Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 14

Add Louis de Funès

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support to make the list more global --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. I cannot support this addition, although potentially worthy, without a proposed swap of a lower-priority topic or until we get the total VA/E articles list under 10,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
2. Oppose per Dirtlawyer1. Jusdafax 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I must oppose this addition for now. It is far too easy to add worthy topics, and far too difficult to remove lower-priority ones. We need some discipline, folks, and we need to get the numbers under control before we gear up for wholesale additions again. That's what got us into this numbers mess in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone think of a swap for Louis to give him a fair chance, he has much support, even the opposes say he's potentially worthy. I was thinking, a swap with Jerry Seinfeld? any better ideas? adding him would also help make it more international which people often think is a good idea. Carlwev (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• For someone from the same era I'd go for Sid Caesar. Incidentally, the comedy section of the list is now the section I think suffers most from having too many Americans. Could easily lose a few more. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 16:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Black Hawk was a minor American Indian ally of the British during the War of 1812. While an interesting footnote to American and Canadian history, he did not have the same sort of dramatic historical and cultural impact of Metacomet, Sitting Bull or even Geronimo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. What makes him notable is that he shifted from an ally to the main INdian opponent of the American government in the 1930s. The Black Hawk War had the same impact on the subsequent Indian policy for the plains tribes as King Philip's war had for the east coast tribes. Blakk Hawk's war basically was the result of the Indian Removal policies of Andrew Jackson. I would say that the exact same reasoning you used to argue for keeping Metacomet applies to Black Hawk. Ceryainly more important than Geronimo in terms of historical impact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Maunus, my comment was carefully phrased; Geronimo is more widely remembered and has had a greater cultural impact than Black Hawk; to this day, American boys doing something physically dangerous often shout "Geronimo!" However, your argument that Black Hawk was probably more historically consequential is correct, and Geronimo is not included on the VA/E list. Among North American Indians, Metacomet, Sitting Bull and Tecumseh remain on the list, and I strongly support keeping all three of them. Black Hawk gets the hatchet when we're prioritizing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Black Hawk war" - 210,000.
• "Black Hawk" — 1,050,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be the bird of prey though, no?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - Per Igrek. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Metacomet's war with the New England colonists has a dramatic impact on how the colonists perceived and dealt with the American Indians, and ultimately on how the Indians were treated by the U.S. government during the 19th Century. Metacomet may be obscure, but he damn sure is important in the context of North American history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• We should remove some of the obscure leaders and add the well documented Native American groups, Iroquis, Cherokee etc. Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing obscure about these. And we can include the ethnic groups as well - its not one or the other. We also include both the US and a bunch of that particular nations political figures.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Carl, we can't include every British Empire colonial war, otherwise the history sublist would be overwhelmed. Metacomet is included as a representative of the more important North American Indian leaders, and I think he serves that purpose well, together with Sitting Bull and Tecumseh. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am looking at this topic differently, I am also wondering if the article on King Philips War, is more important/as important, and should be included instead/as well? Carlwev (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Metacomet" — 39,400. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support per my discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Spearthrower Owl?" Now, that's obscure. Putting aside the fact the Spearthrower Owl is not a household name, which as I have argued elsewhere should have very little to do with whether we include a topic on the VA/E list or not, there is virtually nothing known about this subject. Everything archeologists think they know about this Mayan king/chieftain, they have learned from a very small handful of stone glyphs. Heck, they're not even sure if all of the glyphs refer to one guy or several. What we don't know about Spearthrower Owl would fill volumes. This appears to have been a trendy news topic when the VA/E list was originally compiled, and there is very little real evidence to support the subject as a "vital" or otherwise significant topic. We have numerous other American Indian leaders whose history and significance are well documented and understood; we don't need to reinvent one from the mists of time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Spearthrower Owl" — 475. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Emiliano Zapata

