Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 42

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles | Level/4
Latest comment: 9 years ago by DaGizza in topic FAR
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar

When I saw the list of scientists, I saw that one of the major name whose major contribution was in astrophysics, was missing from the list. Chandrasekhar worked in various areas, including stellar structure, theory of white dwarfs, stellar dynamics, theory of radiative transfer, quantum theory of the Hydrogen anion, hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic stability, equilibrium and the stability of ellipsoidal figures of equilibrium, general relativity, mathematical theory of black holes and theory of colliding gravitational waves. He was awarded the 1983 Nobel Prize for Physics for his mathematical theory of black holes, which was a key discovery that led to the currently accepted theory on the later evolutionary stages of massive stars. So, I propose his name to be included in the list.

Support
  1. Support : as nom. Logical1004 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support CrystalClear (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

@Logical1004:, would you consider Chandrasekhar more vital than C. V. Raman? Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I was going to propose both, but forgot. Thnx for reminding. Logical1004 (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
He's at least more vital than Saul Perlmutter, who was leader of just one of the two teams who independently and almost simultaneously discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe. OTOH I think the most notable omission from the list of astronomers is definitely William Herschel. Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Middle kingdoms of India

South Asia's history in the post-classical era is bizarrely underrepresented – West, Central and Southeast Asia each get 7-8 articles but South Asia gets only 3. I suggest adding the overview article for this period of India's history as a first step toward fixing this imbalance. I'd like to pick some specific states or events to add, but frankly this period of Indian history is too complicated for me to understand well enough to make reasonable suggestions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I understand your concerns but the Middle Kingdoms articles is probably too listy to be vital. Gurjara-Pratihara and Hoysala Empire are options for the North and South respectively. Other choices include Chera kingdom and Pala Empire. Although a bit before this time period, Sramana would be a good choice for non-political or military history. Gizza (t)(c) 04:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 05:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add George Washington Bridge

It's the most heavily traveled bridge in the world with almost 300,000 vehicles traveling across it daily. It is also the primary bridge between New Jersey and New York, and as part of Interstate 95, is part of the Atlantic superhighway. The bridge is also a double-decked bridge, a style of bridge rarely seen in the world except in populated metro area like New York. The bridge is also a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark as an 83 year-old bridge. The bridge is also almost a mile long in length.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Removed earlier this year. Having two decks does not make a bridge vital – from an engineering standpoint it does not make much of a difference. Passenger traffic alone does not make a transportation system vital. There are over 260 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks in the US – that is also not an argument for vitality. Cobblet (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 05:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Samarinda, Add Yogyakarta

None of Borneo's cities, be they Samarinda, Pontianak, Banjarmasin, Kuching or Kota Kinabalu, are all that important; if we had to add something back on the subject of Borneo's human geography I'd suggest Sabah and Sarawak. But I think the most important cultural centre of Indonesia needs to be added first. It is famous for the goods it produces (batik and silverwork), its temples (Borobudur and Prambanan) and its history (location of the Medang Kingdom, one of Indonesia's earliest; and played an essential role in Indonesia's fight for independence). Frankly, it is more vital than half the Indonesian cities we list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Alternatively we could add Borobudur but this is still a good swap. Gizza (t)(c) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not increased 1-4 after 30 days. Jucchan (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Increase quota of philosophy and religion from 425 to 445 for all the suggested essential deity articles

We need to represent most of the individual mythologies with the appropriate amount of articles in each mythology, and for all the possible new articles we should take a total of about 20 slots from other sections and transfer it to the philosophy and religion section. Any ideas on which sections should be deprived of quota size?Gonzales John (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's important to consider that many mythological traditions do not even have their main article listed such as Berber mythology and Polynesian Mythology. Note that these are just examples and there are many equally significant traditions not listed. Providing a balanced coverage of mythology with representation across the world but at the same time giving more weight to those mythologies that been more influential and with longer and stronger legacies will be challenging. Gizza (t)(c) 13:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Some of the very broad mythology sections should probably receive better coverage. The Native American mythology section only contains North American deities and concepts. A deity from South America like Wiraqocha or Pachamama (whose worship has been merged with Mother Mary) could be added. Also, following on from my earlier point, it will be strange if historical/extinct mythologies confined to one small part of the world have the same number of articles as major world religions. Something has to give. Gizza (t)(c) 13:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I Oppose to this, as I don't think as many deities should be added as you suggested. With two/three more Greek deities being removed soon, I think we have plenty of room to add more deities - around six of them. Unless, of course, if we are planning to add more religious topics, I don't think we need to increase our quota, and definitely not extensively ~Mable (chat) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as well. The philosophy and religion quota looks fine right where it is. I don't see why any of the additions you've proposed to the mythology section are must-haves, and suspect that for each of those cultures you are trying to represent with a deity there is something more mundane and essential besides mythological figures that we should add first. For example, for the Berbers the Almohad Caliphate or couscous should be considered; for Eastern Europe there's icon or caviar; for Persia, Iranian philosophy or Persian carpet; for Korea there's Yin and yang or Gyeongju; for Egypt there's falafel or Mount Sinai; for the Celts, Celtic languages or Isle of Man; for Australian Aborigines, dingo or dreamtime. Cobblet (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose This is not an underrepresented field.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose we cover philosophy and religion well enough. Jucchan (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 2-3 after 30 days. Jucchan (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Berber mythology

As to increase the variety of articles we list, listing the Berber mythology would be a good addition. Currently, there are around 30 millions Berber people, an ethnicity indigenous to North Africa. Influenced by various African mythologies as well as Islam and Arab mythology, the Berber mythology is an interesting mix of various historical beliefs. Mainly, listing the entirety of the Berber mythology gives a much wider image of mythology as a whole then any specific deity can.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. SupportGonzales John (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I see no reason to prefer this over adding the mythology of every similarly-sized ethnic group. Cobblet (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

We may not need Korean mythology on the list too. How distinct is it from Chinese mythology, Japanese mythology and Shamanism? Gizza (t)(c) 03:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 1-3 after 30 days. Jucchan (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Perun, Rod (god), Lada (goddess), and Marzanna

Necessary to represent Slavic mythology.Gonzales John (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my comments above. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:37, 30 December 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
Not added 1-3 after 30 days. Jucchan (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Sansin, and Gashin

Necessary to represent Korean mythology.Gonzales John (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my comments above. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:39, 30 December 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
Not added 1-3 after 30 days. Jucchan (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Cernunnos, Grannus, Lugh, Sulis, Sucellus, Epona, Taranis, and Matronae

Seemingly the most significant figures in Celtic Polytheism.Gonzales John (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Celtic peoples, or Celtic mythology would be enough.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my comments above. Celts and Celtic polytheism are listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

We can't possibly add all of these - Celtic mythology on its own is simply not vital enough to include so many articles. I'd suggest cutting at least half of the out and see what we can do with what's left. Then again, my knowledge of Celtic Polytheism is quite limited. ~Mable (chat) 13:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Already cut out half of the deities.Gonzales John (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, Celtic mythology is not that important to the modern day Celts. I don't think anybody in the UK, Ireland or France learns about Celtic mythology in the earlier stages of education to a significant degree. If the Celts themselves don't care that much, how could the rest of the world? Also subsets of Celtic mythology like Irish mythology are probably more vital just like Norse mythology is more vital than Germanic mythology. Brigid for example is more well known than any of these deities and whose worship has survived and been syncretized with the saint in Irish Catholicism. And we have leprechaun and Loch Ness Monster which is adequate IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Jason add Medea (play)

There are only two greek tragedies in the literature section, Aeschylus' Oresteia and Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, Euripides is not represented inspite of the fact that his Medea is the most performed tragedy over the past two centuries, and in spite of being considered "the most tragic of the tragedians". Jason is a minor figure in Greek mythology, and today is mostly known exactly for his role in Euripides' Medea.

Support
  1. Support: User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Mable (chat) 20:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 05:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Academic journal

Vital in the advancement of all scientific disciplines and therefore vital for the knowledge of mankind.--Melody Lavender 11:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender 11:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Add academia and article (publishing) first. Gizza (t)(c) 10:56, 25 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Problem solving

Basic ability that should be taught during education. Not sure if this is the right category. Problem solving is a very basic human ability that has an effect on human life in many area. Might fit better in psychology. --Melody Lavender 11:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender 11:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This is slightly covered under cognition. And there are related topics at a similar level of vitality like decision making. Not quite as well-defined as memory or knowledge. Hard to say. Gizza (t)(c) 05:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-1 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Military logistics

We don't have many logistics topics and military logistics is really the least vital of them all. The Military section is well covered, there is more on the topic in the technology sector, and this is one of the weakest articles. MilHist Project hasn't given it much attention and it hasn't rated its importance. Gets a sensational 1 (in words: one) page hits per day. --Melody Lavender 21:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Melody Lavender 21:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Military science should cover the more technical aspects of the military (logistics, military intelligence, military education and training, etc.) in sufficient detail for our purposes. Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per Cobblet. The page view claim is wrong though. In month of December when this was proposed, the article received more than 5000 views (not one per day). Gizza (t)(c) 07:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. This is indeed vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

This is weird, somewhere in the back of my mind, I keep hearing that it is the most important aspect of grand strategic warfare, but the article indeed does not reflect that... Perhaps it's simply not vital because of strategy or something along those lines? I'm simply perplexed to see it here...~Mable (chat) 19:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Spinal Cord

A vital part of the nervous system that is way too significant and important not to be listed here.Gonzales John (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom. Gonzales John (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  09:54, 31 December 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Uterus

The body part where embryos grow and develop into babies. Surely this is a topic too significant and vital not to be included.Gonzales John (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, seems like an obvious addition. ~Mable (chat) 10:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 21:27, 24 December 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
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 23:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Genetically modified crops

Extremely important to modern agriculture, includes everything from Roundup Ready varieties, Bt varieties (which have reduced insecticide spray use), virus resistant papaya (almost all papayas grown in Hawaii are GMO virus resistant), and even golden rice.

