many singers. However, I can't support randomly removing people when no specific reason is given. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add Cobblet (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Muhammad Yunus

Pioneer in Microcredit and Social business, Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2006.

Support
  1. Support - as nom. --Zayeem (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Has had a big impact. Neljack (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose In twenty years everyone will have forgotten about the ill-conceived idea of microcredit.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add Cobblet (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Éamon de Valera

As above, the most significant Irish politician of the 20th century.

Support
  1. Nicknack009 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Had a huge impact on Ireland over a period of half a century, from the Easter Rising and Ireland becoming a republic to his Catholic conservatism. Neljack (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3 months, 0 consensus. Default to current placement pbp 14:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Should Palestine be a recognized state or an unrecognized one?

There seems to be an edit war going on between User:Sepsis II and other editors as to whether the State of Palestine should be listed as an unrecognized state or a recognized one. Since this is almost certainly a controversial edit, discussion on that move should occur here. I take no position. pbp 23:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Recognized
  1. Support:With a clear majority of UN members recognizing Palestine, at a similar level to Israel's recognition, I feel neither state should be classified as unrecognized. I am hounded by banned editors so do not be suprised to see brand new accounts take the opposition. Sepsis II (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support It can hardly be categorised as unrecognised or largely unrecognised when a majority of states recognise it. Neljack (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Unrecognized
  1. Support. We need a clear dividing line. Either the metric should be whether it is a full member of the United Nations, or we shouldn't have an Unrecognized section at all. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

The sections are not entitled "UN members" and "non-UN member states". The dividing line is based on recognition. I don't know what's unclear here - Palestine clearly doesn't fall into the "unrecognized or largely unrecognized" category when it's recognized a majority of other states. Neljack (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

How, precisely, do you define "unrecognized or largely unrecognized"? - Ypnypn (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Well it must at least mean that it is not recognised by the majority of states. Neljack (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That makes the definition "A state must be recognized by the majority of states" recursive. So if I create a thousand states in my backyard, all of which recognize each other, they'd all count? -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no dispute about the statehood of the great majority of states in the world, so it isn't actually a problematic criterion. Obviously declaring a state in your backyard wouldn't make it so - nobody would think that it met the criteria for statehood in international law. UN membership has nothing to do with recognition - recognition is something done by states. In any case, Palestine is a member of UNESCO (a UN specialised agency). Since only states can be members of it, that represents a decision by the international community that Palestine is a state. Neljack (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on all points; but maybe Ypnypn's suggestion (dividing countries into UN full members vs. not) would make our job easier by removing this source of controversy. Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Should Taiwan be a recognized state or an unrecognized one?

Taiwan, while it has a much lower level of international recognition than your regular state, is a stable state with its low level of official recognition being solely due to PRC interference. Taiwan is quite different from the other nations in the category. I do not see Kosovo as equivalent to Taiwan as the situation with Kosovo is still developing. Sepsis II (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Recognized
Unrecognized
  1. Support. We need a clear dividing line. Either the metric should be whether it is a full member of the United Nations, or we shouldn't have an Unrecognized section at all. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Taiwan is largely unrecognised - it's only recognised by 21 countries plus the Holy See. Neljack (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Actually Kosovo is the other one whose categorisation is inappropriate - it too is recognized by a majority of states, so it should be moved from the "unrecognized or largely unrecognized" category. Neljack (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
swapped 15 days and 7-0 support  Carlwev  10:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Rotterdam, remove Monte Carlo

Rotterdam is a city of more than a million people, the second-largest in the Netherlands. It is the third busiest port in the world and the busiest in Europe (and indeed anywhere outside of East Asia). It was the busiest in the world from 1962 to 2004. It is a major transportation hub and is often dubbed the "Gateway to Europe".

Monte Carlo has a population of 15,000. It is chiefly known as a resort, for its casino and for the Formula 1 Grand Prix. It may be listed under cities, but it is not one - it is just an administrative areas or "quarter" of Monaco, which is a city-state and already on the list as a country. I am not aware that we list any other specific parts of cities (except the Vatican, which of course is a sovereign state) and I see no reason to do so here.

I think a large city that is one of the most important ports in the world is more vital than a part of a city we already have. Neljack (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom Neljack (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Ypnypn (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --Wolbo (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'll put you down for support as nom. then. On top of the small size and redundancy to Monaco itself, Monte Carlo was only founded in 1866 so also lacks the history many cities have, of many 100's or 1000's of years. Carlwev (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes sorry about the oversight (I think I was pretty tired, since it was late at night here) and thanks for fixing it! Neljack (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added The arts Cobblet (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC) 5-0

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

Art and/or The arts

After a swap thread was just closed and passed, We removed "art" from the 10 and 100, and replaced it with "the arts". We have now art in the vital 1000 and 10'000 but not 10 or 100, which is OK. But we also now have The arts in the vital 10 and 100 but not 1000 or 10'000, following the logic we've tried to follow up until now, if we want the arts in the vital 10 and 100, we have to have it in the 1000 and 10'000 too. (Personally I much preferred the "Art" article as the higher but what is passed is passed.) I would at least keep art at the 1000 and 10'000 levels, and just add "the arts" to those lists with out swapping anything out Carlwev (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Add The arts to 10'000

We've added it to the 10, 100 and 1000 logically it needs to be in this list as well. Carlwev (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support adding The arts to this list. Cobblet (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:Carlwev, I already added the arts to the Level 3 list. Did I misread that discussion when I closed it? Cobblet (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I think I viewed the article in my cache in the few minutes after you closed the thread but before you changed it in the list my bad. Any way I think art and the arts belong in the 1000 and 10000 my opinion, (but I must log off now, and leave for work alter the thread to make sense if yo wish or I will later) Carlwev (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to move Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Move Medea to Art/Fictional characters

Medea is primarily a literary figure known form Euripides play, not a mythological figure.

Support
  1. Support as nom -- User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support - Zayeem (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't agree. Euripides' play was based on pre-existing mythology. Our article introduced her with the words: "In Greek Mythology, Medea..." Neljack (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Per Neljack. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Move Conan the Barbarian to Characters from literature and drama

Conan the Barbarian originated as a literary character in 1930s Pulp Fiction by John Howard. He is currently located among the comic book characters.

Support
  1. Support as nom -- User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mug, in place of silverware

Add mug in place of silverware? under tableware we have knife, fork, spoon, chopsticks and plate. Mug seems to be the missing main eating and drinking utensil. Article in about 36 languages, fairly long article. Not immensely important but just as important as the other tableware and I'm only bringing this up now as a default swap for silverware. But I like posting for votes separately. Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Do we have cup? If not, I think we should add the more general term first. If we do, I'm not convinced we need mug as well. Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Cup. that's a valid point. No cup is not in yet. I did take a look at cup and I did think about suggesting it Your right it would make sense. I always thought cup was the general or parent term, but when I looked at the articles "cup" and "mug" I noticed cup was in no other languages at all, mug is in 35 other languages. Rightly or wrongly I thought at the time maybe other languages consider mug the proper word as a translation for their word for drinking vessel, and so I chose that. But thinking now it's probably a translation issue within Wikipedia, as I am surprised cup is in completely no other languages. If I had ignored that I would have posted cup and not mug, the more I think about I agree with you we should probably have cup before mug. I'd support if someone opened that, maybe I'll open it myself a bit later. Carlwev (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason many "cup" articles in other languages link to Table-glass rather than Cup. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
removed, 30 days, 5-0 support,  Carlwev  11:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Linens

I can't really see why this was added. I would suggest remove it and adding Linen to textiles. Or we could just remove it outright I don't mind which, whatever we vote. Look at the articles, similar titles but different articles.