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. -- User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - Per DL1, so long as he is added to the Revolutionaries, rebels, etc. sublist. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose He's already on the Activists list, folks pbp 19:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Already included on the Revolutionaries, rebels and activists sublist, which is where he should be. Let's close this thread. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per pbp--V3n0M93 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Emiliano Zapata" — 391,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I am generally amenable to adding Zapata, but I would prefer to do it as a swap if possible. Also, although it's unclear to me if Maunus intended Zapata to be clustered with the Native American leaders or not, it strikes me that he would be more appropriately grouped with the Revolutionaries, rebels, etc. sublist. Let's have some more discussion on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any preference as to where he is added. Perhaps Latin American leaders/politicians would be best with Benito Juarez and Porfirio Diaz and Simon Bolivar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, please forgive us if we don't all have a list of 10,000 entries perfectly committed to memory as I assume you have? Is that why you oppose the removal of redirects? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative swap: Add Emiliano Zapata, Remove Willie Mays (baseball player)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - I think we should try to avoid these types of apples to oranges swaps. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per Gabe. Also, Mays is widely regarded as one of the top all-around players in history. I can't support his removal under any circumstances. Jusdafax 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. OpposeHe's already on the Activists list, folks pbp 19:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Zapata is already included on the revolutionaries/rebels sublst. Let's close this thread. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose per pbp. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think swaps are working better than straight adds, in general I think leaders are more important than sports people. I think sports people are more bloated than leaders. Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• I believe there are too many sportsman and not enough, leaders. Swapping a sportsman for a sportsman does not improve the list a lot. Swapping a leader for a leader, does not improve the list a lot, we are forced to remove important leaders but find the least important among them. Leaders are generally more important than sportsman. Carlwev (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I think the solution would be to put a cap number for sports people and then prune down to the agreed upon number.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sports people frankly needs to be tac nuked. We should start at 0, then add people until we get to 100, then stop adding pbp 17:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes:

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support' parochial interest only, no vital global context or reach. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

1. Oppose, popular Indian spiritual poet and religious figure. --Igrek (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Tukaram" — 69,500. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Shen Yue

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Stanley Schachter

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Neal E. Miller

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove David McClelland

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support As nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. And the Academy Award for best couch-jumping Scientologist goes to... pbp 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - Cruise we can lose. Jusdafax 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose – the world's one, authentic movie star of the last quarter of a century. No-one else since Hollywood's golden age comes close. Betty Logan (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Cruise was nominated for the Razzie Award twice for worst actor and in several other categories. I don't think any other actor on our list can match that. He never actually won an academy award, even though he was nominated three times. He is famous for representing an All-American Image, and for being an important member of scientology rather than for being a good actor. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the cult is more of a side attraction, he is still vastly more notable as the world's biggest movie star. Critical acclaim and awards are one measure of an actor's importance, but film is more than just an artistic medium: it is also an industry, and commercial success is a hugely dominant factor for anyone who works within it. We could spend all day naming better actors, but no-one of the last fifty years has come even close to replicating his box office achievements as a performer. If you talk about film you have to talk about Hollywood, and the concept of the "movie star" has been central to its business model since the silent era, and there is no avoiding Cruise in that context. Betty Logan (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Opposing for now, the modern actors has almost been stripped to it's bare bones. If you take Cruise away I can only see Tom Hanks and Kamal Haasan, the only ones left under 60 and only just, we need some people to represent modern cinema too, and there's no one left. I'd say go for the actors in disguise within comedians, or the dancers instead. If we aren't putting people in based on their oscars, we shouldn't take them out based on their "Razzies" seriously?!? Enid Blyton, was slated and even banned from libraries and schools etc for her bad writing or grammar or something, do we remove her? well she still managed to write 800 books and sell 600Million+ copies. Carlwev (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I really don't think we need more than one representative of the last 50 years, Tom Hanks will do. We are currently trying to represent about 30 different sports with 100 people - why should actors have more? Tom Cruise has a place withing the top 100.000 but in the 10.000 I just don't see enough room. Look at the math and computers section, we will need to make additions there, so we have to cut people to the essentials.

