Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 11

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 02:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Andrei Gromyko

Support !votes

1. Support. Per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: There are way too many 20th-century Soviet leaders on this list, the product of it (or some iteration of it) being written by an Eastern European/Central Asian specialist pbp 17:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support, per pbp --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Gromyko was a secondary figure in the Soviet political leadership from 1960s through the 1980s. He was not the chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), when the party chairman exercised the real political power in the Soviet Union. Including him on this list of vital world political leaders is akin to including a U.S. secretary of state or a UK cabinet minister. He was not the man at the top, and part of our current mission is to trim the VA/E list topics only to those that are most vital to our reader's understanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Alexei Kosygin

Support !votes

1. Support. Per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: There are way too many 20th-century Soviet leaders on this list, the product of it (or some iteration of it) being written by an Eastern European/Central Asian specialist pbp 17:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Like Gromyko, Kosygin was also a secondary figure in the Soviet political leadership of the late 1950s and 1960s, who continued in government until 1980. He was neither the nominal president of the country, nor the chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), when the party chairman exercised the real political power in the country. Including him on this list of vital world political leaders is akin to including a U.S. vice president or a British defence minister. He was not the man at the top; Khrushchev and Brezhnev were the top Soviet leaders during this era. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Anton Denikin

Support !votes

1. Support removal per logic below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Interesting article but doesn't make the cut when the list is bloated with hundreds extra and we are looking to get back to 10,000. Jusdafax 20:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 15:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Like Kolchak, Denikin is an interesting historical footnote, but his side lost (twice to the Germans in 1917, and the Soviets in the early 1920s), and his biography is not vitally important to 20th Century military history or the evolution of tactics and strategy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove one of the Maimonides duplicates

Right now, the Moorish/Jewish thinker Maimonides is listed under both philosophers and religious figures. Since our policies preclude people from being listed in more than one category, which one should he be dropped from? pbp 04:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Option A: Remove Maimonides from Philosophers, keep him in Religious figures

1. Support. Move to Religious figures per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support agree, in fact we already had someone propose to add Augustine, because he isn't among religious figures where they were looking. Carlwev (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Option B: Remove Maimonides from Religious figures, keep him in Philosophers

Discussion

• I will have to look through the list to see where the other people known for both philosophy and religion are placed, and maybe follow suit with them; I recall Augustine of Hippo is within philosophers not religion. Carlwev (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Only St. Augustine, St. Thomas and Maimonides were principally theologians/religious philosophers among out present Philsophers sublist; the other 130-odd persons listed were primarily secular. For the sake of consistency, St. Augustine, St. Thomas and Maimonides should be included within the Religious figures sublist because that is where readers will look for them. In all events, the duplicate listing for Maimonides needs to be removed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Done - Although it has been suggested posts should ride for at least 2 weeks. This is not actually removing any article, only a duplicate so no one can oppose that one has to go. With 5-0 support to remove the same one I can't see this going any other way but this. So I believe completing this one after only 5 days is OK. (The regular removals I will try to leave alone for at least 2 weeks) Carlwev (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support. Yes, Harlow was a star of Hollywood's golden age, but she produced damn little that merits recognition after the passage of 70 years. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. As per the Julia Roberts discussion. Vital to the topic of Golden ere Hollywood, but not to the topic of film. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• This proposed removal was prompted by the discussion under Julia Roberts below. Not every golden age star rates a place on a list of the 50 greatest actor and actresses, and I think this should be an easy cut. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Antônio Carlos Jobim from VA list of 1,000, Add to VA/E list of 10,000 (?)

I'll bring this up here as this is the page everyone watching, and it may mean an add here. Brazilian musician Antônio Carlos Jobim was among articles added relatively recently to the vital 1000 without discussion, before the lock down, my self and other users expressed concern but he remained; although in the 1000 list he is not even within the vital 10'000, this cannot be obviously. What do users think is best, our options as I see them are as follows, (A) Have him in both the 1000 and 10'000. (B) Have him in the 10'000 list only. (C) Remove him completely.