Support
  1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
swapped 8-0 support, 21 days,  Carlwev  08:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 World Series, Add UEFA Champions League

We already have Baseball and the MLB. We don't have any soccer leagues pbp 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support The Champions League's international popularity is greater than any of the American leagues. Neljack (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support Wolbo (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mountaineering

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support If you look at the article, it seems to regard it as a sport, so perhaps it should be under sports. Neljack (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I think it's fair to call it a sport. Should we add rock climbing as well? Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I would support rock climbing too. Probably not abseiling. Gizza (t)(c) 01:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  • We have 17 mountains, and at least 2 mountaineers in Explorers. It would seem the concept of people climbing mountains is of interest and important. The mountains are important in themselves but half the interest about them is because people try to climb them. A general reader would probably appreciate the general topic of mountaineering before wanting 17 articles about individual mountains. I am unsure of where it would belong, presumably under recreation? but it could go under transport, travel, but it doesn't seem right, or under geography, exploration perhaps; thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Mountaineering is more significant, but yes I would support Rock climbing also. Carlwev (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cobblet (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 current list of companies is biased in a number of ways. Firstly, all of the companies listed are from the US. You expect American companies to dominate but the USA doesn't represent 100% of the world's economy and so companies from other countries should be added. The list is also fairly limited in terms of industry but is a little bit more diverse. There are 3 IT companies (Apple, Microsoft, IBM), one telecommunications corporation (AT&T), one in retail (Walmart), one in oil (Standard Oil) and one conglomerate (General Electric).

The other less obvious bias is recentism. It looks like somebody mostly copied and pasted the list from the top of either List of corporations by market capitalization or List of largest companies by revenue. The current list represent the bigest companies of this decade only. Most of the companies just like most of the other articles on VA should be able to stand the test of time. Historically significant companies should ideally be added.

The types of companies that in my opinion have a strong case include British East India Company, Toyota, Royal Dutch Shell, Volkswagen and Nestlé. But there will be many more companies which I haven't thought about which is why I think having an open discussion first is better than going straight into specific swap proposals. Gizza (t)(c) 23:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if you look at websites you can find Google, Facebook, Amazon.com, etc. This makes the list even more USA- and IT-centric. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
We had a couple foreign oil companies, but they were deleted. FWIW, GE is both an appliances company, a homeware company, and a media company: they have at various times owned NBC and RCA in addition to the light bulbs and refrigerators and aircraft engines they make. One of the problem of having so many companies is that it's inherently recentist: really big companies is a relatively new phenomenon, particularly in Asian and Middle Eastern countries that shunned commercial enterprises. FWIW, the Hanseatic League is listed under "History". pbp 17:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I realise I'm coming late to the party, but I completely agree about the American bias (something not confined to this section of the list). Neljack (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll just point out that Toyota, Nissan and Honda are listed under Technology. Might make more sense to have them here. Cobblet (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No votes in 30 days Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 UKUSA Agreement

How a Secret Spy Pact Helped Win the Cold War

Support
  1. Support as nom -A1candidate (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Global surveillance

Support
  1. Support as nom -A1candidate (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose What about just surveillance and/or mass surveillance for starters? Cobblet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Opppose Too specific. Gizza (t)(c) 07:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

As Cobblet said, I could probably be talked into supporting just plain "surveillance" if everyone else likes it too. Someone should start the thread for that. Carlwev (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No !votes in 30 days Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Five Eyes

The most powerful espionage alliance in world history.

Support
  1. Support as nom -A1candidate (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital. UKUSA Agreement covers a broader sense of this alliance, but still not vital. Plantdrew (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2014 (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 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Purinergic signaling

Support
  1. Support as nom -A1candidate (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2014 (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 9-4 Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Caenorhabditis elegans

Obviously vital, appears to be missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support definitely obvious to a biologist, yes. :-) Sunrise (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support In case people don't realise, its importance stems from its use as a model organism, which has meant that it has been involved in a lot of important research. Neljack (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --Zayeem (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support --Dagko (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - not obvious at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. No apparent reason given for importance as animal. As a model organism it would rather belong under genetics or something. Peter Isotalo 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I haven't cast a vote yet. I was thinking the phylum it belongs to may be better Nematode. I noticed that's already in Invertebrates, other among the animals (somewhere here), This may or may not effect peoples' views, just thought I'd share my thoughts. Carlwev (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
removed all, 16 days and 5-0 support,  Carlwev  10:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Embioptera, Mecoptera, Megaloptera, Neuroptera, Psocoptera, Snakefly, Strepsiptera and Mantophasmatidae

These are seven orders and one suborder of insects that don't seem vital to me as a layman. Even if you don't believe 88 articles on insects is too much, surely we can find better entries than these.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Dagko (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support While orders are important groups of insects, not every order is vital. These orders have few species, and are the species are not particularly common. Plantdrew (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 4-5 Cobblet (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Carat (mass)

A commonly used measurement of measuring the size of gems pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Extremely specific measurement and the scientific application seems non-existent. Peter Isotalo 20:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Used only in a very narrow field. Rwessel (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Too specialized Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Agree with the comments above. Neljack (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2014 (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 4-3 Cobblet (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Risk

Another psychological concept that might be worth adding.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support an important concept in economics, finance and statistics as well. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support seems important, not sure where I would have added it though Carlwev (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support A very significant concept in various fields, as Gizza notes. Neljack (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose see discussionPlantdrew (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Not sure this is the right article. Risk is more about economic risk than a psychological concept (though perhaps worth adding to an economics section of the vital list?). There's clearly something psychological deeper than just risking loss of money, but I'm not sure what article covers it. Anxiety, perhaps? Whatever the psychological concept is, I don't think humans are the only ones to experience it. An animal weighing its thirst versus increased exposure to predators at a water hole is analyzing/experiencing risk. Plantdrew (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
failed, not added 2 support - 5 oppose 1 month +,  Carlwev  13:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Hugh Hefner

While certainly a controversial figure, he was a cultural touchstone of the mid-20th century and one of the more successful publishers of his era pbp 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We may not group people by nationality on the list, but the fact remains that many far more significant Americans deserve consideration first; see comments below. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose There are more important businesspeople who aren't on the list. Neljack (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Dagko (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Not sufficiently significant by a longshot.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose IMO Playboy itself is vital but not the founder and owner. Gizza (t)(c) 23:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

It's obvious that there are far more noteworthy Americans than Hugh Hefner not currently on the list. For example, he barely made it into a list of most influential living Americans published by the Atlantic in 2006. Compiled at the same time (these were the people on the panel) was a list of the 100 most influential figures in all of American history; by my count, our list omits no less than 28 of the people listed there. Of course, I'm not saying that list can't be disputed, but look at just the names in their top 50 we've left out:

29. Earl Warren
31. Henry Clay
33. Ralph Waldo Emerson
36. William Jennings Bryan
40. John Dewey
42. Eleanor Roosevelt
43. W. E. B. Du Bois
46. William Lloyd Garrison
49. Frederick Law Olmsted

It seems obvious to me that Hugh Hefner (not to mention many Americans currently on our list, e.g. athletes, actors and journalists) doesn't hold a candle to any of these folks. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Contributing to this page takes up so much time I haven't been on for a while, but I jumped in because I just had to nominate Emerson. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Conversely, though, look at all the American athletes and actors who are on the list. Hef was nominated b/c he was more significant than those guys, not because of some judgment call versus the guys you've listed. If Hef was on the list, he wouldn't be the least significant American on the list. I am deeply familiar with the Atlantic list; I created this user subpage to track this list's performance against the Atlantic's list. I nominated Clay and Eleanor as swap threads, and both failed, which likewise gave me pause about nominating Warren, Calhoun, Quincy Adams, or any other number of American political figures. pbp 04:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I would be much more comfortable supporting a swap than adding Hugh straight up. I did notice your nominations (you also suggested Olmsted for Level 3) and would be prepared to support them now; we are no longer over 10,000 articles. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to nominate any of the above, and expect my support. Well, except for Dewey. Do not care for the man pbp 22:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hefner, is a person notable mainly for one thing, Playboy. We already have Playboy in magazines, I'd probably vote to keep it the same if I were to vote. We had FaceBook and Zuckerberg, but we removed Zuckerberg, in this case. But we still have Apple and Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Microsoft, although they are more important, probably. Against how I would have it we have Akio Morita, but not Sony, and Shigeru Miyamoto but not Nintendo, I'd probably have the companies before the businessmen in those cases, but that's just me. Carlwev (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm archiving this, with 5 oppose it would need at least 10 support to succeed, or 12 if I had opposed, I don't see it happening  Carlwev  13:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Move Sitting Bull from early modern to just modern