@Betty: Tom Cruise as a representative of "movie star" is a local phenomenon. He has never quite reached that status in continental Europe.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah he's unheard of here, Hollywood doesn't really sell here in France and the UK, we're all watching Kenneth Branagh and Gerard Depardieu, errr no. The Razzie is meaningless, it has to be given to someone of status to get attention, if it were really given to truly the worst actor, it would be given to someone from ridiculous films like piranha 3DD, or Lesbian Vampire Killers. We only need one actor from the last 50 years?!? but we have about 40 actors from the 50-60s and only 1 2 or 3 from the 1990s and 2000s give it some balance. We're not exactly asking for 40 1990s actors and strip down to 3 golden age actors, so we shouldn't strip the other way either. Carlwev (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The box office figures indicate he is more than just a local star: he starred in the top grossing films (worldwide) of the year on three occasions (1986, 1988 & 2000). In addition to that, he has placed in the top 10 in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996 (two films), 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2011. Apart from the Mission Impossible films none of those were sequels/franchises either, so no easy scores like Harry Potter movies. 1988 was Rain Man; could you imagine a movie about autism being the year's top grosser today? That's major star quality by any yard stick... Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• @ Carl: We don't have to have 40 actors from the 50s and 60s. Don't you think we should cut the actors' list? Are we watching Cruise and does Hollywood sell here? Yes, it does. That doesn't mean he has the same star status in Europe, at least on the continent. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• @ Betty: Sales is just one factor among many. We have deleted actors, sports people and musicians before because their merits are only based on sales and perceived beauty.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• My last comments here I hope...For actors from the same time period 80s 90s 2000s we've already trimmed Stalone, DiCaprio, Branagh, Travolta, Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, plus Hoffman and Hackman who started a bit earlier through voting, and Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson, Denzel Washington, Sally Fields, Kevin Costner, Matt Damon? and Halle Berry??? and more before voting started, In addition to several directors of the same period, Zemekis, Peter Jackson, and any minute now Tim Burton. I know it was bloated but we've trimmed a lot, and other bloated sections have barely been touched. Everyone thinks they know movies and music that's what makes them pop culture and half this talk page is full of it. Threads about plants, psychologists, Maths or Hinduism don't get posted alot or get much feedback positive or negative when they are. Pop culture shouldn't be ignored but it's taking too much attention compared to other areas.
• Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, we have all put our views up for others to read if they want, the voting will decide if he stays or goes. I think none of us is going to change our mind on this in 5 minutes. I'd like it if he stayed, but I won't lose sleep over it, I'm trying to get more important topics like Reincarnation in. Carlwev (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you fail in this life, there is always the next... Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Morgan Freeman

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Basically agree with Carl.--Rsm77 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - He is one of the finest American actors who ever lived. Also, his career has spanned 42 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, - he has had a Deep Impact on American film-history and he is popular around the world, and, like Gabe already said, he is one of the finest actors out there. I don't see why you would hold it against him that he started his career at 40 - it's all the more amazing how he made it at that age. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose, he's popular internationally. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - a little comic relief: True Facts About Morgan Freeman--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per Gabe and Melody. This one is going nowhere, suggest speedy archival. Jusdafax 21:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• You know I like him. Although he's a decent actor, again like Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman, not hugely influential, I think Hoffman and Hackman are a bit more notable and they've gone already. I think there are more important actors missing, and I think we have removed more important actors already. I think his age is artificially pushing his image up for inclusion here. Reading his article before the 1980s he didn't do anything in Hollywood except for playing very minor roles, he did some OK stage acting acting but nothing amazing, and other non-acting jobs. A few medium Hollywood roles in the 1980s after he was 40, he wasn't really a big name until he was well into his 50s when he appeared in Robin Hood. His body of work is OK but not groundbreaking. Other younger actors (and directors) working today appeared in cinema earlier and have had more impact too. He has one Oscar but that was for a supporting actor in Million Dollar Baby, we have more substantial Oscar winners missing too. Carlwev (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• The article does need some work, it's only B-class. He won Obie awards for his stage performances, for example in Mother Courage and Her Children. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support. As nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Vladimir Ashkenazy

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Big name conductor as well as pianist. Rothorpe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Per Rothorpe. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose tremendous influence on performance and interpretation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Correcting mistake, originally had this in the support column.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Lang Lang (pianist)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap: Remove Lang Lang (pianist) → Add Sviatoslav Richter