Support
  1. support as nom. (proposal submitted by: Sarr Cat
  2. support --Melody Lavender 18:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportGonzales John (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose GMO is sufficient. Adding this will create a layer of redundancy with genetically modified food, genetically modified mammal and everything else in Category:Genetically modified organisms. Gizza (t)(c) 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Subsumed by GMOs. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Please nominator - sign and support your proposal. --Melody Lavender 18:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried typing just genetically modified, it redirects to genetically modified organism. Would this be better? at first glance it looks like it maybe? We also have Genetic engineering at lev 3 and 4. But it's an important topic so could have more than 1 article. Maybe we could have the crop and organism articles?  Carlwev  19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should have that in addition and proposed it here. I believe we should have both, GMO in the biotechnology section, and the crops in the food section which I'd like to combine with the agriculture section.--Melody Lavender 08:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-2, swapped Gizza (t)(c) 23:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Twitter, Add Text messaging

This form of communication is older than email (telex) and is just as common nowadays. A number of people have suggested removing Twitter: perhaps replacing the company with its raison d'être is the way to go.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support See also List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users. It is nowhere near being the most active virtual community. Gizza (t)(c) 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support both, though Twitter should probably be added again if we do start a section dedicate to currently important subjects. ~Mable (chat) 08:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  08:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Instead move Twitter to the popculture section which I've proposed to create.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removing Twitter. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

"I'm not sure if we need text messaging along with short message service (SMS)" ....Just so you know we don't have short message service (SMS), I don't think we ever have, and I believe it's never been proposed either, although it may have been mentioned in discussions.  Carlwev  17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I have no idea why I thought SMS was listed when it isn't. I've updated my vote and rationale. Gizza (t)(c) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus, no votes after 30+ days Gizza (t)(c) 00:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Atropatene, Add Wars of the Diadochi

Atropatene is just one of the many satrapies that were formed after the collapse of Alexander the Great's empire. I propose replacing it with the article on the wars that led to its creation, which occurred over a 47-year period and radically transformed the geopolitics of the Middle East.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support this is an improvement. Gizza (t)(c) 22:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I definitely agree that the Wars of the Diadochi are more vital than Atropatene, but shouldn't the wars that initiated the spread of Hellenistic culture be even more vital? Sure, it's a bit redundant to Alexander the Great himself, but we do list Napoleon along with the Napoleonic Wars and Hernán Cortés along with the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire. Malerisch (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I would support Malerisch's suggestion. If Macedonian Empire had its own article, it would be another article to consider. Gizza (t)(c) 13:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add The Time Machine

If time travel is included, then the book that created and popularized the concept of travelling through time using a time machine should be included. Also, aside from being one of the first science fiction novels in general, it has also been regarded as a political book, used by Wells to protest against the status of society back then (there was no middle class; only significantly different upper and lower classes)(from the supplementary material in a "illuminated by practical scholarship" edition of The time Machine by Benjamin Beard and Cynthia Brantley Johnson).Gonzales John (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Weak support, I love the book and know it's a classic, but don't know very well how vital it was. Seems a good addition. ~Mable (chat) 08:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Subsumed by time travel and H. G. Wells. Cobblet (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, I forgot we had H.G. Wells himself, which makes this addition redundant, even if both the novel and the author are huge on their own. ~Mable (chat) 09:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet and Mable. The inclusion of time travel if anything makes this more redundant than before. Gizza (t)(c) 10:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 20:21, 29 December 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.
no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Ahura Mazda, Ahriman, Rostam, Zahhak, and Kaveh the Blacksmith

Necessary to represent Persian mythology.Gonzales John (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Mazda only. Jucchan (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Ahura Mazda only as one of the world's earliest known monotheistic conceptions of God and one that was subsequently influential on many world religions. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Zoroastrianism would be enough. Might support Ahura MAzda alone.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per my comments above. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose all except Mazda. Jucchan (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Maybe it fits better under the religion of Zoroastrianism rather than Persian mythology but I would have Ahura Mazda listed before all of these articles. Gizza (t)(c) 12:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Dashavatara

Essential article about Hindu mythology.Gonzales John (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose No rationale. Clearly not one of the main Hinduism topics. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 22:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Dashavatara could well be redundant to avatar. The biggest hole in Hinduism/Hindu mythology currently is the lack of goddesses. Goddess worship is very prominent in the religion. The next to be added would be Durga or Lakshmi. To be honest, both of them should be listed before Brahma who can be removed in case space needs to be made. Gizza (t)(c) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gizza's suggestions definitely seem more vital. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Is Caste system on the list, if no I think it is a lot more vital than any further deities or theological concepts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is. Cobblet (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
There are three articles related to the Indian caste system currently, that is caste system in India, Dalit and Varna (Hinduism). Four if you count the biography of Ambedkar. I think that is sufficient. There is also the general caste article and the Four Occupations of the Chinese class system. There are no other local caste/class articles listed right now. Gizza (t)(c) 23:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Demeter

Definitely more significant than Ares and Hermes, both of whom are included. Even though Greek-Roman mythology is very over-represented, Medea is likely to be removed, so I think it is just fine to add Demeter. Also, Demeter seems more significant than most of the heroes listed. User:Gonzales John 23 December 2014

Support
  1. Support as nom. User:Gonzales John 23 December 2014
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, seems like a very fair addition, especially now that two more Greek removals have been suggested. ~Mable (chat) 14:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not necessary, we have enough ancient Greece, not that vital among Greek gods - I think both Hermes and Ares are more significant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzales John (talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Maunus:Demeter is more significant than those two because: she is usually regarded as one of the original five godly children of the mythological being Kronos; she is usually regarded as one of Zeus's consorts; agriculture is a more important aspect of life than communication (Hermes' domain), and Ares' cult is much less significant than his female counterpart Athena's or his Roman counterpart Mars' and therefore seemingly less important than Demeter's (furthermore, Ares' role in mythology is limited, and when he appears he usually suffers, and he doesn't really have much value), and Demeter is the central figure of the Eleusinian Mysteries, a vital ceremony; also, she is not redundant with the mysteries since she had more roles in mythology than that.User:Gonzales John

@Gonzales John: as you say Greek mythology in general is over-represented. I prefer removing a few more Greek deities and heroes before adding some. There are living mythologies with virtually no representation and should be of a higher priority. Alternatively, we can raise the philosophy and religion quota from 425 to 450. Then there might be space for a tiny increase to Greek mythology but most of the increase should go to other sections of the list. That would mean reducing the quota from somewhere else though. Gizza (t)(c) 01:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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


NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 days. Jucchan (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add high culture and low culture

No doubt they are crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital. I dont think Low culture is even a concept.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. High culture had been nominated before but failed (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_37).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 2-3 after 30 days. Jucchan (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add human nature

It is indeed a crucial psychological article.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support only if Nature vs Nurture doesn't get added. ~Mable (chat) 09:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose since no rationale is given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose nature vs nurture was added. No need for this. Gizza (t)(c) 05:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Human nature is much more a phylosophical concept than a psychological one. Regardless, I have to think about it. ~Mable (chat) 09:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Add Evaluative diversity or "evaluativism"

Is it really possible to have a concept of a society without a concept of variation in values among its members? Twin study after twin study after twin study has demonstrated that variation in values is somewhat heritable. Evaluative diversity is even seen in non-human species, and among computer algorithms. Societies include people of diverse evaluative types (whether you call them political orientations, or moral personalities, or vocational inclinations), and societies segregate and discriminate based on such diversity, as with racial diversity. Crucially, sexism and racism must be distinguished from evaluativism, lest we create sexist and racist stereotypes. Academia is nebulous, so it can include this vital concept without settling on any single name for it, but the list of vital articles will be incomplete if it does not pick a name. Langchri (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the article is currently in AfD because it relies heavily on primary sources and might not even be notable? The article is either low- or mid-importance on its Wikiprojects. I don't believe the term is used much either, though I can't say that I have read enough about it to make any decisions. ~Mable (chat) 09:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The article is now deleted. The topic was judged to be original research and is clearly not notable let alone vital. I'll be bold and close this early. Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0 after 15+ days, added Gonzales John (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Move Wood to Technology

Wood is usually used to refer to the dead material harvested from tree trunks, and thus, it would be better to move it to technology, since wood is an extremely important tool. Besides, it is listed under technology in the level 3 list, so to avoid confusion, we should move it there.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gonzales John (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Mable (chat) 10:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support This could go either way but on level 3 it definitely looks better under materials than under biology. Cobblet (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 23:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Taxonomy (biology) add Systematics

Biological systematics fully includes Taxonomy.

Support
  1. Support As nom. --Igel B TyMaHe (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support adding systematics. Gizza (t)(c) 13:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support adding systematics. Plantdrew (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. ~Mable (chat) 13:16, 22 December 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.
no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 22:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Pelycosaur and Therapsid

It seems odd that Dimetrodon is listed, but the group it falls under is not, and if Pelycosaur if added , then Therapsid, which includes the group of synapsids between Pelycosaurs and mammals, should also be included. Gonzales John 23 December 2014

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gonzales John 23 December 2014
Oppose
Discussion

Sometimes the genus is much more notable than the taxonomic groups it belongs to. I'd rather see taxa of dinosaurs or other Mesozoic-Era reptiles added rather than these. Cobblet (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Therapsid seems stronger than Pelycosaur but it's too hard to have an opinion when the organism section is in a state of flux. Gizza (t)(c) 22:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, swapped Gizza (t)(c) 22:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Endive, Add Vanilla

Endive is not a particularly significant plant anywhere in the world. It is related to the more well known chicory which is already listed. Like ninja, vanilla is a word that is frequently mentioned but not many have a good understanding of the plant and flavour extracted from it, which is the job of an encyclopedia. Gizza (t)(c) 02:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support,  Carlwev  07:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Strong support ~Mable (chat) 09:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I don't think chicory is vital either. Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Vanilla is a better choice for the vital list than endive, but as the vanilla article is currently scoped, it's about the flavoring, not really plant itself (Vanilla planifolia). Consider putting it in with the other food products in the everyday life section, perhaps? Or put it under plants with the other herbs and spices? It certainly fits in herbs and spices, but it's just about the only thing in a typical spice cabinet that isn't ground up seeds or leaves. Plantdrew (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The flavor is definitely more vital than the plant itself. Where to add it is a good question, and I'd support putting it in the herbs and spices section. I don't really know where to put it, but the important thing is that it gets added. ~Mable (chat) 10:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MIXED
Fire moved 5-1, Electricity failed 1-6 Gonzales John (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Move Fire and Electricity to Technology

Fire is already covered under chemistry through Combustion. Both fire and electricity should be listed under technology since that is where they are listed at in the level 2 and level 3 lists.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gonzales John (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support fire, neutral electricity - I'll think about that one... Oppose electricity ~Mable (chat) 10:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support moving fire. Oppose moving electricity – I think that should be moved under Science on the other lists. Cobblet (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support fire. Oppose electricity. The technology equivalent of electricity is electronics which is already in tech. Electricity is also a natural phenomenon. Gizza (t)(c) 00:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support fire, Oppose electricity. Jucchan (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Both fire and electricity happen naturally. They should not be under technology because humans did not create fire or electricity, only learning to manipulate it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Quartzite

Non-notable variety of quartz. Low-importance to WikiProject Geology. The only vital varieties are opal and quartz itself. In fact, amethyst and jasper are better known quartz varieties because of their use in jewellery though still not vital.