The cut-off b/w early modern and modern seems to be about 1815. Sitting Bull was active mostly after 1815 pbp 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support he was born in c.1831. early modern article says period ends in c.1800, see comment below. Carlwev (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I would agree with this. Looking at other sections of the list although I haven't by any means checked it all, in authors for example Shakespeare is in Early Modern. Modern authors includes people earlier than Sitting Bull, William Blake and Jane Austen where born in the mid to late 1700's and died in the early 1800's, in fact Austen died in 1817, so practically her whole life is before 1815 and she's still classed as modern. Sitting Bull is said to be born c.1831. I wonder if anyone else is seemingly out of place, or out of time, or should we be setting a clear cut off point? The articles on Modern and Early Modern say the cut of is even earlier at c.1800. Carlwev (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's inconsistent throughout the list. At one point, Andrew Jackson (r. 1829-1837) was in both modern and early modern and James Monroe (r. 1817-1825) was in Early modern. I believe it should be anything to Napoleon is pre-modern, anything after Napoleon (i.e. 1815) is Modern. The decision of modern vs. early modern should be marked by period of flourishing, not birth or death dates (i.e. Lincoln was born before 1815, but ruled from 1861 to 1865, so he goes in modern) pbp 03:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove David Brinkley

My reading of the history of broadcasting leads me to believe that there are probably only three figures worth having on this list: David Sarnoff (not currently on the list; nominated under Businesspeople), Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support We removed Huntley, so we should probably remove Brinkley as well pbp 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 North America and History of South America

Both recently added to the level 3 list to replace History of the Americas.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 East Asia

Recently added to the level 3 list to replace History of China. The level 4 list does not have History of Mongolia or History of Tibet; this article would ostensibly cover those topics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Mainly because it's in the 1000, I would probably support adding more history of Nation/region articles in Asia and elsewhere Carlwev (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 the United Kingdom

History of England primarily deals with history prior to formation of the Union; subsequent events are treated summarily and only in the context of England itself.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Good idea but I wouldn't want to use this as a starting block to remove history of England. Carlwev (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (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) 10:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Puncak Jaya

One of the 10 highest points on earth, & highest in Oceania -- being higher than Mauna Kea. (If New Guinea is considered part of Australia, then being higher than Mount Kosciuszko it would be the highest point in that continent.) I feel the reason it hasn't been included is due to lack of familiarity (I only learned of its existence a little while ago) & quibbling over definitions (is New Guinea part of Australia, Oceania, Asia, or none of the above?) -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support even though I don't know what the nom means by "10 highest points on earth" – I guess Chimborazo is the highest then, by that definition? Cobblet (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 07:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support more vital than the listed Mount St. Helens Plantdrew (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I haven't voted yet, and I'm not saying how vital or not this is. I would like to point out Puncak Jaya is 4884 m high, the highest 100 mountains of the world are all over 7200 m high. This mountain is one of the highest mountains taking into account Topographic prominence and appears in the List of peaks by prominence as 9th most prominent. The articles explain in more detail, but it's basically because this mountain on a island not a continent, so it's more prominent as it's not overshadowed by other high mountains on the same mountain range or landmass, it has no parent peak as it were. I would like to check which other peaks from the highest and most prominent mountain lists we have or not. Puncak is 9th most prominent, do we have the first 8 most prominent? Carlwev (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Total height as a criterion would be somewhat misleading: a glance at the list of 100 highest mountains are all located in Asia, specifically the complex of ranges along SW Tibet. So our list of significant mountains would then be entirely in that region, some of which would not be familiar to anyone who is not either a native or a mountaineer. The pattern I thought I saw in the selection of significant mountains was to include the tallest one for each continent/regional unit -- otherwise why include Mt. Kosciuszko, whose claim to notability is that it is the tallest point in Australia? -- llywrch (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
True, obviously listing only 20 peaks all Himalayan would be silly. I may attempt to answer this myself by looking but, do we have the top 8 most prominent mountains? and should we? if we are having the 9th. Do we have the highest point of every continent? and the biggest islands? and of the biggest mountain ranges? and should we? Seeing as it's the highest point in all Oceania, higher than Kosciuszko, 9th most prominent, and 4 people like this already I may be swayed to support this and be magic number 5.
We are missing #5 (removed last year), #6 and #7. Frankly, I'd consider removing Kosciuszko, which isn't in the top 125. Cobblet (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A final note, I know it's been discussed before, but, if we list Oceania's highest peak in the 10'000, and we also list Australia in the smaller 1000. and we list New Zealand's capital Wellington of 200K (400K urban area) population, should we list Australia's capital of 375K population? or should we remove Wellington? or leave it?  Carlwev  11:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Last year I tried to impose some rationality for which national capitals we include, but my arguments fell on deaf ears. There are three national capitals not on our list that have over one million people: Bangui, Lomé and Ulan Bator. Why include smaller capitals like Wellington, Lilongwe and Dodoma but not the first three? Cobblet (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I am open to listen to ideas and proposals, I think Ulan Bator has a very strong case, the other 2 not as strong but OK. Also, thinking out loud, things like Porto, History of Portugal, Bristol and Belfast are on my mind, especially Porto.  Carlwev  10:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I nearly nominated History of Portugal alongside History of the UK, so I'm with you there. But we almost certainly do not need more European cities unless there's consensus to raise the Geography quota back to 1300 articles. I'm fine with adding cities like Riga and Zurich that are obvious omissions when compared to what's already on the list; and I'd love to add more cities, especially those of both current and historical significance; but for Europe to have 21% of the cities on the list when it only has 11% of the world's population is clearly Western bias at work. I don't really see a compelling reason to include Porto, Belfast and Bristol over other notable European cities like Antwerp, Rouen, Bremen, Bologna, Malaga, Katowice, Thessaloniki, Gothenburg, etc.; and if we're adding cities like these for Europe, imagine how many Asian cities we'd need to add as well. So you see why I think we'd need to significantly raise the Geography quota to add cities like the ones you're talking about. Cobblet (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added 5-1 support 16 days  Carlwev  14:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Non-fiction

One of the two main types of literature. We have some types of non-fiction (dictionary, encyclopedia, thesaurus) but not the overarching category.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support At the 10'000 article scale this overarching topic should be in. Carlwev (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Definitely. Currently it is a big omission. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Wolbo (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Non-fiction is a not a coherent category or genre o type of literature. It is just what is left when we take "art literature" away.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I disagree that it's a redundant concept. Surely creative nonfiction counts as "art literature". Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really, its just a way for "non-fiction" writers to get better sales. Has an author of "creative non-fiction" ever gotten the Nobel in literature?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if someone who exclusively writes nonfiction has won the Nobel, but for some reason V. S. Naipaul immediately popped into mind. (Not sure the Nobel is really a good way to judge the quality of writers anyway.) I'm not sure if this is what you're trying to imply, but it seems rather audacious to suggest that if a story is based in truth, then it can't be art. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that the fiction/Non-fiction divide is based on an antiquated definition of "real" literature or "art literature" as being fictional and other literatures as being technical or scientific. The fiction/non-fiction divide is perhaps useful for librarians, but it is entirely arbitrary and doesn't in fact describe a basic split between two fundamentally different genres as ost users of the terms suggest. Is the bible fiction or non-fiction? Is the mahabaharata? Is Kant's Critique of Pure Reason? Is Von Daniken's books? Is String theory? Is the declaration of human rights? Is Lance Armstrong's authobiography? etc. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
swapped 5-0 support 23 days