Lang Lang smacks of recentism, he isn't that good, and I wouldn't consider him vital as Richter who next to Horowitz is a God of 20th century pianists. Richter redefined style, his interpretations are praised, emotionally charged. Lang Lang is criticized way too often for bland performances and horrible technique.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap: Remove Garth Brooks, Add Simon and Garfunkel

Support !votes

1. Support: pbp 16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support also Carlwev (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - essential. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. support remove but not add. --Igrek (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - US folk is already way overrepresented on this list and S&G are not vital, IMO. I've given my support for the straight removal of Brooks in the removal thread below this one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think that there is too much representation of US country, a genre which though massive in the US, does not have the same influence globally. For Dirtlawyer1's reasons I think Brooks is a good person to go. However, if we are planning to reduce the rock section some difficult decisions are ahead and adding S&G won't help matters. I would support a straight removal of Garth Brooks. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I have struck my previous weak support for this swap, and moved to a straight removal of Garth Brooks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Simon and Garfunkel are an improvement in terms of being a "vital" topic. However, I'm not sure if we wouldn't be better off just deleting Garth outright. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Unarchived premature swap. 6-2 is neither unanimous nor a 70% majority. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) S&G are not vital. 2) I think that if we are to add any folk acts they should be non-American for the sake of globalization (US folk and country is already well, if not overrepresented). For example there are several quite notable British and Irish acts that are currently not included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support straight removal. Rothorpe (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Garth Brooks

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: --Rsm77 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - per DL1. Jusdafax 01:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I am supporting the stand-alone removal of Garth Brooks, after having previously expressed my "weak support" for the proposed swap of Simon & Garfunkel for Brooks. Brooks has sold a lot of records, but there is very little original, influential or significant about Brooks music. He is a "pop" country artist, and has had nothing like the lasting national or world-wide impact of country artists like Patsy Cline or Johnny Cash, who were true innovators within the genre and influenced music across a much wider spectrum than just country. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Guillaume Dufay

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. oppose:No reason to add. Not that influential. European rennaissance music already well represented. Not really globalization - find some figures from non-Western traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Maunus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Maunus --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Frederica von Stade

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - Jusdafax 01:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Alla Pugacheva

Support !votes

1. Support: In general, I don't think artists more notable for sales than influence should be included, but especially if they only have regional fame. Sure the former Soviet Union is a big area, but there are plenty of other big areas not represented. For example we could have Teresa Teng for East Asia, but there isn't room on the list for these kinds of artists. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Rsm77. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
3. support per Rsm77, not vital. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Bedrieger (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support pbp 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, see below. --Igrek (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• For my opinion, East Europe and Russia are underrepresented and we should have popular performers from others regions that have regional fame also. --Igrek (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• She's pretty big and been around for about 45 years. Someone has made a sublist called non-English singers, there's not many names in it. Who should appear in such a list if not people like this. Her audience/market may be just as big as US or UK rock/pop artists, just not an English speaking audience. We are including here and there people who are not very well known to accommodate "globalization" or diversity. But now we are trying to remove non English speaking people who are well known and have large sales as well to back it up too. I mean she appears to be the biggest modern Russian/Soviet musician, it's not like we have loads of Russian pop stars. For diversity someone added Fela Kuti to the vital 1000 not 10'000, 1000, I didn't agree with that. Fela appears in 24 languages, Alla in I think 67 languages. I would remove Fela Kuti from the 1000 for your stated reasons but I don't really agree with this removal, although I don't think she is rock solid, I don't think we should remove people just because they don't have a huge English speaking following, but a following of people of other languages. Thank you all the same, let others keep voting. Carlwev (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• (1) I wouldn't remove Fela Kuti from the 10,000 for my reasons because he has influenced other musicians as a pioneer of Afrobeat. (1000 is a bit of a stretch though). Maybe it's just a bad article, but I didn't get the sense Pugacheva had had much of an influence. (2) When you talk about the sublist of non-English singers being short (6 people) right now that doesn't include 7 in non-western traditions and 3 in Latin. Plus Kraftwerk often sang in their native German. (3) I will admit that the number of languages the Alla Pugacheva article appears in is a point in her favour. (4) We should probably look at making some serious cuts to Rock, but I'm not quite sure where to start.--Rsm77 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Off topic comment: I too would not try to remove Fela Kuti from the 10'000, he probably has a place here. I will try to remove him from the 1000, way too much of a stretch. If we want to list the top 10 most vital musicians ever. If you list the most vital musician from each continent, unfortunately you do not end up with the most vital musicians, you remove people that are vital because they happen to be from the same continent as Elvis or Mozart. And add lesser musician in their place because there happens to be no Mozarts from their region. I think Africa may be under presented at the 1000 list I would like to add Ethiopia, 1000s of years of history and over 90M people, not Kuti. I think Alla is a pretty good non English speaking musician to have, I oppose removal. But I'm not adamant the article is the most exceptionally vital article we should definitely have, if consensus removes her so be it, if she goes she goes. Carlwev (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Vladimir Vysotsky