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support, I agree, the overarching article for these topics simply isn't vital itself. I'd rather have amethyst itself in than Quartzite. Such an inclusion would probably be inconceivable, though. ~Mable (chat) 10:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support The most notable missing type of rock is probably shale. Important missing minerals include the fertilizer salts phosphate and potash, and the basic rock-forming minerals olivine, amphibole (better known to a non-technical audience as hornblende) and calcite. Cobblet (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 15:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Screwdriver

Subsumed by screw (simple machine). We don't list wrench in addition to nut (hardware) either.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Both are vital in my opinion, and wrench should be listed as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0, but in a different section pbp 15:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Bag

We list no containers of any kind. Pouches made of natural skins or fibres have existed since the beginning of civilization; paper bags date to the Tang Dynasty; plastic bags are currently the scum of the Earth (literally).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  20:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:24, 30 December 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.
PASSED
Added, 6-0, but under Textiles pbp 17:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Basket weaving

Basketry is one of the oldest technologies and is attested in many civilizations. Bags are a kind of non-rigid container; let's add a rigid container as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Non-modern technology is underrepresented in parts of the list. Gizza (t)(c) 23:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support pbp 17:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove JAXA

Less notable than the other space exploration agencies.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support indeed. Somehow JAXA made it onto the list before Soviet Space Program and Russian Federal Space Agency. See Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_27#Add_Soviet_space_program. Gizza (t)(c) 01:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Looking at these space agencies from another perspective, they're the only subtopics we have on the governments of specific nations. We list no other types of government agencies and no political parties, and IMO this could be considered a technological bias. Why is the China National Space Administration more vital than the Communist Party of China, for example? Malerisch (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I think we're in this situation because we've informally allocated a certain number of articles to the space and politics sections. There is room for some space agencies in a list of around 40 articles while there is no room for any governments in a list of 60-70 political articles. This is due to there being many more theoretical topics in politics than space technology. Governments won't come in unless there are more than 100 articles about politics. Some of the agencies have vitality that goes beyond the nation's government, in particular NASA and the Soviet Space Program. Their achievements are giant leaps for all of mankind but for the others, not so much. Gizza (t)(c) 23:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd probably take that as a sign that space technology is bloated or at least needs to be balanced with the rest of the list. We list a telescope that hasn't even been launched yet and several specific space vehicles like Proton and Soyuz when we don't list any other types of specific vehicles like cars (Ford Model T) or aircraft (North American P-51 Mustang or Boeing 747), which I don't think are any less important. Malerisch (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd support those removals. The James Webb Space Telescope is probably a case of recentism. I think it was added before the project got delayed. Proton and Soyuz feel too niche to be vital. As you say, on par with the Boeing 747. Gizza (t)(c) 01:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-1 after 15+ days, added new rule Gonzales John (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

A faster way to fail proposals with clear consensus to oppose

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Proposal: Allow proposals that have no reasonable chance of passing (something like 1-4+ or 2-5+, the details can be chosen later) and do not have any current discussion to be closed after 15 days.

Rationale: We have a lot of discussions open right now, and this is making it hard for users to find the discussions that are most in need of input. Many discussions end in no consensus from not having any discussion at all or not getting that fifth support even though there are no opposes. One way to alleviate this is to reduce the number of open discussions by failing proposals that clearly don't have any chance of passing. Once a proposal has 4 opposes after 15 days, it needs to gather 7 additional supports in 15 days to pass, which is just not realistic. Of course, if there is any helpful discussion going on, it should be exempt from being closed early. This new condition for closing discussions will allow for us to clean up and shorten the page and will break the current trend that seems to be "immediately get a proposal to 1-3+ and then proceed to leave it there untouched for a month." Jucchan (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support per nom. Jucchan (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, but as long as conversation is going on, it should not be closed. Especially if something gets posted with no rationale, people should be able to add rationale to it if needed. ~Mable (chat) 09:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza's suggestion: if after 15 days 2/3 of the !votes are in opposition and there are at least five of them, the proposal should be failed. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I prefer to keep these discussions open. People may change their votes if an argument persists or more people may vote. Some of our proposals get to a really high vote count. The lengthy discussion list is manageable using the table of contents and should not be an issue. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I think if anything's 0-5, it should be closed immediately. For something like that to pass, it'd need to go 10-0 to pass. pbp 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps to make it easy to remember, the inverse of successful proposals can be failed quickly, as in 0-5, 1-5, 2-5, 3-6, etc. Gizza (t)(c) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with DaGizza's proposal, that would make it easier to remember. Jucchan (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be something of an inverse to the current passing rule:if there are already at least three opposes and the number of supporting votes does not exceed one-third of the current vote tally(such as 1-3, 2-7,1-4) after 15 days, then it should be closed as failed, unless a discussion is going on.Gonzales John (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

looks like Cobblet already suggested something like this. But I think at least three opposes is better and faster.Gonzales John (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4-4, new section not made Gizza (t)(c) 23:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Make a "popular culture" section with quota of 250

Latest comment: 9 years ago301 comments20 people in discussion

Given the nature of wikipedia and how wikipedian vitality differs from traditional encyclopedic vitality. I suggest that we make a separate section for pop culture references and allocate 250 slots to it. This section would contain topics that have high views, or high degrees of vitality within contemporary popculture, but which fall outside of traditional ideas of core coverage - topics from Picachu, Godzilla, Startrek, Cosplay to anime, popmusicians, actors, Harry Potter films etc. We can move some of the current popculture topics to it and then start a process of adding. This gives us a way of satisfying both the need to include classical topics with the fact that wikipedia and its readership is in many ways different. Given that we are currently 200 topics below the 10,000 limit I think this is a reasonable way to spend the quota. Such a section could include certain brands and franchises as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)¨
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC). If nothing else, it provides a container for recentism - and an easy place to remove items that ultimately fail the test of time (no doubt to be replaced then current hot items). Like it or not, WP, unlike traditional encyclopedias, does cover current events, and the page hit counts show that readers use it for that too. Perhaps a better name would be current events or trending, although recentism is particularly a problem in popular culture, so that may be best. Another advantage is getting the debate out of the “more serious” sections of this list.
  3. Support, I think it would have use as a section that could easily gain and lose articles. Perhaps 250 would be too large, though, and 100 would be better. Once those 100 are filled up, new pop culture articles will need to be swapped. Something that is considered pop culture could be moved to the main list or vice versa. It works. The criteria are as vague as with the rest of the list, but it definitely works. Question is, what do we move into there? Pokémon, Harry Potter and the superheroes we have already listed are obvious choices, but what about the Rubik's cube? Will take a lot of voting to start of with. ~Mable (chat) 11:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    For starters, I'd nominate about two-thirds of the entries under Everyday life/Recreation/Games and half the items in Art/Music/Specific/Modern. Many of the other categories have done better avoiding recentism. Rwessel (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support in theory but the subcategories of this subcategory need to be well-defined. Where do we put the age-limit for articles to move from the world of recentism into the established list? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? It is all relative, and this list needs to be better defined. Honestly, I think the creation of this list will cause alot of argument about what is pop-culture and what isn't, not to mention what part of pop-culture is vital and what isn't. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: I think we're better off spreading pop culture topics among existing categories. pbp 14:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per pbp. Jucchan (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I think our time is better spent deciding which articles should be on the list than on how to sort them. While this idea's entirely reasonable, no clear-cut, all-encompassing definition of what should constitute "pop culture" has been offered. Discussing this on a case-by-case basis (which appears to be the most likely way we'd proceed, judging from the comments below) is IMO going to more likely to distract us from achieving the first objective I mentioned than help it. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose either a pop culture or "recent/current" section per above. Pop culture shouldn't be created unless a high culture and folk culture section is created as well. Fixing the number of articles for one of these sections but not the others won't be helpful. Similarly with a current section, quotas will have to divided up chronologically throughout the list. Any classification of the list is not perfect and many articles will fit in multiple sections whatever we do, but I prefer dividing the list into topic or field of knowledge as it is now. The proposed structures will lead to an increase in distractions and unnecessary debates. Anyway, personally I think the transition from pop to classic is not just a matter of date but dependent on context and area. As an example, I doubt the date will be the same for music and novels. Gizza (t)(c) 13:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Fascinating idea, and somewhat brilliant! Actually, I think it might be the best idea to make this an entirely separate list. A "250 most vital pop-culture-related articles" or something along those lines is definitely a project I would help with. However, on this list, I have to wonder whether it would be a good idea. pop culture is vital for Wikipedia, but it is not particularly vital for encyclopedias in general. It again depends on what this list is based on... ~Mable (chat) 09:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this list is specific to wikipedia anyways. I certainly dont expect Britannica to conform to our decisions of what is and isnt vital. The reason I think it is a good idea is because pop culture inevitably comes up in discussions and there is frequently no way to fit it into the basic categories even though it sometimes seem weird to imagine a modern encyclopedia without it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you give some examples of topics that fit poorly in the current categories? I suspect defining a new category called pop culture will create more problems than it solves. Are all actors pop culture, even stage actors? What about modern musicians – does it depend on their genre of music? I think deciding which people belong in a category like this is particularly difficult – I'd leave them alone and stick to pop culture topics. Even then: is Hua Mulan pop culture because the only reason it's known outside of China is because it's the subject of a recent Disney movie? Cobblet (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I mean that for example it is difficult to argue for the inclusion of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter in Literature, but they would fit handily in a pop culture section with different criteria for inclusion and a different kind of competition (competing against Pikachu instead of Tolstoy). Hua Mulan is a good example of a problem that could arise, but really it is no different from the many other topics that could comfortably fit in two r more different categories. So the problem I am seeinf is that there seems to be a desire and or necessity to include more pop culture topics but they dont fit well within many of the other culture sections where they have to compete in notability with classical high culture topics. I personally think that wikipedia should probably make an effort to cater to the particular kind of encyclopedic audience and platform that it has, and this would be one way to do this. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced there's that much desire or necessity to include more pop culture, at least relative to other things. OK, so we added Pokemon and the Rubik's Cube, but none of the other video game proposals went through, and meanwhile we also just added four classical Chinese writers. I think it's a good thing that Lord of the Rings is listed next to Tolstoy: it forces us to keep everything in perspective and confront questions of vitality and balance head-on. I think people are less likely to question how much pop culture we need to have if we create a new category with a defined quota, because discussions on quotas are rare. (Nobody has asked you yet how you came up with 250 for a number.) And this would be unfortunate, because I think such questions are our #1 task. (OTOH, I look forward to debates over whether Jurassic Park or human penis size caters more to the needs of our audience.) Cobblet (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As for the quota I merely looked at the space available. It could be more or less with no problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The quotas for each of the individual sublists total 10,000, even though the actual number of articles does not. You'd have to reduce the quota of some of the other sections to fit pop culture in. Also I'm not sure if you're trying to suggest that pop culture is the only thing that needs to be added to the list at this point – I don't think you are, but in a way your proposal would imply that. Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