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

Swap: Remove Scuba set, Add Scuba diving

For some bizarre reason the former's listed under Industry in Technology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Certainly seems more vital. Neljack (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Wolbo (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I think Scuba diving is definitely more vital and I support adding it. The scuba set article although lower, is fairly significant, and it is kind of a technology. This swap would improve the list, I'm just wandering if I would have both, or is it too much. Although I see the scuba diving article contains sections for the equipment anyway, so it may be enough. Carlwev (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think listing both would be too much emphasis on scuba diving. We don't list things like Ball (association football) or Cleat (shoe). Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, you're right, the set while an OK article and important topic, it's primary or only use is for scuba diving. Although one is a kind of tech and the other an activity, they overlap, scuba diving is the parent term and contains info on the equipment anyway. And seeing as 4 other people already want it they probably have similar thoughts, and I'll support it. How about Underwater diving covers scuba, connected to surface diving, free diving, diving bell, diving suit? Do we have that? should we?  Carlwev  10:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I think either that or Surface-supplied diving (the other most important type of underwater diving) is worth consideration. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added 5-0 support 16 days,  Carlwev  14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Stem cell

I would have thought this quite vital, important topic in medicine/biology, I can imagine seeing this in a print encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I thought about other cells, they would be covered by their organ/tissue, skin cell by skin, muscle cell by muscle, fat cell etc. Stem cell by its nature has no specific tissue/organ. Carlwev (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added one month+ 5-0 support,  Carlwev  14:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Drugs

Drugs are probably encyclopedia material when you get to 10'000 articles. We do list some such as opium, and caffeine although they're scattered abound chemistry, plants and drugs, depending on what they are, plant or chemical etc. But we are missing some fairly well know, used and studied drugs, like morphine, heroin, ecstasy and cannabis. I'll open Cannabis (drug) for now as some other user's have informed me they think it may belong, I may open some more later. What are others thoughts on these? Carlwev (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Add Cannabis (drug)

See comment above in drugs

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk)
  2. Support and consider removing the article on the genus Plantdrew (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I agree with Plantdrew. Neljack (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support but would vote to keep the genus. Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This discussion is relevant. Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm still inclined to seek removal of the article on the plant genus Cannabis. The article on the drug covers most of the aspects which might make the genus vital. Hemp covers everything else that might be vital about the genus, and perhaps could be added to the Technology list with other fibers (however, based on production statistics [here] jute is probably the most important missing natural fiber, and hemp probably isn't vital). Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Based on modern production, hemp might not be vital. But the plant has been cultivated for a very long time for its seeds and fibres as well as its medicinal/psychoactive properties: for instance, Confucius calls it one of the "Five Grains", attesting to its significance in ancient China. Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's awkward when we have 2 good articles for a similar topic, I would probably have the drug article before the plant. But This plant is still probably more vital than many plants we have like Celtuce for example, so I may vote to keep Cannabis plant too, it's awkward, but everyone is free to suggest and vote for it to go. I am equally in thought on the fact we have decent articles to choose from in this subject.. we have Tobacco, Smoking, Tobacco smoking and Cigarettes. (We have the first 2 but not the last 2 at the moment in the 10'000) all 4 are pretty decent to include, people are just worried about overlap/redundancy. Tobacco, cigarette, or cannabis drug and plant redundant? maybe, but we have tree and wood, paper and book, pork and sausage. People will decide, if anything is vital or redundant if and when it comes up. Carlwev (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
no consensus, 1 month 4 support 5 oppose,  Carlwev  14:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Homeopathy

We've got alternative medicine and pseudoscience; we don't need all of these as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Sepsis II (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I don't see why we need any sub-types of alternative medicine, except perhaps herbalism given its long history and common use today in many places. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: homeopathy and osteopathy should probably be kept. pbp 18:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, I would prefer to keep this one, although it's not real, it's a significant belief, or faith in something working. I accept it'll probably go anyway. Carlwev (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I believe this is the most (in)famous branch of alternative medicine and as the most notable example should be kept. Gizza (t)(c) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Diarrhea

Another missing disease. Although more of an inconvenience in the West like the common cold or flu, which we include anyway, it is serious illness in the developing world, and historically much of the world. According to article, there are 2.5 billion cases of diarrhoea a year, kills 2.5 million a year, killed 5 million a year 2 - 3 decades ago. Second highest cause of infant death, just behind pneumonia. Causes 16% of all infant deaths. Carlwev (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the most important medical signs. The medicine section is very weak atm: I would support adding things like fever, nausea/vomiting, necrosis, shock, cough, rash, headache, etc. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Its not a disease, its a symptom of Gastroenteritis and other things; its non-vital, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

OK, depends on your definition of disease, but yes you're right it's definitely not a germ, virus or organism though correct. Is it still an important topic even though it's not an actual virus? maybe, maybe not. I thought of Gastroenteritis too that is also not there, well thought of. Would you support Gastroenteritis, or do you think this is best left alone? We could put a thread for that too, to see if users prefer that instead? thank you for your help. Carlwev (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, its not really my vision for the list to include too many of these types of entries, but others might disagree. FWIW, every person who has ever lived has died of the same thing: cerebral anoxia. You might be right though, since as you pointed out it does kill millions of people every year, and its the 5th leading cause of death world-wide, just ahead of HIV/AIDS and lung cancers, so maybe I'm wrong. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Biology and health sciences is currently over its quota, so we really should be swapping or dropping, but there is no room to add without conflating the quota issue. Maybe we don't need 10 breeds of dogs and 9 breeds of horses. We also have 50 fruits and 60 vegetables; maybe we could trim a few to make room for these adds. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
True, but the quota for Health and medicine is at 250 and we're at 211. I could flood the thread with proposals to delete organisms, but I won't do it while Plantdrew's still working on reorganizing the Plants section. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Where are the sub-list quotas? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:VA/E. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, right. I see what you mean, but there isn't a sub-list titled Health and medicine. There are sub-lists titled Health and fitness, Medicine, and Disease, which currently total 220. Maybe these headers should be combined under one. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm working through the plant section pretty slowly and trying not to flood the thread in that regard. And I'm mostly going for swaps at present (trying to get "missing" vital stuff added in before getting the number down with straight up removals). There isn't yet an organism quota, let alone subquotas for groups of organisms. Getting plants down to 250 would be pretty easy; 200 might be doable, but of course I'm somewhat biased and would like to see a lot of plants on the list. I do think the bird/fish/mammal/insects include a lot of questionably vital articles, and it would be good to get some input from WikiProjects associated with those organisms. Plantdrew (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, then it sounds like we need not worry about that list's quotas at the moment. Thanks for making the effort to improve that aspect of VA! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Cobblet (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
GabeMc, while you're at it, you might want to rename the subcategory under Physical Sciences currently titled Science to Basics and measurement. Cobblet (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added, 5-0 support, already at the 1000, 18 days,  Carlwev  14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 body

We just added it to the 1000 list. This is surely vital and a must have if it's in the shorter list already. I would put it with anatomy myself but next to human is OK I guess. Carlwev (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Carlwev (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'll add this too anatomy, we don't list feather under bird it's under anatomy, human body should be there too.  Carlwev  14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cirque

A non-vital type of glacial landform (which has just been added). Compare moraine or drumlin, which are also not on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I wasn't very keen on Glacial landform but I didn't want to be the one to block it, it was on 5-2 my vote would have stopped it but I didn't want to be the baddie. I believe Cirque is pretty decent article standing alone, trying to have the catch'em all phase in this case to save space, I'm not keen on I don't think it does the topic justice. There is an article on Coastal landform that we don't have. That could feasibly replace beach, cliff, coast and peninsula but I don't think that would be good either. Carlwev (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see the reason for singling this out over the other glacial landforms I mentioned, or things like arête or U-shaped valley... the list could go on and on. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand your POV, I just think in a few cases like this one or more specific examples is better than a catch'em all phrase. I think Cirque fairly significant, the same reason we wouldn't remove mountain hill and valley and replace with landform, although an exaggeration but still says my point. Never mind, vast majority of your threads, votes and comments, I think are great and agree with, I think you've done great work on this project, but It's unlikely I'll agree 100% with someone. Keep up the good work though, and thanks for your involvement. Carlwev (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
No worries—I don't claim to be an expert in geomorphology, so I was wondering if there was a reason to prefer specifically keeping cirque. I can see the argument for keeping fjord, for example. There are situations where I also think including a number of specific examples might be better than including a poorly-defined catch-all term, but glacial landform seems to be a fairly well-organized subject. Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added - no new votes in 30 days Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Double-slit experiment