Support option A, include him in both the VA 1,000 and VA/E 10,000

Support option B, include him in the VA/E 10,000 list only

1. Support as nom, (I will support the majority, 10,000, OK for globalization, fair importance - for 1000 not a chance) Carlwev (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Not vital enough for the VA list of 1,000; reasonably interesting pick for the VA/E list of 10,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Support option C, Remove him completely

Discussion

• Comment: Shouldn't we also be having this discussion at WP:VA? pbp 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ron Howard

Support !votes

1. Support as nom: pbp 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Howard has made several popular movies, but he is not on the same producer/director level as Scorsese, Spielberg, DeMille, Lean, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Welles, Coppolla et al. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Definition of a hack. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Agree with Dirtlawyer1. Heartwarming, but not groundbreaking.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Weak support Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - One of the most influential directors of the last 20 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - "Hack?" Um, he won a 'Best Director' award for A Beautiful Mind and has a distinguished number of good films to his credit. Let's keep him on the vital 10,000. Jusdafax 06:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yeah, he's directed some good films, and he made a good Winthrop Paroo, but I really don't think he's in a league with some of the other names on this list pbp 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• The fact is, the world of film would be no fundamentally different if he had never been born. I would miss Happy Days more. You take out Spielberg and George Lucas and you fundamentally alter the evolution of the medium. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Oliver Stone

Support !votes

1. Support I like Oliver and his barmy movies, but he's basically a footnote as far as the medium itself is concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. This will be a controversial comment: I don't think Stone belongs on this list because I think he makes so-so movies. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 23:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Support !votes

1. Support I think we will be forever grateful for Back to the Future, but he's not in the league of Spielberg. He was eclipsed by another group of film directors from his own generation, and if you were writing a thesis on the evolution of American cinema it wouldn't be imperative to cover him. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: pbp 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support: - Yet another tough call, as he has had a huge career, and since Back to the Future was mentioned, let's take note of Forrest Gump. I'll go along with emerging consensus, but only because of the "bloat factor" on this list. Jusdafax 20:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Weak oppose He is definitely lower than Spielberg etc, but I think other areas need trimming before he goes, he is not the worst of the list. Carlwev (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support pbp 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - per discussion section. Jusdafax 23:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• The tennis list is bloated; we have almost as many tennis players as Presidents of the United States. Agassi is great, but I don't think he's top 10 if you count both sexes pbp 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - per discussion section. Jusdafax 23:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• We have 19 tennis players, too many I think. I am not an expert, but number of grand slams they have won is one of many deciding factors I should think. Look here List_of_Grand_Slam_related_tennis_records. There are about 35 players who have won 17 or more grand slams. To include all of these in our list would be too many. We list some like Arthur Ashe who have won only 3 grand slams, not easy but not top 10-20 players ever. If 35 people have won 17 or over there may be loads of people that have won 3, and may have in one given year been world #1. To start with I propose this one guy.

He's won 3 Grand Slams. there are 35 players who have got 17+. Good player but maybe not top 20 ever. Carlwev (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone is going to complain that we are deleting the first significant African-American tennis player. Maybe so, but his accomplishments pale in comparison to the Williams sisters, and no one is suggesting we remove them from the list. This is strictly on the merits. If we are including only the top 15 to 20 tennis players of all time, Ashe does not make the cut. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support pbp 22:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Jusdafax 23:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• See reasoning for Agassi pbp