I was thinking about some loose guidelines, and this might seem extreme, but on the other hand, I think it makes sense. First, everything that happened or came into existence in the past 100 years is automatically considered recentism (thus qualifies for the section). Then, we exempt everything that can reasonably be considered to stay vital for another 150 years. This way, all popular music and film automatically fall under this category. However, important leaders, wars and vital events will stay in. Perhaps the Beatles would end up in the pop culture section, but get moved to the normal music section in fifty years. "pop music" and its genres, "film" and things about the development of film and "video games" would remain in their normal sections. Also, this way, the pop culture section won't be filled with short-lived fads, as they still have to fight against Star Wars and Pokémon. Bit extreme perhaps, but thoughts? ~Mable (chat) 11:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont think the criteria for popculture can simply be age. Nobel prize winning authors and their works for example are not pop culture regardless of how recent they are. But yes, the idea is that the section would be more dynamic than the other sections, while also containing "classic" popculture topics like Star Wars and so on.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, many Noble price winners (or their fields) could be expected to remain vital for another 150 years, meaning that they wouldn't qualify for the pop culture section. Same with things along the lines of information age, robotics, but also World War 2 and Eisenhower. Some things might be a bit awkward, though, as Charlie Chaplin and other earlier figures in film are more in a grey area. I think they should be moved to the pop culture section regardless myself, but some of you might not agree. ~Mable (chat) 08:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I still can't think of any topics that would be an issue when you use my idea of categorization right now other than most very old films. Do any of you have any ideas for what articles could fall into a grey area when using my guidelines? Either way, it could be useful for going through a mass move right away without having to get consensus for all the obvious stuff. ~Mable (chat) 07:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does everyone just ignore my idea of judging pop culture by age (100 years) and probability of it remaining vital for another 150 years? It isn't completely bullet-proof and we'd still need to hand-pick some topics, but I believe that it would work. Also, this isn't about how to sort pop culture, but rather how to deal with things that are important right now (rather than historically: how we got here) in the first place. ~Mable (chat) 09:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the grey areas are hardly limited to film. Who are we to decide whether Shostakovich or the Beach Boys are going to remain vital 150 years from now? And I don't see how putting them into the same section is going to help us figure out whether the Ramones also belong to that section. If a likely reason for people to have heard of Marshall McLuhan is because of a Woody Allen film, does that make him a pop culture reference? I also mentioned the case of Hua Mulan. Maunus's response to me was that we have to accept that these things can be placed in more than one section of the list. If that's the case, what's so bad about the current setup and why do we need a new category so badly? Sure, it's a little weird to see Godzilla next to Faust, but is that weirder than the comparisons I made between Vladimir Vysotsky and Viacheslav Fetisov, or Umm Kulthum and Renata Scotto? Despite how different these people are from each other nobody complained that I was comparing apples with oranges. In fact, I think it's precisely our task to compare apples with oranges. If this new category helps us with this, let's make it; but given the difficulty in defining pop vs. high culture I'm not convinced the trouble is worth it. Cobblet (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Beach Boys and The Ramones would be easy if we would make the grand decision to place The Beatles in pop culture - at least for the next 50 years. Is McLuhan vital because of his role in Annie Hall? I very much doubt that that had much impact on his vitality, thus he would remain where he is. Mulan is indeed a complicated situation where I don't know a good solution for, but that the kind of thing that can be done with a vote and discussion (not that it matters that much in which category it is put, as you indicated clearly). I'd place all the modern musicians you mentioned in the section according to the guidelines I've put, as you just can't know whether they will still be looked back to as important by future generations.
Modern sports figures are awkward either way, and I am not sure how to go with them. Most of the sports figures are modern anyway, it seems. I'd rather keep them in their own section as they've always been as well, even if many of them will probably barely be remembered in 100 years time. I'm not knowledgeable enough about sports to be able to decide for that.
But alright, if this section doesn't come to be, then that's fine, but I do believe we should think about how important modern things are compared historical articles. Even if the Rubik's Cube, Star Wars and Pokémon might not survive another 100 years, they are absolutely vital to know about for people today. On the other hand, we include many articles that are historically interesting, but rarely relevant to anyone. I can go through my entire life believing that China didn't exist until the 20th century and I'll rarely get in trouble for it, but not knowing about Harry Potter, Madonna or the Hulk - even if they aren't important enough for this list as we have been looking at it until now - would definitely come up a lot. I'm not suggesting to put those three back on the list (well, except for Potter), but I do think creating a modern culture category would allow us to look at these kinds of articles in a different light: how important are they to people today, rather than how important is that topic compared to all topics in the rest of history. ~Mable (chat) 11:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 01:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Pharaoh, Add Great Zimbabwe

We removed monarch recently which makes me question whether any type of monarch is vital. Ancient Egypt's well represented on the list – we've got the major historical periods, some of the notable archaeological sites, and we list many individual pharaohs as well. Our coverage of the history of sub-Saharan Africa is much poorer; I suggest adding the most well-known of its early civilizations.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Weak support, if we don't include king or tsar, pharaoh probably isn't worth including either. It's a well known symbol, but that's not encyclopedic. Neutral on Zimbabwe. ~Mable (chat) 18:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support adding Great Zimbabwe. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Pharaoh and Monarch are not comparable titles. And while I would support the inclusion of Great Zimbabwe it cannot replace Pharaoh which is clearly a vital article that anyone would expect to find in an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removing Pharaoh. Jucchan (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removing Pharaoh, Support adding Great Zimbabwe PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

"King" and "Pharaoh" are actually quite comparable - this was the kind of situation I was afraid of back when we removed monarch... ~Mable (chat) 17:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Monarch" and "king" are general titles of rulers in monarchic states. Pharaoh is a specific title tied to one of the single most important civilizations in world history. Tsar should probably also be included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
How about Roman emperor or Emperor of China or Raja or Khan (title) then? Are they not also specific titles tied to some of the most important civilizations in history? Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The Pharoahs of Egypt are possibly the most famous form of imperial cult. The article as it stands has no information on this. I can't decide if Pharoah is vital or not. Gizza (t)(c) 06:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, removed Gizza (t)(c) 01:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove 2010 Haiti earthquake

Surprised to hear that this was on the list. I'm unable to find out when it was added by looking through the archives. Sure, it's something we'll still remember 20 years from now and it was horrible for the people living there, but it really isn't as notable as media is making it out to be (as often is the case). Also, any opinions on these: 1976 Tangshan earthquake, 1970 Bhola cyclone, and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami? I don't know too much of these natural disasters, but I can't help but wonder how important they are. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Well, you already know my opinion :P. To elaborate on the other natural disasters, the Nanking Massacre holds far more cultural and political impact than the 1976 Tangshan earthquake ever will, and surely it's a less important topic of modern China than the Great Chinese Famine? The 1970 Bhola cyclone isn't as vital as the genocide that occurred a year later, and both are subsumed to a certain extent by the Bangladesh Liberation War. The two countries that were affected the most by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, each have more vital topics like the Indonesian killings of 1965–66 and Sri Lankan Civil War missing. I'd also swap the 1931 China floods, which are also listed, with the Republic of China (1912–49). Malerisch (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support We can add Jean-Jacques Dessalines or Toussaint Louverture in its place to maintain a fair coverage of Haiti. Gizza (t)(c) 12:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 17:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Coverage of Haiti is lacking. This is a good article to include because it addresses economic problems as well as the disaster itself. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

This article was added all the way back in June 2010 see here. Just a few months after the disaster. Gizza (t)(c) 12:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gizza, Those two people were both very important during the Haitian Revolution, which itself is listed. I wonder if Haiti has anything else to offer that is vital knowledge. Not to say that those two people won't make it, of course. I don't know anything about Haitian history (apparently there was a revolution once ;p) ~Mable (chat) 12:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Toussaint Louverture is actually already listed, by the way. Malerisch (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Malerisch. I took a quick look at the talk page and didn't see the vital template but it was at the bottom of all the tags. The Haitian Revolution is vital for being the first successful revolution started by slaves. Excluding parts of the world that were not colonized yet, Haiti was the first free black-majority nation in the world so it had wider implications. The only thing Jean-Jacques Dessalines would add to the list is his role in the 1804 Haiti massacre where the remaining white Haitians were killed. Not sure if that's enough. Gizza (t)(c) 13:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The massacre itself could be added, though Dessalines is the red line throughout the massacre, according to the article: "Dessalines traveled among the cities of Haiti to assure himself that his orders were carried out. Despite his orders, the massacres were often not carried out until he actually visited the cities himself." Sounds pretty major. ~Mable (chat) 14:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think if I was going to add another Haitian, I'd add "Papa Doc" Duvalier. pbp 17:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 10:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add history of anthropology and history of political science

No doubt they are as vital as history of psychology, history of sociology and history of economic thought.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Gonzales John 17:52, 16 December 2014
  3. Support history of political science. Gizza (t)(c) 07:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose ~Mable (chat) 09:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

History of political science is definitely more vital than history of computing hardware and history of aviation, which are the only specific technology articles with their histories listed. Gizza (t)(c) 23:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

History of political science should even in be before history of film and history of geology (not the same as geological history of the Earth) simply there is more history. It is an older and more varied field. Gizza (t)(c) 13:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you give a better rationale for why the history of political science is so vital? I'd believe your word for it, but the article doesn't really show it (for some reason, it is even still labeled a redirect on the talk page, rather than having an importance grade). There being "more history" isn't really worth much in my opinion, as the fields with the most history aren't necessarily the most important topics. History of clothing and textiles or History of sport go back much more, and the articles on history of subjects that originated in the past 200 years tend to have much more content. Furthermore, something being a varied field has no influence on how vital it is at all, I think. This just means that the field is broad, making it hard to create a good history topic on the entirety of it. Subdivisions of the topic then tend to be more interesting, as each may have its own history section. Political science names six subdivisions that might be interesting, such as public law, which isn't listed but might make a decent addition?
What makes the history of political science vital? ~Mable (chat) 13:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've held back on supporting this, mainly along the lines of what Mable's mentioned. Political science and anthropology are social sciences, meaning they are "new", at least in comparison to history, philosophy, law and religion. I'd also note that I went ahead and assessed history of political science. pbp
    • OK, I was thinking history of political thought or political philosophy, which strongly overlaps but is not the same thing as political science. History of clothing will be a good addition based on what we have. History of sport or history of games is also not bad. Political philosophy developed independently in different parts of the world and has changed markedly over time, staring with Plato and Cicero in the West and Confucius and Chanakya in the East, with many in between. Then you had Augustine of Hippo, Ibn Khaldun and Machiavelli all developing political thought further eventually leading to many great theorists during the Renaissance, Enlightenment and modern age. I think it's worth knowing about the progression (or regression depending on your POV) of political ideas throughout time. Gizza (t)(c) 23:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll give you that political though predates political science. But political science as a separate discipline is relatively recent (within last 150-200 years). Prior to that (i.e. during the time of the guys you mention), political thought was part of philosophy. Really, if you go back enough, science and philosophy are close to the same study. pbp 23:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmm, you are selling me on the History of political thought. Those are some great names you named, though I think almost all of them already have their own article vital. I'm still on the fence. Simply linking through the articles of Plato, Confusius, Khaldun and Machiavelli would give much more information than a dedicated history article would. It sure is important to have a summary like this, but I don't think it's vital. Then again, I recommend you to suggest it, as I might change my mind.
      • Perhaps we should still discuss the history of anthropology. There isn't any rationale to add that either, and again I don't think it holds up to the history of many technologies or the history of sports or games... ~Mable (chat) 09:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
        • You're right, we have the option of focusing on the people instead. I based my support also on Rekishi's rationale. If sociology and psychology are listed, why not political thought which is older? History of geology is also quite recent unlike geological history of Earth which is very vital. Or we can remove the histories which are at a similar level to political thought and can be represented with writers and scientists. History of clothing is not really something that can be represented by people apart from fashion designers to a tiny extent, so it is still an option. It comes back down to general vs specific. Gizza (t)(c) 12:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Greater Antilles, Add Guadeloupe and Martinique