One of the most important experiments in the history of physics deserves to be a VA.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support There are lots on entries with overlap. E.g., we list several seas within seas within seas, and nobody took issue with that overlap. Also, Cobblet supported the addition of criminology, even though we already listed crime.GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't see this or any other experiment as vital. Theories impacted by the results of the experiment might be vital, but not the experiment itself. Plantdrew (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Plantdrew. Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I agree on its importance, but am a bit concerned with the overlap with wave–particle duality (the experiment being the most concrete proof of this concept), and wonder if we really need both articles. FWIW we also have Thomas Young listed under People, but since Young is known for many things besides this experiment I don't think that's an issue. Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cobblet, while I'm truly glad to see that you've returned to the VA project, I am dismayed that you start by reverting people and casting doubt on the proposals of others (see above). Why can't you just support or oppose with a detailed rationale instead of casting doubt on every prop you don't start? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
If I neither support nor oppose the proposal at this point, why should I !vote? I'm trying to show that I'm undecided on the issue, and would appreciate comments from others (especially those with a physics background) that will help me make up my mind. Isn't building consensus the point of this discussion? I thought we called them "!votes" for a reason.
I tried to explain my rationale for including both crime and criminology in that thread: why can't we include crime as well as the study of crime? The former is a fundamental element of human society; the latter, a large area of academic study. I am tolerant of overlap between articles when both cover big topics. But I don't consider wave-particle duality or double-slit experiment "big topics"; both talk about one particular aspect of quantum mechanics (which I do believe to be a "big topic"). There are dozens of scientific topics where one might conceivably argue for similarly detailed coverage. Within quantum mechanics alone, consider that we don't list such basic concepts like black-body radiation, Planck's law, Planck constant, matrix mechanics, wave function, Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics), Dirac equation, Path integral formulation, quantum state, quantum entanglement, quantum tunneling, particle in a box, Schrödinger's cat or the EPR paradox. Are we sure that wave-particle duality should essentially be covered by two articles at the expense of all these other aspects of QM? Is the significance of the double-slit experiment within the history of physics so great that it deserves to be independently included on our list? These are the kinds of questions I'd ideally like somebody with a stronger physics background than mine to answer, and if the answer is yes, I'd be pleased to support this proposal. Maybe I should've started by saying all this, but I was afraid I'd lose a lot of people that way.
@Gabe: Funny that you didn't like it when I made things "personal" by commenting on your voting patterns (even though it was directly relevant to the proposal you started), and yet you've stooped to doing the same. I dislike hypocrites. Your assertion that I "cast doubt on every prop I don't start" is blatantly false. I think this is the first time I haven't immediately supported a proposal of User:StringTheory11's. I stopped posting on all WP:VA pages nearly two months ago because of the feeling that you have some sort of vendetta against me (which is how I'd also characterize your interactions with User:Carlwev earlier last year), and had the hope if I stepped away from the project for a while, our interactions might be less contentious. How foolish I was. Your unfounded and frankly ridiculous insinuations regarding my motives, made here and elsewhere, make it impossible for me to assume you're acting in good faith toward me, and I have no interest in returning to work on this project while I see no evidence to the contrary. An apology would help enormously in that regard. Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
1) WP:TLDR, 2) No, I won't apologize to you, because, IMO, its true. Also, if I owe you an apology then you owe me one as well. I have no vendetta against you or anyone else here, but I strongly dislike it when people get controlling over the content. I think you discourage people from participating because you nit-pick 90% of all proposals. All I am asking is that you attempt to blend in with the rest of us and stop acting like the schoolmaster. Your !vote is not any more valuable then anyone else's, so please stop acting like everyone needs to convince you before their proposal can succeed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
If thought my !vote was more valuable than anyone else's, and if I thought I could use it to veto proposals I didn't like, it would only make sense for me to use it more frequently, not less. You make me sound like I'm acting irrationally when I'm not. Could it be that your interpretation of my actions is misguided?
If an interest in rational discussion makes me a "schoolmaster" and "discourages people from participating", then I refuse to "blend in" as you suggest. We could be having a fascinating discussion on what the most important topics in QM should be. If you think my attempt to start one is "TLDR" and "nitpicking"... well, you're entitled to your opinion, and if that opinion is also the consensus among the participants here, then I'll leave. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Nobody wants you to leave; that's not at all what I'm saying. All I'm trying to convey here is that, IMO, you attempt to assert your dominance by expressing doubt and concern about other people's proposals. Why not just oppose with a detailed rationale, and if the subsequent discussion sways you then change your !vote? You act, as Carl often does, like you are pondering your !vote, and that time and effort should be spent by others to convince you to agree with them. Maybe that's just my misinterpretation, but this is not a forum for you to impress upon everyone that you have a broad depth of knowledge about nearly every single topic that is ever discussed here. Of course, you can do whatever you want; its not up to me, but I am frustrated by your tactics, which I find exhausting. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
If I compare this with the study of history, this would be akin to historical materialism. Would any of you vote to include that among vital articles?
Peter Isotalo 21:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly would - a very influential theory. Neljack (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
With the current caps on articles, I don't see that this would actually work. There have to be dozens of theories like this that would have to fit, and currently, Society and social sciences doesn't even encompass major modern fields like gender studies.
Peter Isotalo 08:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived by Cobblet (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Bridges and airports

There are many significant bridges world wide, both old and new, especially with rapid modern construction in Asia. I'm not sure how many bridges we would want to settle on but at the moment we have 9 individual bridges and 3 of those are in New York, which seems unbalanced. Brooklyn Bridge is probably the most notable, do we need both George Washington Bridge and Verrazano–Narrows Bridge as well, could we remove one or both of them?

Although not my favourite ideas for additions, since we're listing transport structures, we have several bridges, a few canals and a handful of underground train networks, why not balance it with a few of the worlds most notable airports? Again not my favourite idea but why not? Airports are just as notable as bridges and subways aren't they? What do people think? Carlwev (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bridges are usually notable for their aesthetics and as technical achievements. The latter is also true of canals; they're also as significant as natural rivers are as transportation corridors (or we wouldn't build them, of course). Subways are probably somewhat less impressive from a technical point of view (although I'm sure there are those who would vehemently disagree) but the most famous ones are at least landmarks in the history of urban planning (that being said, I wouldn't oppose trimming the ones we have).
I'm not aware of an individual airport that carries the same kind of significance from a historical, technological, cultural or aesthetic point of view. I suppose one could argue that something like the TWA Flight Center at JFK is architecturally significant, but is that enough for JFK to make this list? It's also interesting to note that we don't have any ports or highways listed, and only one railway. Why we need six astronomical observatories on the other hand, I have no idea. Cobblet (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Bridge is in the vital 1000. We've expanded it here with 9 examples of bridges. so how about bridge types as well? Suspension bridge, Viaduct, Arch bridge, etc. On the one hand they are covered by bridge, but on the other, if we have 9 bridges why not bridge types? Same as was brought up with architectural styles, there are many styles/types to choose from, which ones should we pick and why, but I suppose some may stand out as more significant than others. they wouldn't be most vital things but they are far from the least vital. Should we have bridge types? Carlwev (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. (I do like bridges.) But there are probably more significant technology topics to consider first. Cobblet (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus, 1-0, with no votes in a month pbp 02:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Rajinikanth

Cited by the media as India's most popular actor. Second highest paid actor in whole of Asia.