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, we have four French singers, there should be room for Vysotsky on the list per WP:WORLDVIEW. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Prefer if this was a swap, but removals are still happening in decent numbers Carlwev (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

#Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Les Paul add The Dubliners

Support !votes

1. Support: Outside of the US Les Paul is known as a guitar maker, not as a musician. Currently all of the 11 articles in the folk section are Americans and half are country musicians from the 1950s and 1960s. Replacing Les Paul with the Dubliners, one of the longest living and greatest groups of the folk revival period, and a representative of a European folk tradition would be a good start on correcting that bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - Highly vital as a musician, and as an inventor or co-inventor of the electric guitar and multi-track recording. Removing Les Paul does an extreme disservice to the integrity of the vital 10000 list, in my view. Jusdafax 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Jusdafax. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

@Jusdafax Then add him to another section - he is not primarily known as a musician - particularly not a folk or country musician. His main influence is in rock music - so maybe add him there. Here he is just taking up space on a topical list where Americans from the 1950s and 1960s are already overrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Les Paul should be moved to the inventor-section, some think we don't have enough inventors on the list anyway. Melody Lavender (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• To excerpt and enhance my comments from elsewhere: Les Paul had a big series of smash music hits with three number one songs, with one of them, 'How High the Moon' in the Grammy Hall of Fame. He has his own permanent exhibit in the Rock Hall of Fame. Genres in the late 40's - early 50's were mixed up, so he is termed "country" for lack of a better placement. Les Paul was highly influential as an innovative guitarist. Now yes, he also has a huge rep as an inventor, with the electric guitar and multitrack recording arguably to his credit. Wow! But he can't be listed twice, can he, with the bloat we have on the list at present. Inventor or musician? Hmm. So let's leave this alone; it ain't quite right but is the best we have. Jusdafax 02:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Look: Les Paul is not a top selling musician, that argument doesn't hold, with three "smash hits" to his credit hundreds of musicians have a comparable Grammy record. We don't even have half the artists who have gotten Grammy lifetime achievement awards, and we also don't have most of the others that have permanent exhibits in the Rock n Roll hall of fame. Finally Grammies and "halls of fame" are marks of importance that hugely favor American artists. And also we don't usually go by sales, but by influence. Les Paul is simply not vital as a musician or composer and his stylistic influence on any music genre is zilch. He is known today only because of the guitar that carries his name, and through his sound engineering inventions that we still use. His exhibit at the Rock hall of fame is also with other sound engineering pioneers - not with the artists. He should be moved.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Move Les Paul to inventors