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. If we had a top-25 list of great American basketball players, his place would be absolutely secure. Instead, we have a top-10 list, and it's a close call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Close but not on the short list. Jusdafax 06:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - First great ballhandler from the first second b-ball dynasty. 20-year career. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• The first great basketball dynasty was George Mikan's Lakers. pbp 02:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Good point, Cousy came 4 years after Mikan, although they did overlap for at least 6 years (Cousy 1950-70, Mikan 1946-56). We really should add Mikan then, as the game's first great big man. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• The reason I nommed him, which is now archived, is that I thought even 10 basketball personalities is two many. I was going for 6-7. I still believe that there is a lot of bloat in athletes...it's gone from 202 to 176, but I think it can get cut even more pbp 13:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support: pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Decker was more known for her various controversies than her actual, on-the-track accomplishments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Doesn't seem to be in a league with the other runners on this list pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• When compared with other athletes, and even other track and field athletes, Decker does not rate a spot on the VA/E list. She was the Mary, Queen of Scots of the late 1980s and 1990s track world: long on drama, without much to show for it when the show was over. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
• She is not legendary enough. Rauzaruku (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support: pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• We have four milers: Bannister, Nurmi, El Guerrouj, and Keino. I think three milers is too many pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nurmi and El Guerrouj are legendary. Bannister and Keino, not so much than this two. Rauzaruku (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Rauzaruku, you need to reconsider Roger Bannister -- he was the first man to run the mile in under four minutes, and is widely considered to be the greatest athlete of the mid-20th Century, if not the entire 100 years. And, yes, he is legendary; he is probably the most famous middle-distance runner of all time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support: pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Per comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• We have a number of others at this distance: Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis, and Usain Bolt pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Any time a sprinter wins three gold medals in the same Olympics, it's a big deal. The 100, 200 and 4x100 meters relay are the premier events in the core sport of the Olympics. Nevertheless, Morrow just isn't well remembered, perhaps unfairly. It may be a function of his understated personality, but others track athletes are remembered. Jesse Owens was electric, and still is among those who know their track and field history. The list will not be harmed by Morrow's inclusion, but what are we omitting because we are over the 10,000 topic limit? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Owens, Lewis and Bolt are the 3 most legendary sprinters of the world. Morrow is not so famous. Rauzaruku (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 22:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Due to the excessive number of figure skaters, I am proposing the deletion of this, it seems to be the less legendary of the 9. She does not seem to have the same qualification from the rest of the list. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• My parents tell me I was a fan of Yam back in '92 (I don't remember, I was 2 and half and had long blond hair), but now, we have Kwan and Lipinski; we certainly don't need all three of them pbp 22:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 15:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 15:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Hedda Hopper

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 16:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support removing Hedda Hopper. She's an interesting historical footnote, but does not rise to the level of best examples of American journalists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support After some thought I'll agree to remove. Not 10-k worthy. Jusdafax 07:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove John Humphrys

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 15:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per Carl. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support also per Carl. Jusdafax 07:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I don't know enough about British broadcast journalists to understand whether Humphrys rises to the level of an Edward R. Murrow or a Walter Cronkite, and I suggest we should get some input from British editors on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• I am British, however I am not an expert on journalism, I know who he is but I wouldn't think him 'that' vital, perhaps you may want a Brit with more journalism knowledge than me? Humphrys is fairly well known but I would say he is less notable or vital than many modern British people we don't have like Tony Blair, or Princess Diana, or Sean Connery who is there but nearly go removed. Carlwev (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support deleting Walters; she may have earned a footnote as the first network anchor who was a woman, but she was subsequently demoted when ABC's ratings tanked. Compared to pioneering female journalists like Ida Tarbell or Nellie Bly, she lacks historical weight. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support slightly more deserving than others, but not quite there Carlwev (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Yet again, we have to cut bloat. I'm in agreement with the above reasoning. Jusdafax 07:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support deleting Sevareid. More deserving than many on this list (most now proposed for deletion), but he does not make the cut at the level of Murrow, Pyle, Cronkite, Mencken, Greely, Lippman et al. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support as nom, Carlwev (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: pbp 22:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Gandalf

Support !votes

1. Support. Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Support !votes

1. Support. Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 16:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Spock