Support
  1. Support - as nom. —Vensatry (Ping) 12:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I wonder how his legacy will compare with Raj Kapoor or Guru Dutt, neither of whom are on the list. Cobblet (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He is clearly "popular" than Kapoor and Dutt as an entertainer since Kapoor and Dutt have earned repute only as film-makers. —Vensatry (Ping) 11:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Raj Kapoor and Guru Dutt were notable both due to their acting and directing careers. Personally, I believe they have had more influence as well. But to be honest, Rajinikanth is popular in a different film industry from the same country (The Tamil film industry as opposed to Hindi Bollywood). It's like comparing apples with pears (while Hollywood would be oranges). Gizza (t)(c) 04:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. I guess the question becomes whether the Tamil film industry should be represented on this list. I'm clueless when it comes to world cinema :( Cobblet (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@DaGizza: I never said they've very little influence as actors. But their repute as directors is more than their acting careers. When it comes to acting, Dilip Kumar is much more acclaimed than Dutt and Kapoor. FYI, Rajinikanth's acting is not just confined to Tamil cinema alone. He has starred in numerous films across multiple languages in India. Further, he has a great fan following in Japan. His films have been dubbed and released in other nations like Germany too. He is not just popular inside the Tamil film industry alone. —Vensatry (Ping) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Teresa Teng

User:Maunus has argued for the inclusion of a large number of Latin musicians. Meanwhile after the removal of Yo-Yo Ma there is not a single person of East Asian extraction on the list. If diversity is a primary concern for us, then Teresa Teng has a strong case to be on here. She was the most famous Chinese musician of any kind in the 20th century, and possibly in all of Chinese history (for some reason, despite a rich musical history, the Chinese don't have much of a tradition of venerating individual musicians). Her songs (her signature being The Moon Represents My Heart) are well known throughout East and Southeast Asia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. 'Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

reopen this one, has only been open 10 days this one, I can see how it was overlooked. I will support this because I don't think the add is brilliant, but I think it's OK, I wouldn't want a 4-0 thread closed as failed I don't think it is following consensus, and I almost feel a little bad for the voters. If we are trying to be more "global" and as China has over one sixth of the world population, perhaps their top modern musician, should have a shot.  Carlwev  16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jenny Lind

I think the only singer before the recording era who might deserve a place on this list might be Farinelli, the most celebrated of the castrati. Lind is essentially remembered only as part of a publicity stunt staged by P. T. Barnum. She is not otherwise more notable than other once-famous but now-forgotten opera sopranos of the 19th century such as Thérèse Tietjens and Adelina Patti.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support The part about the Barnum stunt is incorrect as she was famous before her US tour, and in fact had several parts written for her by some of the worlds most famous composes. But still I agree, that she doesnt make the cut. And classical music is overrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  11:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Sorry, I should have said "essentially remembered today". Any modern-day reference to Lind is made almost invariably in conjunction with her US tour. Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jean-Pierre Rampal

Do we really need a classical flautist on this list? I'm not even sure Rampal's the most important flautist in history – he has to contend with Johann Joachim Quantz. Classical music has many examples of people who put their instrument on the map – classical guitar has Andrés Segovia, the horn has Dennis Brain, the double bass has Domenico Dragonetti, etc.; I'm not sure Rampal has a better or worse claim to be on this list than any of them. Also we already have several examples of woodwind instrumentalists among the jazz musicians.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. No we don't.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2014 (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, 2 support, 6 oppose, 50 days,  Carlwev  07:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Edward Snowden

Support
  1. Support as nom -A1candidate (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - Pretty vital, if you ask me. And I'd add Ellsberg also. Both have had huge impact that will last for decades beyond present day. Recentism argument fails to hold water. Again, the key word is vital. Jusdafax 05:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too soon. pbp 15:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This would be a classic case of recentism. I don't dispute the importance of Wikileaks (though the extent of its long-term effects remains unclear), but I think there are plenty of activists who have had a greater impact. Neljack (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, recentism. if we need a notable whistleblower, let it be Daniel Ellsberg.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Recentism and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Gizza (t)(c) 01:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per DaGizza. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Suzanne Lenglen

Pivotal female tennis player from France. She was arguably the first female tennis superstar and the one who put women's tennis on the map in the 1920s. She was the world's number one female tennis player for at least six years and was almost undefeated during this time. She won Wimbledon and the French Championships six times each. The French Open Women's Singles trophy is named after her (Coupe Suzanne Lenglen).

Support
  1. Support As nom.--Wolbo (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support How either Lenglen or Helen Wills are missing, the two biggest legends in women's tennis history, is a mystery. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support no strong opinion here but seems better than the other female tennis player below which this is a kind of default swap for, 4 support already shows fairly significant consensus for this.  Carlwev  13:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:Wolbo, there is a general feeling that athletes are overrepresented on this list at the expense of other types of historical figures. To pick some random examples from French history, we don't have Louis IX of France, Jean de La Fontaine or Abbé Pierre. Obviously it's not easy to compare people from totally different areas, but are there any tennis players on the list you would consider removing to make room for Lenglen? Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The only players I would put Suzanne Lenglen (or Helen Wills) behind is maybe Billy Jean King, because of King's influence on and off the court, Federer, Laver and Tilden. The first I would eliminate would be Borg, Gibson and the Williams sisters. If I were forced to pare it down to 8 players... it would be Lenglen, Wills, King, Navratilova, Tilden, Laver, Sampras and Federer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Cobblet, tough call but if I had to make room for Lenglen by eliminating one tennis player from the list it would probably be Althea Gibson. She undoubtedly has a significance as the first black tennis player of importance and she also had a fine career record with five Grand Slam titles but she is not widely seen as one of the greatest (female) players. She was not in the same league as Suzanne Lenglen (or for that matter Helen Wills or Maureen Connolly). This trade would in my view also give a better balance of nationalities and chronology.--Wolbo (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Althea Gibson

Since User:Wolbo and User:Fyunck(click) have agreed on one person to remove, I'll make the proposal here. Initially I had my doubts – Gibson's role in tennis has been compared to Jackie Robinson's in baseball – but African-American athletes actually seem to be quite well represented, and I think it's likely there are more deserving African-Americans in other fields to include on the list – W. E. B. Du Bois, Thurgood Marshall, Zora Neale Hurston, etc. Gibson's achievements don't quite measure up to those of the other tennis players we have here.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Wolbo (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - I kinda hate getting rid of anyone, but Gibson doesn't compare to the likes of Wills and Lenglen, either in numbers or in historical perspective. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I am seriously thinking about supporting the other tennis player add, seeing as 4 of you like her already, and this one is kind of a swap. How many tennis players do we really want though, I would have thought 10 or less, what number do other's think. I ask the expert among us for guidance on who the weak links may be, and who the top 10 most vital players are in order, in your opinion, so we can consider, a more enlightened opinion before making our minds up. Clearly one of us is much more knowledgeable about this topic which is very helpful. The number of tennis players is not the only sportsperson list which I'm questioning the number for either. Also would we trim sportspeople even more or keep the total number similar and just redistribute the numbers among people from different sports instead? Or leave it alone?  Carlwev  10:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I already gave my opinion on 8 players (though I don't advocate cutting it down), so it's up to others to add or subtract from my list. You have to rememeber that to most average people there is almost nothing as important as sports. They don't give a hoot that there are 62 famous physicists, 58 Philosophers, or 51 Screenwriters. Goodness we have 28 Rock musicians and 16 Asian writers just from the middle ages... not to mention 29 comedians. So for a sport like tennis that has been around since the 1870's, to have only 8 vital articles seems like a travesty. I really think 20 is closer to a good number when compared to categories I just mentioned. The thing is, even if we increased it to 20, I don't think Althea Gibson would be on my list of the most important/influential players in tennis history. Just my opinion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Carlwev's instincts. It seems crazy to me that we'd list Björn Borg over Gustav I of Sweden. Cobblet (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should certainly have Gustav over Borg. No argument there. However we have 238 writers... 52 from the US and Canada alone. We have 28 rock stars and 29 comedians. You get the rock stars, the comedians and just the American/Canadian writers down to 10 and I'll work on getting the tennis players down to 10 at the Tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Bill Moyers

Same rationale as above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Howard K. Smith

Same rationale as above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Seymour Hersh, Add Noah Webster

Investigative journalism is well represented on the list by Nellie Bly, Upton Sinclair, Ida Tarbell, and in the modern era, Bob Woodward. I think we can afford to remove Hersh to include Noah Webster, #71 on The Atlantic's 2006 list of the most influential Americans. Through his eponymous dictionary and his American Spelling Book (which taught five generations of Americans how to spell and has been estimated to have sold over 100 million copies), he is credited with "giving America a language of its own." He enthusiastically championed the cause of American nationalism through his pamphleteering and journalism (he's regarded by some as a Founding Father), and he founded New York City's first daily newspaper.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. See American and British English spelling differences, which are mainly due to Webster. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 17:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. I'll Support, I'm not 100% sure on Webster, he's pretty important. But none the less a huge improvement on Hersh.  Carlwev  10:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove John F. Burns, Add Daniel Defoe