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support,--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Let's not tinker here. Jusdafax 21:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• He is clearly not known either as a country or folk musician, so he is definitely misplaced in this section. For Jazz he doesn't have a chance either even that is there area where he is known as a musician. His only lasting fame is as an inventor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Or maybe he should be under "Instrument makers" with Stradivari pbp 21:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets not tinker here? Why do you want to keep an American on the list who is not even known as a folki or country artist? But you won't include a single non-American artist because the list is to big? This is crap reasoning - and the utterly parochial American bias of this ridiculous list is beginning to reek to the high heavens. I am not going to participate in this ridiculous American hit parade any longer. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Maunus. Les Paul and Mary Ford sold 6 million albums in 1951 and had 16 top-ten hits by 1963. Also, many of his innovations to recording techniques (overdubbing, tape delay, phasing effects and multitrack recording) are on par with the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix. He was every bit the significant musician as he was an innovative luthier. We need increased participation and your input is highly valued. Most of my threads havn't gone the way I wanted either; its the nature of this quite democratic process whereby our !votes hold more weight than our rationales. I hope you reconsider your continued participation regardless if your threads go the way you want. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Add The Dubliners

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, not vital. --Igrek (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - marginal. Rothorpe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. - Per Rothorpe. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• May I ask why you are opposed to add what is probably the single greatest and best known Irish folk orchestra to a list that currently includes only American musicians?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Joan Baez

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. I suggest we cut elsewhere, like in the rock section. Baez was also an important activist and an icon of her time. The article appears in countless languages and even several dialects that have their own wikipedia.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Melody. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per Melody. Jusdafax 21:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I want to remove her to make room for non-American artists in the folk section. Baez' influence is intimately tied to Dylan's and she is mostly known for playing cover's of his songs. He own influence on folk is extremely limited.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • She has received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award - and lifetime achievement is a pretty good criterion for vitalness. Also, among other awards, she has won the John Steinbeck Award for her contributions to society "In the souls of the people".--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we can't include everyone who has received a lifetime achievement award. Also Grammy's are mostly national - and non-American artists receive Grammys in their own countries. If we were to go by the American Grammy's lifetime achievement awards we would certainly not be able to do anything about the overrepresentation of American artists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Fairport Convention

Support !votes

1. Support: - User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Not now, when we are trying to cut the list down, not expand. Jusdafax 22:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Inessential. Rothorpe (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I can't believe that there are no vital non-american folk musicians or orchestras - so I would really like to request that the opposers make one or two suggestions of non-American artists to add to the Folk list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Turlough O'Carolan

Support !votes

1. Support: Vital Irish folk composer of the 18th century.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Not vital. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Billie Holiday

Support !votes

1. Support: Not a single woman in Jazz section + Billie Holliday is more vital than several of the people in the section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Maunus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support I've thought about nominating her myself. Not always a fan of straight adds, but will vote to remove Fats Waller to balance things up. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - per Rsm77, this is a swap for Fats Waller. Holliday is indeed vital. Jusdafax 22:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support pbp 14:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Holiday's personal performance style has been often imitated, but rarely equaled. She is one of the two or three greatest female blues/jazz artists ever, and here inclusion will improve the VA/E list. As everyone has followed my comments knows, I am emphasizing removals and swaps until we get the VA/E list under its limit of 10,000 articles, but I am going to make an exception here because Maunus, GabeMc and Carl have nominated multiple other musical artists for removal, several of which appear to be on their way to being successfully removed, and I am going to treat this add as a de facto swap. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Fats Waller

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, I have been considering to nominate him for some time. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Not really in the big league. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support - Had some hits but not truly vital for this list. Jusdafax 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Quincy Jones

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - There are too many producers on par with him that we won't be including, e.g. George Martin, Barry Gordy and Phil Spector to name just a few. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - per Gabe. Jusdafax 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Joni Mitchell

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital for Rock. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - On a list and in a field in which women are arguably under-represented, this is a bad call. One of the first big female stand-alone stars in rock. Innovative guitarist with unique tunings, strong composer and genre bending artist. Cut elsewhere, please. Jusdafax 22:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. Women are way under-represented on this list and there must be a better choice for removal than Joni. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Leaning toward support removal. almost Carlwev (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry did I vote to remove an American... SHE IS NOT EVEN A ROCK MUSICIAN AND NEVER WAS FFS. And she got her "unique tunings" off of EUROPEAN FOLK MUSICIANS!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Aram Khachaturian