Greater Antilles is another geographical term with little cultural significance on its own: Cuba, Hispaniola, Jamaica and Puerto Rico are all individually included on the list. In its place I suggest adding two of the most populous and historically important islands in the Lesser Antilles – such was their significance to the French economy that France traded all of New France to Britain in the Treaty of Paris (1763) just to retain control over them. They are as important as any of the independent Caribbean islands.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support additions, oppose removal, would like to remove Hispaniola instead. The Greater Antilles have historical significance and also include the Cayman Islands which are not listed. --Melody Lavender 10:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support additions. Replacing Greater Antilles with Cayman Islands might be an option. Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support additions, neutral on removal. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Most offshore financial centres aren't listed. If you feel the Cayman Islands are vital, how do you feel about Bermuda, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or the Virgin Islands, none of which are listed either? Cobblet (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely support Bermuda, and likely the others as well. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Bermuda might be an omission, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are covered by British Isles , Virgin Island is part of the Lesser Antilles .--Melody Lavender 20:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Ypnypn and Melody's thoughts. The Cayman Islands are the only major island group missing from the Greater Antilles so it is practicable to add the Cayman Islands and remove the Greater Antilles. OTOH, Replacing the British Isles with the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey will result in a net increase of articles. And I support including Bermuda. Gizza (t)(c) 23:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there was consensus to remove the Greater Antilles (2-1). Malerisch (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped, 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.

Swap: Remove Lake Peipus and Saimaa, Add Lake Volta and Lake Kariba

The two lakes in northeastern Europe (we already have Lake Ladoga, Lake Onega and Vänern, Europe's three largest lakes which are all in the same general region) are much less vital than the largest reservoirs in the world by area and volume, whose hydroelectricity and fisheries are the lifeblood of the African countries that surround them.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, seems like the person who closed this earlier has already went through with the change as well ~Mable (chat) 08:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I should add that both reservoirs are much larger than the lakes in Europe in terms of both surface area and volume – they are simply much more notable geographical features. Within African lakes, they are also definitely more vital than Lake Mweru which is currently listed. Cobblet (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

2 supports isn't close to consensus. Should this be unclosed? Gizza (t)(c) 22:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Balkan Mountains, Add Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt

The mountain range in northern Bulgaria is less vital than the collection of volcanoes that surrounds (and threatens) Mexico's population core, including Mexico City. Famous mountains in the range are Pico de Orizaba, North America's third tallest mountain; Popocatépetl and Iztaccihuatl, well-known subjects of Aztec myth, and Parícutin, the little volcano that could. None of those mountains are currently listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support addition. It is kind of a surprise that no Mexican states are listed. Gizza (t)(c) 23:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We have nothing on Mexico's physical geography besides the Chihuahuan Desert and the Yucatan and Baja Californian peninsulas; a bit strange given the size of the country and how much more can be said about its terrain. We list none of the major uplands in Mexico (Sierra Madre Occidental, Sierra Madre Oriental, Sierra Madre del Sur, Mexican Plateau), yet we list Sierra Nevada in California, which is smaller than all the Mexican regions I just mentioned. Mexico is the 14th largest country in the world; for the 13th largest country (Saudi Arabia) we list not only the Arabian Desert but also the cultural areas of Najd, Hejaz and Eastern Arabia; and for the 15th largest country (Indonesia) we list eight major islands/island groups and two notable regions (Aceh and Papua). Cobblet (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added under Shinto Gizza (t)(c) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Kojiki

Composed around 711-712CE, the Kojiki is the oldest extant Japanese chronicle, providing much of the inspiration for Shinto practices and myths. Top importance in WikiProject Japan. Jucchan (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support IMO, more vital than some of the modern Japanese writers we list, like Akutagawa, Kawabata or Oe. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportGonzales John (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Good call, more vital than the shinto deities I think.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support ~Mable (chat) 09:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support This might fit better under the Shinto section than literature though it doesn't really matter. Gizza (t)(c) 22:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days 00:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Comic Strip and Comic Book under Comics

The comic strip and the comic book are the two basic divisions of comics and I think they should be included. I also think they are more relevant than the included Manga(which is just basically comics in the Japanese language).User:Gonzales John 18:30, 01 December 2014

Interesting issue, the topics seem redundant under comics, yet they show a vital difference... I'm not entirely sure on how to approach this, but I should probably support something along these lines. Either way, manga is seperated because of the vital genre of comics it shows. Japanese-style comics are very different from European/American-styled comics. ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I took the liberty to make a support-oppose-discuss-thingy ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support after looking at the two articles, they seem to be exactly the kind of thing that should be vital about comics. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support as nominator.User:Gonzales John 18:56, 05 December 2014
  3. Support pbp 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose' too general. I would prefer including individual vital strips and comic books.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose IMO comics suffices as an overview of the medium. I'd prefer seeing more representation of more classical literary traditions and genres – recent additions of haiku and ghazal suggest that there's a consensus that our list is deficient in this respect. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

You don't have to support your own suggestion, but it is definitely common practice :) You're also completely allowed to simply start a topic for discussion as you did, but I felt that support-oppose-discuss-thingy(TM) was appropriate. ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 10:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Dystopia

As vital as Utopia.Gonzales John (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No not as vital as Utopia, of which it is only sci-fi genre spinoff. There are no dystopian political movements for example. Probably Utopia is not as vital as Utopia (book), which should definitely be on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose opposites of vital concepts are not necessarily vital themselves. Gizza (t)(c) 05:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 10:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add omnivore

No less crucial than herbivore or carnivore, however it is currently not on the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Weak support I understand Maple's concerns though I still believe learning about the physiology and anatomy of omnivores in particular can be a worthwhile topic. Gizza (t)(c) 00:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, the concept of the omnivore is simply much less interesting than that of the herbi- and carnivore. Eating plants and eating meat are both covered, eating both doesn't really need to. ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

You have an interesting quirk of stating the opposite of what you mean; "it is currently on the list" should be "it is currently not on the list," for example. I'm curious why that is? ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to add the word "not" next to "currently".--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to apologize for, as long as your message is clear, there's nothing to worry about :) ~Maplestrip (chat) 15:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 4-2

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

Add Fernanda Montenegro

The first Latin American (and Brazilian) to be nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role, as well as the first to be nominated for a Portuguese-speaking role during the Academy Awards. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We have no Latin American actors; she's an excellent choice. Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While clearly a good actress, being the first of any given region or language to be nominated for an Academy award (mind you not even winning one) hardly seems enough to be considered a vital topic on global scale. Similar reasons for inclusion could be given for dozens of actors from other regions/languages as well (e.g. the first Eastern European as well as Romanian language, the first Kenyan etc etc.). Arnoutf (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days

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

Add the Ramones

Probably the most influential and notable bands from the punk scene, their importance can be compared to that of Nirvana, except that the Ramones did alternative music about 15 years earlier, influencing many who came after them. Someone mentioned that we are lacking punk rock topics, so this and Never Mind the Bollocks might be excellent additions, and won't put too much weight on the genre either.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 08:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
I would consider a well reasoned swap. I think Sex Pistols or The Clash may be equally strong representatives of Punk. And on the other hand I am not sure Punk is so vital that it needs representation on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the Ramones are a pretty good choice for the list. But I think an even more seminal influence in the development of alternative rock is The Velvet Underground, which was removed some time ago with virtually no discussion, but IMO should be re-added. Cobblet (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The Sex Pistols would be well-covered by their album, which is suggested. I'm not sure what to think of the Velvet Underground... It's difficult to narrow down the most vital bands while still covering various genres... ~Mable (chat) 12:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0 Neljack (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Edward Bernays

He was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations". He combined the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud.

He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the "herd instinct" that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis's award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations, and Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.

Support
  1. as nom. The fact that The Century of the Self pinpoints Bernays as the original of modern public relations makes him crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I think I can suppor tthis.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Yeah, interesting proposal. Sure I'm tempted to support but it's insane to include him before public relations, a field which he has literally invented. Bernays most certainly would have wanted PR on the list. Public relations (PR) is currently listed for addition here: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Add_public_relations and not even receiving enough support to make it on the list - so how can Bernays be vital, if PR isn't?--Melody Lavender 06:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Public relations now belong to the list, just re-read this talk page.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-1 Neljack (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Eduard Bernstein

Eduard Bernstein (6 January 1850 – 18 December 1932) was a German social democratic political theorist and politician, a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), and the founder of evolutionary socialism, social democracy and revisionism. Bernstein had held close association to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but he saw flaws in Marxist thinking and began to criticize views held by Marxism when he investigated and challenged the Marxist materialist theory of history. He rejected significant parts of Marxist theory that were based upon Hegelian metaphysics; he rejected the Hegelian dialectical perspective.

Bernstein distinguished between early Marxism as being its immature form: as exemplified by The Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels in their youth, that he opposed for what he regarded as its violent Blanquist tendencies; and later Marxism as being its mature form that he supported. This mature form of Marxism refers to Marx in his later life acknowledging that socialism could be achieved through peaceful means through legislative reform in democratic societies. Without the need for a revolution, Bernstein stated that ethics could be restored to socialism in a capitalist system, with the state as a pivotal asset to the workers.