I propose removing another relatively obscure figure (other foreign correspondents on the list are Robert Fisk and Ernie Pyle) for the man who has been credited with writing both the first modern English novel (Robinson Crusoe) and the first piece of modern journalism (The Storm).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support excellent idea, while burns has 2 pulitzer prizes he remains unknown, there must be numerous people with numerous prizes/awards left off because they still remain fairly unknown, and large in numbers compared to our space.  Carlwev  17:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 05:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Portugal

Portugal role on the global stage was larger in history, it had an empire, colonized parts of Asia, Africa and S. America. Is one of the oldest nations in the world, and made Portuguese a major language, mostly in Brazil.  Carlwev  13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support If removal is needed to balance this out, History of Romania seems less vital than Portugal. Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not all that vital. Portugal didn't exist prior to the Reconquista and only had international impact in Brazil and some places in Africa. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

How about removing History of the European Union? The EU was only created in its present form in 1993, and European history is over-represented on the list to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
split swap thread into separate add and remove threads

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sabaeans, add Canaan

Two articles about peoples/civilization in the wider ancient Middle East area.

Canaan is B-class article and exists in 58 languages, Canaan arose anywhere from 6000 BC to 3000 BC depending on definition and sources and lasted to about 500 BC, covered virtually the whole Levant, the history of a large area of people for 1000's of years spanning from nomadic stone age, and Chalcolithic prehisory to agricultural bronze age and iron age, with information about them coming from modern archaeology, and traded with and where recorded by several other civilizations texts, like Egyptians, Hittites, Sumer and Assyria.

The Sabeans were a people who around for less than 1000 years in a smaller area both sides of the Red Sea's Bab el Mandeb straight, in modern day Djibouti and Yemen, they were conquered twice by the Himyarite Kingdom which seems more notable and we don't have. Their history is harder to come by and half our articles history on them is quoted from the Quran and the book of Job, Sabiens is a start class article and appears in 23 languages. Smaller in area, smaller in time span and smaller in available historical texts to read from.  Carlwev  18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Might support adding Canaan by itself, but it's not so clear to me that the Sabaeans aren't vital, or are any less vital than the Himyarites. The Sabaeans predate the Himyarites by 500-1000 years and were the first dominant political entity in ancient Yemen; the Himyarites essentially succeeded them in this role. Will also note that the history of Canaan from about the 10th century BC onwards is well covered in Phoenicia and History of ancient Israel and Judah. Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

If you're looking for something to swap with, I'd ask whether we need Pharaoh when I don't think we have any other articles on generic rulers of a specific civilization – no Roman emperor or Roman Senate for instance (or Senate for that matter). Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Korea

The concept and modern nations of North and South Korea have only existed since World War 2. But Korea has existed in some form since Ancient times. I know I have good and bad ideas but this is one I truly believe is very vital. We have Korea Strait and Korean Peninsula, both of which are less vital and could go in a swap if people prefer. Here and probably print encyclopedias most relevant info is/would be at Korea not Korean Peninsula. I don't think it's redundant to the nations as we would remove Scandinavia, British Isles, Great Britain or Ireland as we also have the nations of those regions too. Plus the nations are relatively young compared to Korea. The history, culture, language of Korea is huge, and usually covered as a single entity not two. (Eg here we have history of Korea, not history of North and South Korea.) I suggested it as a swap in July see here for an Antarctic Territory, in fact it was closed as failed with 6-3 support, which would actually be a pass now. I am also considering some removals from geography like peninsulas that may be redundant like Scandinavian, and Korean peninsulas. Carlwev (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Wolbo (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support swap with the peninsula per below. Gizza (t)(c) 04:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - We currently have North Korea, South Korea, and the Korean Peninsula. Why do we need Korea when there is no Korean land that is not part of either North or South Korea, which are also entirely contained within the Korean Peninsula? I know that the history of Korea is longer than the two nations that now encompass it, but that can be said about every single nation on Earth. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

OK thank you for your input. Only I always thought Korea to be a very significant region, if you use only that logic, one cold argue we should have no region at all anywhere that is not a nation, as every patch of ground everywhere is covered by a nation. No Scandinavia, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Caribbean, Latin America, England, Great Britain etc.

The article on Korea seems so much better to have than Korean Peninsula, at least to me. To alleviate that problem, would this work as a swap for the peninsula then? Would that be better? I may suggest that instead. Or do you think this is best left alone? Carlwev (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, its not really a great reason to remove, but Korean Peninsula is currently a very marginal article, whereas Korea is quite developed. If we are to have overlap in this area, I suggest that we include North and South Korea and Korea, but not Korean Peninsula. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Korean Peninsula

In terms of geographic extent, Korea and the Korean Peninsula are completely contiguous with one another. It's just that the latter is strictly a geomorphological term while the former can refer to the culture as well. Any discussion of a culture must include its geographical context, so I think including a separate article on the peninsula isn't necessary. It's like having both Korea and Geography of Korea (which could easily be merged with the article on the peninsula).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support only if Korea replaces it, but yes Carlwev (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support to be replaced by Korea Wolbo (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support if Korea is added. Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I was just starting a swap thread in another tab but you beat me to it. I support the remove, only if Korea itself is added. Supporting a swap in 2 halves as it were, same thing. As Gabe said the article on Korea is much better written and fleshed out, and it's what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia, and agree with Cobblet's comments too. Carlwev (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As I nor anyone else has actually put up a direct swap, may I politely remind people such as Wolbo, if you wish to replace Korean Peninsula with Korea like I do, as your comment suggests you do, you may wish to vote for adding Korea as well, as they are two separate threads. It's possible in the future the add thread may be closed as failed with out your support vote, although you've said you want to replace it, it may be overlooked with out a proper vote.  Carlwev  11:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Nephew and niece

For extended family relationships we already list cousin, aunt and uncle. I don't think we need this too—it would be like listing grandchildren in addition to grandparents. Indeed the article itself is very weak.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 BBC World News

It's listed under programs but it's a channel, not a program, and we don't need it when we already have BBC.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support One BBC article out of 10,000 is enough. Gizza (t)(c) 10:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev 
  4. Support GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Yes as it's a channel not a show, if we had a channel wouldn't it be BBC1? but no that's redundant to BBC also. Seeing as we removed all networks other than BBC, we can't leave 2 BBC slots. For TV/film, could we have Documentary film or Movie theater as a replacement?  Carlwev  11:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Both look like worthwhile additions. Cobblet (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added to Mass media 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Documentary film

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support adding to mass media. Cobblet (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Wolbo (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

To mass media or film? One of the basic program and film formats. There are lots of documentaries about many many things on terrestrial and cable/satellite television, and some in theatres too. Cable/satellite TV have lots of channels dedicated to just documentaries. Some very notable people are known primarily from documentaries, such as David Attenborough. While maybe no single documentary film, program, series or channel may be worth including, I believe the overall topic is.