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support -- "Sabre dance" and what else? seriously, can only name one thing he's composed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Marvin Hamlisch

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital and recentist. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Sure, while we're in a mood to cut secondary American musicians, let's get it done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Salvatore Cammarano

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Clearly not vital Carlwev (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Henry Mancini

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 16:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support -- not vital. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Add King Crimson

Support !votes

1. Support Progressive rock is completely underrepresented. Randomuser112 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose But rock in general is completely overrepresented. I would consider "Progressive rock" a rather narrow (both geographically and temporally) subgenre that cannot count on representation. And we have Pink Floyd already, which i wouold consider the only truly vital name for that genre - much as Nirvana is the only vital name within grunge. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Boris Becker

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

How many tennis players do we really want in the end? 10? that might be too many. Is Boris Becker in the top 10 most vital tennis players ever, including both male and female? He does have notability for being one of the youngest winners at 17. Carlwev (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Willie Mays (baseball player)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I call him vital. Jusdafax 22:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Sócrates, Add Gareth Edwards

Support !votes

1. Support. So many football players and no rugby players. Gareth Edwards is often considered to be the greatest rugby player of all time. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose support remove oppose add. Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

With the list being cut down and this swap (my proposal) gaining no support, perhaps it should be archived. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support: pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support,per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support we need to cut in this section. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - We gotta trim, too many runners. Jusdafax 09:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Won gold medals in the 5,000 and 10,000 meters at consecutive Olympics. That's pretty darn impressive. He was also a damn fine marathon runner for his generation, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Vis-a-vis DL's comment, I think we need to prioritize how many 5K, 10K and marathoners should we have on this list? I think having more than three for any distance is too many pbp 13:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Gaétan Vestris

Support !votes

1. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlwev (talk • contribs)
2. Support pbp 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I don't know much about dance, but I can review the articles and use my judgment on who looks less vital. I think we have slightly too many dancers, and they are all of 2 forms, while other forms of dance we actually miss the dance forms themselves, like Flamenco. If anyone has greater knowledge than me any guidance would be welcome. Carlwev (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Arthur Mitchell (dancer)

Support !votes

1. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap: Remove John Glenn, Add Buzz Aldrin

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, this swap improves the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support remove not add Not vital by a longshot. Being the first American to do something is not notable in itself. Being the first human to do so is.
4. Support remove not add. Gagarin was first. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Glenn was the first American to orbit the Earth, but what was Buzz first at? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose bad swap pbp 01:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Both are vital and ought to be included. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Neil Armstrong has been added to the vital 1000 in that case I think Buzz at least deserves the 10'000. Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth? If USSR didn't get there before the USA would we be listing the first russian, or in either the first Chinese in orbit, probably not. Glenn is trumped by Yuri Gagarin. In any case Aldrin seems more vital than Glenn to me. Carlwev (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I didn't think nationality was a huge deal. Glenn was not the first human to orbit the Earth, just the first American. We aren't listing the first Chinese in space or Japanese or European. Buzz was closer to being the first man on the Moon than Glenn was to being the first man in space, Buzz was only set foot down a few minutes or seconds after Armstrong. We list both of the 2 man team who climbed Everest first. Do we list the first American who climbed Everest? I can understand the point of view though, and I know Armstrong was commander of the mission Aldrin wasn't. I can see it both ways. Carlwev (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• And yet no one can name the third member of the Apollo 11 team who orbited the moon a few times waiting for Armstrong and Aldrin to scoop up a few moonrocks and get their fix of hopping around down below. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carlwev - being the first American but the fifth human is not very vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Meyer Guggenheim

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Mark Zuckerberg

Support !votes

1. As nom: recentism.GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Aristotle Onassis

Support !votes

1. As nom.GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Doesn't have much notability aside of his wife pbp 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - Not for a 10k list. Jusdafax 09:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Donald Trump

Support !votes

1. As nom.GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. pbp 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Dump Trump. Jusdafax 09:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support An encyclopedia would not lose much losing him Carlwev (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
7. support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap: Add Canaan, Remove Metacomet