Support !votes

1. Support. Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Darth Vader

Support !votes

1. Support. Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. -Melody Lavender (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Not vital, there are many many more important geographic places we don't have, and from a UNESCO World Heritage point of view there are lots of more important things missing from their 900+ catalog too, like Petra and Catal Huyuk for example. This park is nowhere near as vital as other topics included and missing. Even in the Ivory Coast WikiProject it is rated low importance. Carlwev (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Support !votes

1. Support removing topic from the list without substitution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I was surprised to this on the list in the first place, I know we want some eastern films not all western, but it's fairly recent not that that matters in itself, but it's not 'that' influential either, it's not the Seven Samurai. Carlwev (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: pbp 01:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support – "Foreign" films are under-represented; personally speaking I think you should be aiming for 10 Hollywood films as the dominant industry, and about 20 non-studio films with at least 10 drawn from foreign language industries to be representative, and avoiding anything made in the last 20-25 years. If you focus on the real "game changers" this list should be quite easy to cut down. And with that I nix Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support – Not significant enough. Rsm77 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - What was all that about globalism? Hmmm ... GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Popular hit in China, but too recent to determine film industry impact, especially when we remain 300+ topics over the 10,000 limit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• I hate to say it, but we shouldn't save a film 'only' because it's Asian, its either important enough or it isn't, The film is half decent, but I don't think it's among the top 50 most vital films ever. Seven Samurai, may be so, but not this one. Carlwev (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• I suggest replacing this with In the Mood for Love, also Chinese, which was voted no.24 best film ever in the 2012 Sight & Sound critics' poll. Rsm77 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Easy Rider

Support !votes

1. Support removing topic from the list without substitution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: Not 10000-worthy, sorry pbp 20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, having little over 50 movies, I don't think think this movie is anywhere close to being in the top 50 most vital movies. There are many movies that are more important. Carlwev (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Figured strongly in the New Hollywood movement, but wasn't the game changer that Bonnie & Clyde and The Graduate were. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Weak Support Doesn't look totally out of place, but not quite good/significant/influential enough for the listRsm77 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Strong Oppose. - One of the most influential movies of the 1960s. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I consider this vital. Huge impact on youth culture and strong debut of the later superstar actor Jack Nicholson. Pioneering effort with enduring influence. Jusdafax 23:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Not a vital topic of lasting impact, especially when we remain 300+ topics over the 10,000 limit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Article says it was important showing rise and fall of the hippie movement. We don't have Hippie in the list; which is quite a well known and important movement. The Hippie movent is more vital and more documented than one hippie movie. I contemplated proposing "add Hippie" a while back, but I didn't. Maybe it would be a good idea to delete this film and add hippie in its place? Carlwev (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• I can see no good reasons put forward to keep, American Pie is also large impact on youth culture. It is not Jacks most influential role. We have over 100 actors and actresses plus more directors, if we had every one of these "superstar's" debut movies we would have over 100 odd movies included. Carlwev (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Gandhi (film)

Support !votes

1. Support Ok, Gandhi and a film about Gandhi are not the same thing! Presumably Gandhi is a vital article? If so let's drop the film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Not significant enough. Rsm77 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Great movie. Top 100 British movies ever made? Yup. Top 100 American co-productions? Probably. Top 45 to 50 movies ever made anywhere on the planet? That's a short list, especially when it includes 10-15 non-American, non-British films, and I'm afraid it does not make that final cut. We must prioritize, and some of these cuts are going to hurt a little bit, but the VA/E/ list will be tighter and better for it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Godzilla (1954 film) from Films, Add Godzilla to Fictional characters

Support !votes

1. Support per discussion below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support: I believe we have Godzilla the character. We don't need both the character and the film pbp 20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Conditional support I will support removing the movie only if the character is added. Yes, we don't need both movie and character. No the character is not listed at present, I checked. Carlwev (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support The creature itself had some cultural impact, but the movie itself is comparable to Dr No. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Lacking in artistic merit. Rsm77 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