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that he was the founder of social democracy makes him vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Certainly a highly influential figure in political thought - social democracy has become one of the most important political philosophies/ideologies around. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, ignoring the lead of the article in the nomination. In the future, please avoid this. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, keep things civil, guys. Rekishi, making suggestions alone is already important and useful - I rather see a suggestion with little explanation than to see no suggestion at all. That being said, readily available reasonings give bonus points. I don't always really know how to give rationale myself either, so I'd like some people to be more lenient, especially when suggestions are already reasonable. ~Mable (chat) 19:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Copypasting the lead of an article is not a rationale. I dont think he in fact is the founder of socialdemocracy. I also dont think he is well known, not even by social democrats. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

@Maunus: It seems a little silly to oppose a nomination because of a copypaste job. Certainly annoying of course. If you want a rationale, would being the founder of Social Democracy work for you? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I do want a rationale. And I will continue opposing articles that are proposed without an argument for why it should be on the list. This I do exactly in order to force subsequent voters to at least put some thought into what makes this topic vital. That usually requires somehow comparing the topic to topics on the list, or otherwise making a clear case for why something is among the 10,000 most important topics for an encyclopedia. I am unsure how much BErnstein can actually be considered the founder of socialdemocracy, he is not widely read by socialdemocrat politicians as far as I know (I have been a member of a socialdemocratic party), and the term was already coined by LaSalle and most of the ideas were present among the Fabians. The article on social democracy does not mention him untill in the section "Second International Era".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"I DONT EVEN NEED TO GIVE A RATIONALE FOR WHY I THINK THESE PIECES OF WRITING HAVE NO PLACE ON THE LIST." User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Three months later, you're demanding that all nominators give original rationales for their proposals. Cobblet (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
At least for adds I am, though I am more lenient for removals. Also you are being rather disingenious and hypocritical in your representaiton of me there because I was not the proposer of that particular item, and I had given a rationale and that was my frustrated reponse after you tried to badger me into changing my mind. There is no requirement in the rules that anyone give a rationale for a vote, but I consider it a minimum standard for a proposal, and certainly no item should be added to the list without someone vactually erbalizing the reason why it should be there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I take it Rekishi's native language isn't English; if he felt that the lead of the article could express its importance better than he could, that's better than nothing. Cobblet (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped Neljack (talk) 08:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, Add Marie Antoinette

IMO the life, deeds and character of a person must be notable in order for their biography to be vital. Looking at it that way, there's no question in my mind that Marie Antoinette is much more vital than Franz Ferdinand, even though both died under famous circumstances. Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria would be a better choice for the list than the Archduke's biography (it gets about the same number of hits, in case you're wondering).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, I think I'd actually support the article on Franz Ferdinant's assassination. That single event is rather vital... That being said, how about Causes of World War I and II? Those articles might just be perfect. ~Mable (chat) 08:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support the addition, oppose the removal unless Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria is added as a swap. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Göring added 6-0 Neljack (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Hermann Göring andErwin Rommel

We have the major generals of most of the other principal belligerents in World War II: Monty, Ike, Tojo, Zhukov, MacArthur… We even Helmuth von Moltke the Elder; how could we not have these two? (Note 1: I am not a Fascist, just a guy who’s noticed that Germany’s pretty poorly covered)(Note 2: I would be open to removing Moltke for these two) pbp 00:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom pbp 00:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Göring was at least as important a Nazi leader as Goebbels, who we are about to add. He created the Gestapo and was Hitler's deputy. I would be inclined to include him under political leaders rather the military ones though. Neljack (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support I don't think we need any more Nazis after Göring. Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Rommel and Göring is enough. Gizza (t)(c) 01:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gonzales John (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Rommel is already listed in this section. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've removed Rommel from the proposal. Still think we need Goering. pbp 01:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 Neljack (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Khitan people, Add An Lushan Rebellion

We already list the empire founded by the Khitans (the Liao dynasty) and there's no need to double-list the people – we don't list Jurchen people alongside Jin dynasty (1115–1234) for example. The An Lushan rebellion was by far the most destructive conflict in the history of the world up until that point: conservative estimates place the death toll at 13 million, roughly 6% of the world's entire population at the time. The event ultimately led to the collapse of the Tang dynasty and marked the beginning of a long gradual decline in Chinese civilization. It is the most dramatic turning point in China's history between the establishment of the Qin Dynasty and the 20th-century revolutions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support the beginning of the Chinese "Dark Ages". Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Both removed Neljack (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Treaty of Zaragoza and Treaty of Paris (1814)

I don't think we need both the Treaty of Paris and the Congress of Vienna and the latter is clearly much more notable. Similarly, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to list the Treaty of Zaragoza when Treaty of Tordesillas is listed and covers the Zaragoza treaty as well. If we don't have room for Treaty of Verdun and Peace of Westphalia, I don't see the need for such redundancies in coverage.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support the Treaty of Zaragoza is clearly redundant to Tordesillas. The Peace of Westphalia dwarfs both of these treaties in vitality. Gizza (t)(c) 05:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support removing Treaty of Zaragoza.Gonzales John (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removing Treaty of Paris (1814)Gonzales John (talk) 03:03, 25 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days 03:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add French colonization of the Americas

The French Role in colonizing the Americas is also important. The French colonized New France, which extended from Quebec all the way to New Orleans. French influence can still be seen in cities like Montreal and New Orleans. If anything, the French role in colonization is equally important to the role of other colonizers in the region.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd love to support this and the next nomination, as I think Points is absolutely right that the French and Portuguese played just as vital a role as the British and Spanish in colonizing the New World. Also I'd like the list to have better coverage of the history of the Western Hemisphere. But I find it hard to reconcile my desire to support these proposals with the fact that in no other region of the world that experienced European colonialism do we have articles detailing the influence of each European nation on that region. Perhaps my suggestion of adding colonial nations isn't the best way of doing this either (for one thing, I neglected to suggest Colonial Brazil), but at least there's a parallel with some articles already on the list like Congo Free State or Dutch East Indies and French Indochina, even if our coverage of the colonial history of other parts of the world is also incomplete. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't an article covering both French West Africa and French Algeria. Such an article plus this and French Indochina will deal with the bulk of France's colonies and be sufficient for the list. Gizza (t)(c) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MIXED
5-2 after 15 days for 2004 Indian Ocean and passed, 4-3 after 30 days for Tangshan and Bhola and failed Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove 1976 Tangshan earthquake, 1970 Bhola cyclone, and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

Per Malerisch comment above, which I will just go ahead and copy:

[T]he Nanking Massacre holds far more cultural and political impact than the 1976 Tangshan earthquake ever will, and surely it's a less important topic of modern China than the Great Chinese Famine? The 1970 Bhola cyclone isn't as vital as the genocide that occurred a year later, and both are subsumed to a certain extent by the Bangladesh Liberation War. The two countries that were affected the most by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, each have more vital topics like the Indonesian killings of 1965–66 and Sri Lankan Civil War missing. I'd also swap the 1931 China floods, which are also listed, with the Republic of China (1912–49). Malerisch (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep these suggestions separate from the Haiti earthquake for no real reason, though hopefully it make discussion somewhat clearer :p

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 09:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support removing 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. Undecided on the others. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose These are some of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. Any coverage of a natural disaster must include these. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removing Tangshan and Bhola I'm comfortable with including a handful of the most notable natural disasters. Not sure why it was claimed that Tangshan's less notable than Nanjing – it is the single most dramatic example in history of what happens when an authoritarian government tries to cover up the news, and most Chinese people would be equally aware of both events. Part of the reason 1976 was a pivotal year in the history of the PRC is because of Tangshan: Hua Guofeng would probably not have been bold enough to arrest the Gang of Four and end the Cultural Revolution later that year if he hadn't received popular support for his handling of the Tangshan situation, flawed as it was. There was intense scrutiny of the Chinese government's actions following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake from both inside and outside China because comparisons to Tangshan were inevitable. The famine of the late 1950s was contemporaneous with the Great Leap Forward (in the memory of most people, they are one and the same event) and it is not necessary to list both. To say that the cyclone's subsumed by the Bangladesh Liberation War would seem to me like claiming 9/11's subsumed by the War on Terror. Maybe not illogical, but I doubt whether most people see it that way. I cannot see how the Wounded Knee Massacre is more vital than events that led to the independence of Bangladesh or paved the way for China's modernization. Cobblet (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  16:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Do we really need an example of an authoritarian government trying to cover up the news? (And shouldn't the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which is already listed, be a better example of that anyway?) I note that we don't list Nanking, so if they're equally notable as you state, I see no reason to list either. There are more important topics in Chinese history missing: what about the Hundred Days' Reform in late Qing China? We don't even list Republic of China (1912–49), and we don't have Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms either—I doubt a text on the history of modern China would cover the Tangshan earthquake in more detail than these.
Cultural vitality seems to play a role in determining which history articles to list (that seems to be why we list the sinking of the RMS Titanic), and based on that, I feel entirely comfortable saying that the September 11 attacks are more vital than the 1970 Bhola cyclone. And if we count famines as natural disasters, why is it a better choice than the Bengal famine of 1943?
Finally, if we count epidemics as natural disasters as well, I don't think these are the most notable; I'd put the Plague of Justinian above any of these. With natural disasters, notability seems to correlate with the number of deaths, and I listed several 20th-century epidemics that killed more people above. (I realize that we don't list epidemic, but as Gizza pointed out below, we don't list several other types of natural disasters as well.) The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami certainly isn't vital in any other way—the resulting political fallout and economic consequences were fairly minor. I have yet to understand why it should be listed ahead of the Indonesian killings of 1965–66/Transition to the New Order, which were instrumental in the downfall of Sukarno, led to major shifts in Indonesia's foreign policy, and revitalized a stagnant economy (see New Order (Indonesia), the end of the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, the creation of ASEAN, and the economic history of Indonesia), or the Sri Lankan Civil War, easily the most significant topic in the history of independent Sri Lanka. Malerisch (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, we list Empress Cixi and Deng Xiaoping and I've considered nominating Liang Qichao for a long time; I think those are probably better choices than the reform movements. I regret that my knowledge of modern Southeast Asian history is poor, but I note we list both Sukarno and Suharto. To use an analogy that may be somewhat more familiar to Westerners, we list Gorbachev rather than glasnost and perestroika even though the latter concepts are no less well-known and important. Also I doubt there are people who'd support adding both Joseph McCarthy and McCarthyism. I'd support adding Republic of China (1912–49), and either South-East Asian theatre of World War II or Burma Campaign 1942–43 in part to cover the Bengal famine (and bring a little balance to our coverage of WWII in the process). And in case it wasn't clear, the point of my comparison was not to say whether 9/11's more or less vital than the cyclone, but that the arguments one would make for listing 9/11 separately from the War on Terror can perhaps be similarly applied to listing the cyclone separately from the Bangladesh war. Cobblet (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Many of the works listed in the Arts section also have their author/composer/performer/painter/director listed, so some redundancy should be acceptable. (Note that we do have both Ivan the Terrible and the oprichnina and both Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, for example.) Frankly, it seems a bit silly that we can list Andrei Tarkovsky and his film but not Gorbachev and glasnost/perestroika. Furthermore, if we're worried about redundancy, do we need both Hebei and the Tangshan earthquake? And why do we list the Bhola cyclone ahead of Bengal? Malerisch (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That's true. On the other hand, we've got both West Bengal and Bangladesh, which does not necessarily preclude us from listing Bengal (we've got Korea and Ireland, after all), but at least makes it a less unforgivable omission. Meanwhile, would you be satisfied if we replaced 9/11 with Northeastern United States? Cobblet (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No, but I don't think Bengal and the Northeastern United States are really equivalent—Bengal is well-defined (speakers of the Bengali language) and has a much more unified history and culture while the Northeastern United States is mostly a nebulous geographical region without a "unified cultural identity." History of Bengal is a long and developed article while history of the Northeastern United States is a redirect, for instance. Malerisch (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it is; but I am saying that I wouldn't expect an article on a region like the northeast US to discuss an event like 9/11 in any sort of depth. Ditto wrt the cyclone and Bengal, and the Tangshan earthquake and Hebei. Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
But why do we need to have a discussion of the Bhola cyclone or the Tangshan earthquake with significant depth? We don't have coverage of the Chalisa famine, the 1887 Yellow River flood, or the 1968 flu pandemic, and those also have higher death tolls. Do we need to add them as well? Malerisch (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Even the Chinese Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the 1887 flood, while its article on floods in China (admittedly not a well-developed one) only devotes a single sentence to it. The Hong Kong flu was a milder strain of the Asian flu, which apparently caused more fatalities and yet doesn't have its own article here; a better indicator of these pandemics' lack of significance outside epidemiology than any argument I can give you. If we can list the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and the Wounded Knee Massacre I don't see why we can't have events like Tangshan or Bhola. Cobblet (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the 1887 flood is vital by any means (the Dungan Revolt, the Panthay Rebellion, the Punti-Hakka Clan Wars, and the Northern Chinese Famine of 1876–79 have higher death tolls between 1850 and 1900 in China), but I don't see why they're any less important than the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, for instance. The Asian flu of 1957 is actually "generally considered to have been the least severe of the three influenza pandemics of the 20th century" according to Britannica, and FYI Britannica's articles on the Hong Kong flu and the Huang He floods are longer than those on the Bhola cyclone or Indian Ocean tsunami (not that I'm saying length determines importance, but it suggests that they're at least comparably significant). I'd support removing the Lisbon earthquake, and wrt Wounded Knee Massacre, I can at least see why that could be vital based on Maunus's rationale here (I did support removing it though). Malerisch (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