If we include over 100 fiction film actors in addition to many film directors, should we have a person from the documentary film area? I've had my mind on David Attenborough, a decorated "Sir" of over 60 years work. Anyone like the idea of him, I believe him more notable than most journalists, some of which are going, both areas document things, one news and the other nature.  Carlwev  11:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Would certainly support the inclusion of David Attenborough.Wolbo (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Starfish

Starfish is today's featured article, I thought I'd check if we have it and we don't. Much more important than half the plants, bugs and insects we have. Interesting to general readers and experts. Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Other essential invertebrate articles we're missing include Echinoderm and Sponge. Cobblet (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support agree with nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support' Plantdrew (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Echinoderm

Recommended by Cobblet, but I agree this. Sponge and Echinoderm are important, well known and missing animal phyla, with several insects and plants being removed soon, I believe we would improve the list by adding these. Nothing really covers these well at the moment apart from the very wide articles "animal" and "invertebrate". Carlwev (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Pretty big phylum (~7000 species); includes sea urchins and sea cucumbers (which themselves are worth considering as additions) as well as starfish. Cobblet (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support' Plantdrew (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Wolbo (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sponge

Support
  1. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support A phylum with nearly 10,000 species. Cobblet (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support' Plantdrew (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Solifugae

A relatively minor order of arachnids (~1000 species). All larger orders (ticks and mites, spiders, harvestmen, pseudoscorpions, scorpions) are on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Wolbo (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both emoved 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Diplura

A minor order (~800 species) within Entognatha, which is also on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Protura

A minor order (~700 species) within Entognatha, which is also on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Leech

Earthworm and Flatworm got more support than I expected, Leeches I think are important, with their use in medicine for thousands of years making them more notable. There are 700 species known, which not the highest compared to other groups we do list smaller groups like tsetse fly with 23 species, or many many individual species of birds and mammals. Carlwev (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Tetra

Tetra is a common name for fish in 3 different families, many of which are popular aquarium fishes. The article is essentially a list of species to which the common name is applied. This is not vital article material. Articles on the "tetra" species most important to aquarium hobbyists (e.g. Neon tetra) would be more appropriate for inclusion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  • Agree Tetra is not vital, although still not hugely vital neon tetra would be better. The general topic of interest is Aquarium which we have, I added to recreation, near zoo, a long time ago. Fishkeeping is also a mildly interesting article to consider before having over 100 fish. Carlwev (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 sixteen fish orders

Specifically barreleye, batrachoididae, cetomimiformes, beardfish, beryciformes, gonorynchiformes, gymnotiformes, esociformes, gasterosteiformes, gobiesocidae, jellynose fish, lampriformes, percopsiformes, stephanoberyciformes, synbranchiformes, zeiformes. These orders contain between 10 and 200 species (for comparison, there are currently about 33,000 fish species known), and some of them are already represented on the list by a particular genus or species. None of these orders look particularly vital in an ecological, economic or evolutionary sense. There's the occasional species, genus or family that's fished commercially – Zeidae for example – but when we're also missing things like menhaden, shad, Sciaenidae, Scomberesocidae or hake (to name some random examples off this list of commercially important species), I don't think we're removing anything terribly important.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Building the organism section of the vital list by top down inclusion of high taxonomic ranks is not the way to go. Orders are fairly important taxonomically, but not every fish order is vital, although it appears that every fish order is currently on the vital list. Stephanoberyciformes are "45... mostly uncommon deep-sea species with little, if any, importance to commercial fishery". That's not a subject that is vital article material. In my mind, there are 3 general ways an article on an organism might be vital: evolutionary significance, ecological significance and human significance. And human significance generally outweighs ecological which usually outweighs evolutionary. Orders (and families and phyla) are de facto evolutionarily significant groups of organisms, but I'd argue that species number is another aspect of evolutionary significance (a family with 10,000 species is probably more important than an order with 45). Ecological significance depends on how widely distributed organisms are across the globe, how common they are in the areas they occur, and their interactions with other important organisms. Human significance should really be the kicker for whether something is on the vital list (I assume we're writing an encyclopedia for humans to read). That can take a number of forms; organisms significant to humans could be pets, food sources, disease vectors, national symbols, model organisms in lab research, or even just marvels of nature.

Stephanoberyciformes are not evolutionarily significant (45 species), ecologically significant ("mostly uncommon"), or significant to humans "deep-sea...little if any, importance to commercial fishery", and the other nominated orders are pretty similar. Several of the nominated orders are deep sea fishes, and I'd rather see deep sea fish on the vital list (as a general interest broad concept article covering some "marvels of nature") than listing every taxonomically minor order of fishes.Plantdrew (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, because I was wondering if there was such an article. I decided not to include Aulopiformes and Stomiiformes in this proposal precisely because I didn't want to remove all deep-sea fishes, and also because these two orders are a bit larger than the ones listed above. And thank you for articulating how you're deciding whether certain taxa are important – it will be a useful reference point for me when I check the rest of the fishes. Cobblet (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Deep sea fish

To complement the proposed removal above which includes several predominantly deep sea fish orders (barreleye, cetomimiformes, beardfish, beryciformes, jellynose fish, lampriformes, stephanoberyciformes). Deep sea fish is a broad concept article that is of more general interest. Deep sea fishes include many wonderously bizarre organisms that aren't vital individually, but may be of sufficient interest to be vital collectively. The deep sea is by far the largest habitat on earth, and the fish that live there are (by some measures) the most ecologically dominant organisms in that habitat.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I agree with this, the same way an article like seabird, is good instead of having several or one seabird. Deep sea fish article looks good not in many languages but maybe they may follow?? general wide topic is better than picking or two in this case, although anglerfish and lanternfish (possibly 65% of deep sea biomass, surprising) are not bad. Deep sea fish would be good if we do or do not list any examples.  Carlwev  20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, anglerfish is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
removed, 20 days, 6-0 support,  Carlwev  10:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Celeriac

I haven't got much to say on this other than, it's a variety of celery which we already have, I'm not sure how many slots we want for plants or food but I don't think this one is the most vital within our current space. There must be a few more important species and foods or drinks we don't have. Champagne anyone?

Support
  1. Support as nom  Carlwev  08:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. I dont like celery.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. I like celery but a particular variety of celery is too specific. Gizza (t)(c) 02:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dagko (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I might support this but I want to find some production statistics first. Celeriac is a variety of celery in the same way that cabbage is a variety of broccoli; they are different vegetable varieties of the same plant species. Cabbage, broccoli and Brassica oleracea each have separate articles. Celery and Apium graveolens are at the same article. While celery is by far the most common A. graveolens vegetable in North American supermarkets, I understand that celeriac is pretty common in continental Europe, and Chinese celery is more common in Asia (and not exactly rare in Europe). And I'm open to considering that celery/Apium graveolens doesn't belong on the vital list either; the list of vegetables could certainly be cut further. Plantdrew (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It turns out FAO doesn't bother to track production stats for any variety of A. graveolens (and a couple references I've been using that attempt to quantify the most important food plants don't have it either). I definitely support removing celeriac now, and am increasingly leaning towards removing celery as well. Plantdrew (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
swapped, 20 days, 6-0 support,  Carlwev  10:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Edible seaweed, add Seaweed

Not sure why we would edible seaweed before seaweed itself. The seaweed article covers biological information the edible article does not plus it contains sections about its use as food anyway and other uses in industry like fertilizer. The Japanese and Korean language Wikipedias, areas where seaweed is perhaps more widely eaten, do not even have a separate distinct article for specifically edible seaweed, only seaweed itself, and some edible varieties like Arame.  Carlwev  09:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 14:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lemnoideae (duckweed)

A subfamily of only 30 species. Very minor importance as food for humans, some importance as food for wildlife. They do occur throughout the world, but these really aren't very important plants overall.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Dagko (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cyperus esculentus

Fairly minor importance as a food plant. A significant agricultural weed, but I'm not sure it is vital as a weed (and weed ought to be added to vital list before any particular plant is a "vital weed").

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We already include Eleocharis dulcis as an example of a food plant in this family. We also have a couple of weeds from other families (dandelion, goldenrod). Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Dagko (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

If weed were added, where should it go? Under plants? Agriculture? Plantdrew (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ecology is also a possibility, but maybe just plants is best. Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added 6-0 support 18 days  Carlwev  07:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Land

This is already on the level 2 and 3 lists: it's the terrestrial complement of sea.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Clearly vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Linen

Add Linen to textiles. To replace Linens in everyday life. Not up there with cotton or silk but important; important enough though? lets see, much better choice than linens though. Carlwev (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Dagko (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Flax was recently added after this discussion. I'm not sure that including both flax and linen is necessary, but don't have any strong opinion about which to include if only one is listed. Here is a link to some production statistics for natural fibers. Plantdrew (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jute

If we're going to add linen as a natural fiber then we definitely need jute, which is second only to cotton in terms of world production.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  21:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Big omission. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_23&oldid=1086387270"