• Weak oppose Border line but not the worst article here. Fairly important cultural icon, good representation of Japanese cinema, monster movie, and an older film, with lots of spin offs and sequels. Might be better to have character not movie. Carlwev (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose. - Perhaps the most influential fictional character in the history of Japan (its about fascism BTW). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - There's a big issue that's overlooked in this discussion and, unfortunately, in the article itself. This film, particularly in the original version and not the edited version that was released internationally, was a statement about nuclear weapons. Note the crushed cities and radiation-burned victims: Japan had experienced this for real a few years before. There's a deeper element to this film that is not reflected in the sequels or in the character's status as a cultural icon. This is a significant statement on the horrors of war. Dementia13 (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Cultural icon, but not a vital film topic when we remain 300+ topics over the 10,000 limit. If we keep Godzilla it may be better to include the character and remove the movie. The character is perhaps more important than the one movie. The character is known in many incarnations of 28 movies according to the article plus TV series, toys games books and comics. The character is probably known to many people that have seen him in some media but maybe not the original movie. We could go the same way with King Kong also, out with the movie in with the character, 'maybe'.Carlwev (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Carl, I agree with keep the character as a cultural icon and delete the movie. From my perspective, it's difficult to see how Godzilla rates a slot with Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind and Citizen Kane. How about you change your vote, and make this unanimous? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• I just checked, Godzilla character is not among the fictional characters at present. Carlwev (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'll stipulate my vote to remove the movie is a swap for the inclusion of the character on the appropriate list. The movie is an odd man out as we tighten the movie list. Sounds like PBP is in agreement, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Myself or someone needs to decide if this thread is a Swap or Removal thread. There appears to be a general agreement being reached. But what is it agreement for? a for a swap or removal?? Swap movie for character, or just plain delete? I prefer swap in this case Carlwev (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• @Dementia13, I accept every word you wrote above regarding the social significance of the movie in its post-war context. The question, however, is not whether Godzilla had greater meaning than a prehistoric monster run amok in modern Japan. Yes, it did. Our question is whether Godzilla is one of the 40 or 50 greatest movies ever made world wide. Clearly, it is not -- to list Godzilla next to Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, The Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia and The Godfather is simply not appropriate as we are cutting classic movies like Sunset Boulevard and Titanic from the list as insufficiently vital. From an acting, screenwriting, directing and production values standpoint, Godzilla is an appallingly bad movie, its greater social significance notwithstanding. (Its namesake character is portrayed by an unnamed actor in a foam rubber monster suit, stomping on cardboard buildings.) If you believe that nuclear proliferation deserves greater attention on this list, I suggest that we review related topics on other Vital Articles/Expanded sublists, rather than using the Godzilla movie as a proxy for those important topics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Points taken, and I think that "top 40 or 50" is too exclusive for Godzilla. At the same time, it does have meaning. As great and well-made as Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia are, what do they mean? They're empty calories. The whole purpose of art is to make a powerful statement. If a cotton-candy coming-of-age story like Titanic is even getting consideration here, then something's wrong, no matter how impeccably it's produced or how many lemming critics bestow "classic" status upon it. I'm not supporting dropping a movie that makes a point when there are pure entertainment films under consideration. Lord of the Rings over Taxi Driver? Singing in the Rain over Sunset Boulevard? Star Wars over M? If you're saying that you have to make the selections count because there are so few available, then put your money where your mouth is. Dementia13 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove The Lord of the Rings (film series)