On a related point, our coverage of general natural disasters is inadequate. Why are earthquake, volcano, tornado and tropical cyclone listed as vital at Level 3 when landslide, heat wave and wildfire are not even listed at Level 4? In many parts of the world, these are the most dangerous and notable of natural disasters. Gizza (t)(c) 04:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Those articles are some of the best know natural disasters in western cultures, and I wouldn't remove them from level 4, though I'd support landslide, heat wave and wildfire all on level 4. I'm really not sure how to deal with these, though: landslides are probably way more notable and vital than tornadoes, but at least in he media that I consume, it is much rarer mentioned. On the one hand, this means that there is more to learn about them for the average person, but on the other hand, people might be less likely to look them up...
I think both landslide and wildfire probably deserve to be on level 3. I'm not sure. ~Mable (chat) 09:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to remove anything from Level 4 and add anything to Level 3 excepts perhaps drought. But ideally landslide and wildfire should be added even with Earth Science over quota. We can remove some non-notable rocks like quartzite to make space. Gizza (t)(c) 09:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I just now noticed that I made a mistake, and my first sentence was supposed to be "I wouldn't remove them from level 3," talking about Volcano, Earthquake, Tornado and Tropical Cyclone. Drought seems a decent addition, though we did recently add famine to level 3, and droughts are primarily vital as one of the causes of famine. I'm not a big fan of the topic and would rather put Landslide on level 3 instead. ~Mable (chat) 09:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Both added 6-0 Neljack (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Cook Islands and Niue

The "unrecognized or largely unrecognized states" section includes one entity that isn't recognized by any other country at all (Somaliland), two that are only recognized by other largely unrecognized countries (Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria recognize each other, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognize them as well), and one that is recognized by only one other country (Turkey recognizes Northern Cyprus). None of these states are affiliated with the UN in any way. By contrast, the Cook Islands and Niue are formally recognized as independent by seven and four countries respectively, and both are members of several UN agencies – see List of sovereign states for a fuller description and comparison with other states. I think we should add these entities on the list even though New Zealand doesn't recognize them as being fully independent.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, though maybe someone should try to weed out the unrecognized countries that don't deserve this level of importance? Maybe instead of adding these, we should remove some of the ones you mentioned. Then again, I really don't know. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support The Cook Islands and Niue are considered to be sovereign states by the international community, as they have been admitted to international organizations and treaties that are only open to sovereign states. Neljack (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Somaliland fits better with the likes of Tibet and Chechnya as an autonomous region. Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gizza: No, it's de facto independent and is in a very different situation than the regions you mentioned.
Sorry, you're right. Gizza (t)(c) 11:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: I think if there's one area of the list where we should list every single member of a large group, it's probably countries. Most of the unrecognized states are the result of frozen conflicts and are noteworthy for that reason anyway. These two aren't, but I'm not really interested in getting into debates about whether Niue and the Cook Islands are more or less vital than, say, Nauru or Palau. As List of sovereign states#Criteria for inclusion explains, these entities can be considered to be sovereign states by one common theory in international law, and that's good enough for me. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Off topic, but while people are interested in countries/states, I have wondered for a while if we should have Western Sahara instead of or as well as (probably instead of) Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Western Sahara is the region regardless of who claims it, and it seems to be a more commonly used term in Wikipedia and elsewhere, there's more info there and it's in more languages too, here. haven't read in depth about it I may be wrong.  Carlwev  16:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I would support that swap. Gizza (t)(c) 00:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 01:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Iranian architecture

Hugh omission. This article is crucial since Persian architecture had been of high level before the birth of Islam.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support and it should be moved to Persian architecture or split. --Melody Lavender 12:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support and rename --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John 16 December 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 09:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: If we do this, we'd have to have 15-20 other national architecture articles. pbp 18:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Does not seem very vital to have nation specific articles on architecture. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Iranian architecture is vital since my world history textbook says that Ancient Persia had great achievement at architecture.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

The article should probably be split. It's mostly about ancient Persian architecture and about 10 sentences Iranian. --Melody Lavender 15:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In this context, Persia and Iran are synonyms. Persia redirects to Iran although the Persian language is one of many Iranian languages. The distinction between Persian and Iran is not quite like Ancient Rome and Italy or Mesopotamia and Iraq. They can still be used interchangeably. Gizza (t)(c) 05:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
All the more it should be moved to Persian Architecture because that is the common name.--Melody Lavender 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Been leaning on the fence for a long time. Persian architecture has been influential throughout Greater Iran, a much larger region than just modern day Iran. On the other hand, it is represented on the list via Persopolis and indirectly via the Taj Mahal. I echo Cobblet's earlier comment that Persian carpet is the most vital article on Persian/Iranian culture missing. Gizza (t)(c) 11:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added

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

Add wallpaper

We have paint and carpet, but not wallpaper on the list, which sounds quite strange, as many people use wallpapers to decorate their homes.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Many people also don't use wallpapers to decorate their homes. Paint is vital as an artistic material, and carpet has cultural significance as well as being an art-form. Wallpapers just don't have that level of vitality. Jucchan (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Jucchan. ~Mable (chat) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose not the worst suggestion but not quite there IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus, no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Urethra under Urinary System; Add Cloaca and Anus under a new section called "Posterior Openings"

These three should be added not only because they are important body parts, but also because the excretion of urine and feces in vertebrates evolved over time. Gonzales John (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gonzales John (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support anus as part of the GI tract. Undecided on the rest. Cobblet (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support anus. Gizza (t)(c) 00:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No, adding anus does not mean we also have to add cloaca. And we probably dont have to add anus in the first place.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

If anus is going to be added, then cloaca should be added since non-mammalian vertebrates excrete feces and urine through the cloaca and not through a separated anus; in turn, if we are going to add cloaca, then urethra should be added since mammals don't have cloacas.Gonzales John (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Are local newspapers vital?

More a question than a suggestion for now. We currently list The Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Le Monde (forgive my lack of italics). As a Dutch person, I have hard of most, if not all of these, but I find it hard to imagine that they are in any way vital to explain in an encyclopedia. It might be a cultural thing, but to me, newspapers definitely aren't important; the news they deliver is. Also, these papers are completely unimportant if you don't live within the region in which it is spread. Again, as a Dutch person, I wouldn't come into contact with these newspapers much in my life.

Do note that I don't feel the same way about magazines. Magazines are made to give opinions and define culture. Many of the magazines listed are also spread internationally, such as Playboy and National Geographic, much like television programs. Please give your opinion on the matter. ~Mable (chat) 09:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Some newspapers do have international influence, e.g. The Guardian and The New York Times, since many non native English speakers read one or more of them to get international news, and many non-English news media either translate or retell news reports from these newspapers. Besides, many non-Westerners have heard all of them, so they are definitely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
New York Times is vital because it is internationally known. The other ones are more borderline. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You could say that there are too many magazines and newspapers but it depends. The whole mass media needs further discussion. I'd prefer having Rupert Murdoch instead of the Wall Street Journal (we have Ted Turner but not CNN and in Murdoch's case he has owned many types of media). Gizza (t)(c) 03:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
None of the five papers listed are "local". Each is read nationwide in the country of origin. pbp 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
FAILED
No consensus to add; no votes in 2 months pbp 20:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria if Franz Ferdinand himself gets removed

Per conversation above, his life is not vital, but his death certainly is. Causes of World War I and Causes of World War II are still other interesting possibilities, so feel free to discuss those as well.

Support
  1. Support I prefer this over a long article on the causes of WWI because the causes of WWI are covered in the WWI article. If someone wants to read further into the causes, then that person can click a main article link. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per discussion. ~Mable (chat) 09:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Mable. Undecided on the causes articles. Gizza (t)(c) 03:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I think the causes articles are better choices. The assassination of the Archduke was of course the trigger for the war, but its causes went much deeper. There is a danger of focusing of the immediate casus belli at the expense of the more complex causes of the war. Equally I would think the causes of WWII article a better choice than the German invasion of Poland. I also note that the causes of both world wars have been major subjects of historiographical debate, as is evident from the articles. Neljack (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think they are all redundant with the article on WWI.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I was thinking the same thing... So I'll probably suggest those two tomorrow *sigh* You know, other people could make suggestions as well sometime :p We'll see whether these things are redundant or not tomorrow ~Mable (chat) 21:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm somewhat loathe to support more articles on WWI and WWII – there are many events in the 20th century that have little or no coverage: the Sudanese Civil Wars, the Sri Lankan Civil War, the Mexican Drug War, the Bosnian War (covered by Yugoslavia?), the Falklands War (covered by Falkland Islands?), and the Colombian conflict (1964–present) are some examples. And the history section is over quota as it is – IMO this is the one section of the list that needs its quota increased. Granted, the world wars are obviously the most important events of the century. It's also interesting to note that while Causes of WWI is 157th on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Popular pages, Causes of WWII gets only a quarter as many hits and is nowhere close to the top 500. Cobblet (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Is the hitcount dependant on time? Right now, WWI is particularly popular due to the 100 year aniversary, so this might cause the difference. About whether the causes of the world wars are vital: These two wars affected basically every person's life in the entire world. It makes sense that we cover them extensively. If people know what caused such things, people can keep these kind of wars from happening again. They seem to be vital knowledge. I have to agree, though, that Franz Ferdinant himself is definitely not vital, nor is his assassination. ~Mable (chat) 09:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is; I was looking at stats from the last month and didn't really think about the anniversary. That being said, the trend was still true two years ago, and Causes of World War II has existed since 2004. I think perhaps the reason it's not as highly viewed an article is because in a way, the cause of World War II was simply World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. I think the more proximal causes are also quite obvious to most people and we list a lot of the articles that cover them, e.g. the rise of fascism and Nazi Germany, the militarism of the Empire of Japan, the Great Depression, the weakness of the League of Nations. The causes of World War I are perhaps more abstract and so maybe it isn't surprising that people are more likely to read an article called causes of World War I than articles on the arms race at the turn of the century or the alliances in Europe at the time. Cobblet (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I think Causes of World War I would be an excellent addition, while the same article for WW2 would be more redundant to existing articles. ~Mable (chat) 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5-0, passed Gizza (t)(c) 03:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Bulgars

We list almost all the states established by the Bulgars – the First and Second Bulgarian Empires and Volga Bulgaria. The only thing we don't list is Old Great Bulgaria which lasted less than 40 years. In general I think we should avoid double-listing a people and the political entities associated with them unless there's a very good reason to do so.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support agree with nom. For comparison, we don't list both Visigoths and Visigothic Kingdom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 20:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 12:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Portuguese colonization of the Americas

The Portuguese had a significant role in colonizing the Americas. They were granted the rights to colonize the area that is now Brazil, effectively colonizing one of the biggest nations in the world. Adding Portuguese colonization to the list accomodates the existence of the Spanish being on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I don't think there is a clear rule on whether the colony or colonization process is more vital. In this case, Colonial Brazil may be better since it was the only Portuguese colony of note in the Americas. The British and Spanish OTOH had many important colonies. Also keep in mind that Portuguese Empire is already listed and Brazil was bigger than all of the other Portuguese colonies combined. Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 12:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Lament

Elegy failed, so I'm proposing this per User:Maunus and User:Maplestrip.Gonzales John (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. SupportGonzales John (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Don't see the need for it. Also, low importance in WP Poetry. Jucchan (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 07:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

There must be many poetic genres more vital than Lament. Ballad springs to mind. Gizza (t)(c) 02:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add for both Gizza (t)(c) 03:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Ma'at

The very center of the philosophies and ideologies of Egyptian Mythology (See Egyptian mythology).Gonzales John (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support Maat is more of a philosophical or ethical concept, somewhat akin to justice or dharma though it did become personified in mythology later on. I think we could do with an aspect of Ancient Egyptian civilization other than the cliché pyramids, pharoahs and gods. Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per my comments above. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion


Add Rainbow Serpent

Major deified mythological figure of Aboriginal mythology.Gonzales John (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, deciding which of all of these are worth adding will be very challenging. I do think this one has a very good chance. ~Mable (chat) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support more substantial topic than Dreamtime, originally coined for pejorative purposes and nowadays a wishy washy catch-all New Age term for anything remotely related to Australian Aboriginal culture. Gizza (t)(c) 22:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Dreamtime would be better.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 30 December 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.
PASSED
All three added, 6-0 pbp 20:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Add early childhood education, primary education and secondary education

As stated above in the Kindergarten proposal, these stages of education are the vital topics. Tertiary education and/or higher education may be redundant to university and college.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, these seem to be vital topics to cover. ~Mable (chat) 14:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 12:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Cortisone

A hormone that is centrally implied in producing stress responses, the fight or flight reflex and in the workings of the immune system. Is at least as vital as epinephrine and plant hormone.

Support
  1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for reason in discussion below. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Steroid needs to be added first. Cobblet (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Steroid should be added first. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-3, failed Gizza (t)(c) 04:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Caricature

A caricature is a representation of a person or a type of person made unliteral by the exaggeration of some features as well as the oversimplification of others. The concept is commonly used, especially in editorial cartoons. It has some history to speak about as well. It's definitely an encyclopedic topic, probably vital enough to deserve being listed here. Gonzales John (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gonzales John (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 20:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support This had crossed my mind before.  Carlwev  19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Satire covers it sufficiently IMO. Cobblet (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 04:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I think you might log out automatically after one month, but I'm not sure how that works. Either way, I'm not sure about this. People do love their caricatures... ~Mable (chat) 06:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

FAR

Latest comment: 9 years ago33 comments16 people in discussion

I have nominated Enzyme for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

6-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 09:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Arab Spring

Was prematurely added with the expectation that it will become that next Revolutions of 1989. Recentism. I would consider the Soviet war in Afghanistan and War in Afghanistan (2001 to present) on their own to be more vital than this. Within Africa, the Second Sudanese Civil War trumps this. Gizza (t)(c) 00:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. too soon. This isn't "history" yet; we don't know the long-term ramifications, if any. pbp 14:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gonzales John (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Ypnypn (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just because an event is recent doesn't mean it's vital. If anything, recent events are more vital to an encyclopedia than events that took place 3000 years ago because people are more likely to want to read about the Arab Spring than the conquest of Gaul. Also, the Arab Spring is still affecting the Arab World to this day. The Syrian Civil War and the rise of ISIS are direct effects of the Arab Spring. The unrest in Libya is also an effect of the Arab Spring. As Middle Eastern History is under-represented, this event is vital enough to keep on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Can't agree with you more.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Less vital than the events of 1989, sure; but probably more vital than the Prague Spring or the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Cobblet (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose  Carlwev  16:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

We do have coverage of those wars in War in Afghanistan (1978–present), though, which we list. Within modern history, I'd rather remove the natural disasters first (2010 Haiti earthquake, 1976 Tangshan earthquake, 1970 Bhola cyclone, and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami). Even within the 20th and 21st centuries alone, they aren't the deadliest natural disasters: at least 1 million people died in the Asian flu of 1957 (Britannica), another 1 million in the Hong Kong flu of 1968 (Britannica), 800,000 in the sixth cholera pandemic (1899–1923), 570,000 in the seventh cholera pandemic (1961–75), an estimated 284,500 in the 2009 flu pandemic, and 273,400 in the 1920 Haiyuan earthquake. And it's hard to justify the inclusion of these natural disasters when we're still missing the Plague of Justinian, which killed an estimated 25 to 100 million people (half the population of Europe at the time). Malerisch (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that there are too many recent natural disasters too. Haiti has a fairly small population so as a percentage of people affected, it is somewhat more significant. Looking beyond the number of deaths and at the impact of these disasters, the Indian Ocean earthquake didn't lead to much change in the world as sad as it was. The Bhola cyclone was one of the causes of the Bangladesh Liberation War, which is also listed though we do list both September 11 attacks and War on Terror. Some of these can be removed. Gizza (t)(c) 04:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrt Afghanistan, I was saying that each war was individually vital, well at least more than Gulf War and Iraq War which are both separately listed. The main invading nation was different (USSR and US) and the Afghan government was different. They were two very different wars whereas in comparison the the Iraq wars were a continuation of each other. The second started where the first left off. The Afghan wars were in fact separately listed but were "merged" into one at a time when the overall list was a few hundreds articles over quota. I think it was a hasty decision. Gizza (t)(c) 05:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay wrt Afghanistan. In response to evaluating significance based on the percentage of a country's population, I don't think the 2010 Haiti earthquake is close to being a good contender—the Somali Civil War, the Burundian Civil War, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the insurgency in Laos, the North Korean famine, and the Finnish famine of 1866–68 are all still more vital. I agree that death counts aren't everything, though, and that natural disasters usually don't carry enough political, economic, or cultural impact to be considered vital. Malerisch (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 09:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Add The Iron Bridge

Since we are removing Tower Bridge, we could add this one. This bridge is the first arch bridge in the world to be made out of cast iron. It was built from 1777 to 1781 and is celebrated as the first bridge of its kind. Adding this bridge would also add another non-suspension bridge to the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This is a disambiguation page. Gizza (t)(c) 07:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume The Iron Bridge is the correct topic. I'll change the title of the suggestion accordingly. ~Mable (chat) 08:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for catching my mistake. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No Consensus for either addition Gizza (t)(c) 09:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols

The modern music section needs more punk and hip hop. Punk and hip hop were the most influential music genres of the last 40 years. Rolling Stone magazine a while back rated this Sex Pistols albums as the 2nd most important rock album after the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's.Smiloid (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Never Mind the Bollocks would be a very decent inclusion, as it is indeed one of the most significant albums and might even be more vital than the Sex Pistols themselves. However, I think I'd first and foremost add the Ramones... I wonder how well we should represent punk. ~Mable (chat) 08:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support as a vital album in music history, the only album by The Sex Pistols and an important representation of punk rock in general - the only representation if added. ~Mable (chat) 08:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support Vital album indeed and iconic for punk. Arnoutf (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We don't need more pop songs on here. pbp 20:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Rapper's Delight

The modern music section needs more punk and hip hop. Punk and hip hop were the most influential music genres of the last 40 years. Rapper's Delight by the Sugarhill Gang is the single which introduced most of the world to hip hop Smiloid (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Rapper's Delight brought hip hop into the mainstream, which makes it significant to some extent. Alternatively, we could a very influential album like The Chronic, Illmatic, Enter the Wu-Tang, Ready to Die, Straight Outta Compton, etc. Gizza (t)(c) 07:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I think Rapper's delight is the obvious choice for a work representing hip hop.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As much as I recognize its importance, I can't help but think it would be a better idea to add a few hip hop artists before adding this track. Cobblet (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_42&oldid=1229203060"