Support !votes

1. Support removing LOTR from the films list without substitution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support: On the one hand, it made a shitton of money and won a zillion Academy Awards. On the other hand, we have the book pbp 20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
3. SupportIt is impossible to assess the cultural value of these movies as yet. Tolkien's books maybe. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Weak Support' number 5 goodbye Carlwev (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Strong oppose. - One of the most influential and notable movie franchises of all-time. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Popular hit, but too recent to determine film industry impact, especially when we remain 300+ topics over the 10,000 limit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• The characters Frodo and Gandalf are listed in another section, they only appear in LOTR (including the Hobbit). Superman, Tarzan, and Sherlock Holmes for example have many many separate comics, novels, TV series and movies. Would Frodo and Gandalf be better cadidates to remove instead of the movie series? just a thought. I think I would lean slightly this way. Carlwev (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• @Carl -- What other individual film articles would you propose for deletion that have not already been nominated for removal from the list? While we're in a deletion mode, let's talk about it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• They're fairly recent so it's hard to judge their impact properly. But they were hugely successful and won many awards. I don't think they're rock solid but I don't think they are the worst articles here either, I would propose to delete many other articles before this one. But I am not opposing, this. Carlwev (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• The hype on this one still hasn't died down, but I can't imagine it having the staying power of more classic films on the list. FWIW They Shoot Pictures Don't They has Fellowship of the Ring (the only LOTR entry) at 933, while for an interesting comparison with a film from the same year, Mulholland Drive is at 69. For people that don't know, TSPDT aggregates such polls as the Sight & Sound poll where critics voted Mulholland Drive at 28, and Fellowship of the Ring at 894. Just pointing out LOTR's lack of long-term critical acclaim.Rsm77 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sky deity and Sky father

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: BTW, what section is this in? pbp 13:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. As we fight to get the expanded list under the limit of 10,000 listed articles again, deletions such as these should be easy choices. Whack! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support.--07:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody Lavender (talk • contribs)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I propose to remove Sky deity and Sky father from religion and spirituality. There is not much content, and one is just a list. Creator deity and Mother Goddess are fairly important and have a chance at staying. But when you get to sky deity there are many other deity types of equal importance that we don't have, Fire deity, water, wind, thunder, sea, rain, night, solar, lunar, death. There are articles or lists for all of these deity types and more, the sky deity and sky father do not stick out as vital or more important than the other deity types. (If anything Solar Deity which we don't have looks like one of the most universal deity types, and slightly more of a vital concept. Although I'm not suggesting adding it) Carlwev (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• The section they are within is Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Philosophy_and_religion#Religion_and_spiritualty.2C_94, in the second list "Deity". You will see there are hardly no other deity types there, no water deity, fire deity, wind deity etc. So why's the sky deity more important than any other? Carlwev (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Carlwev (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Reluctant to add anything, but this appears vital to me. Jusdafax 05:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Jogging

Support !votes

1. Support. There is no separate sport of "jogging"; it is merely running slowly. It is a form of exercise, and a subcategory of "running." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Redundant and unneeded. Jusdafax 10:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support . --Igrek (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support.--07:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody Lavender (talk • contribs)
6. Support Carlwev (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Time to make some choices, folks. The list does not require "running" and "jogging"; frankly, Wikipedia does not need two articles on this topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree, but PBP has gotta fix his "cue sports" pasting. Jusdafax 10:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it pbp 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Red onion, Add Analgesic (painkiller)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 14:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - Per Carl's logic. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

'Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Within Biology and medicine. We have onion, the article at onion already covers and mentions red onion too. Is the specific "red onion" in particular a vital article in it's own right separate from onion; I don't think so. I propose replacing it with Analgesic (painkiller) into medicine. Carlwev (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Can somebody explain to me why "red onion" was under "biology" but just regular onion was under comments in the food section of psych, anthro and everyday life? pbp 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• I going to bring this up in it's own thread. Some things are in more than one place and it needs addressing in the long run. Vegetables are split between plants in biology and food in everyday life, majority of them are in plants, probably need to be in one list not two. Drugs are all over the place too depending on whether they are a plant that is grown, or a chemical made in a lab, or elsewhere, I would look for drugs in one list but I'm not sure as plants are plants and chemicals are chemicals? Veg should be an easy call though. Carlwev (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• I don't know why, but I've avoided !voting on this topic for so long, maybe because it's such a weird juxtaposition of topics. That having been said, red onion as a subtype of onion (already on the list) is not vital, whereas medical painkillers clearly are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)