Support !votes

1. Support Carlwev (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, good swap.--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Native American history severely underrepresented. Metacomet's role in King Philips war war was decisive for the future of all New England tribes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Maunus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose oppose add, support remove.Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

different sections, but both historic, Canaan is more vital, covers more area, more time, more events, in more languages. Carlwev (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• If he's main importance is that he influenced an "important" war...Surely then King Philip's War (that we don't have) has to be more vital than one of the leaders that took part in it. Carlwev (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Canaan

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ahh yes globalization, a historical non western region that lasted thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of people, several wars, not as vital by itself or compared to one historical leader who lived less than 40 years, fought one war and lost it, along with his life and the lives of 3000 of his men. Makes perfect sense. Carlwev (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• That comment was a bit rude and I want to appear passionate but not rude. I meant to say...I believe entire empires/regions like this that lasted thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of people, several wars to be good encyclopedia material. Only my judgment, though. I think there are many important history topics that span centuries or millennia and huge numbers of people, that are forgotten or left off in favour of other areas such as 24 paintings and 8 figure skaters to pick on a few. Carlwev (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Americas

Support !votes

1. As nom. We already have North America and South America. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose pbp 21:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Carlwev. --Igrek (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I really thought and read about this first before making my decision. Where I would definitely have N ans S America first, like the 100 list. This list is 10000. Many named regions are covered by other named regions, it is a topic of discussion and a clear physical geography entity. The whole old world new world idea. It's indigenous population as a whole cut off from and almost completely unknown to the old world for centuries, the whole general colonization of the region by Europeans after Columbus came. Within a list as big as 10'000. Although yes we do have N and S I still think this topic does stand alone a vital topic, wikipedia users seem to think the topic was worth writing a long article for, giving it top or high importance, in several wikiprojects, and it appears in about 165 languages, which is high for a region article. It's more than just a meaningless region term. There are some areas I think get less attention and are less vital. We have Australia the nation as we should, The overlaps of Australia (continent), Oceania, and Australasia stand out a bit more as does Afro Eurasia. Large regions already covered by other articles can still be important. We have E and W coast of the US. We have N S E W and central Europe, but all seem important topics, I wouldn't remove them ONLY because the land is covered in another article. The stand out non vital topics in geography to me are the straits and seas, physical geography like Turan depression and interior plains etc. Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cartographic censorship

Support !votes

1. As nom. I assume this is subsumed by Cartography. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Not a great article to have, I'm sure we don't have Censorship of Movies or Music etc Carlwev (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Topological map

Support !votes

1. As nom. This is just a type of map, which is already included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I would say the topic is covered better by Topology, which I presume we must have in math. Looking at Category:Map_types shows how many map types there are, flicking through, them there are several map types that look more important than this one. In any case, yes, I think we can lose this. Carlwev (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Virtual globe

Support !votes

1. As nom. We already have globe. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support thought of booting this before, good call. Computing term, more vital things missing in computing than this. Do we even have virtual reality? Carlwev (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Argentine Antarctica

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support removing. --Igrek (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (vote moved from other section but clear)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

see also swap regions for cities

Remove British Antarctic Territory

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support removing. --Igrek (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (vote moved from other section but clear)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

see also swap regions for cities

Remove Interior Plains

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, the geography section is too big, there's almost enough material there to fill the 100.000 most vital articles list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Interior Plains is not used much, probably wouldn't appear in an encyclopedia as a stand alone topic. We already have Great Plains, probably not exactly the same meaning but enough overlap to make it redundant. All good info is at Great Plains which is in more languages. Interior plains seems to be more geology, but there are loads of far more important geology topics missing, this is far from being a vital geology article too. Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Turkish Kurdistan, Add Tibet

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Turkish Kurdistan is not a great article nor in a great number of languages, it's an unofficial term. In Turkish language it does not even have it's own article, it has a section within the Kurdistan article that English article Turkish Kurdistan interlinks to. We already have Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region, Turkish Kurdistan is not. We already have an article Eastern Anatolia Region which covers a very similar area. Tibet? I could go on about why we should have Tibet but I hope users already know. I am very surprised it isn't here. We have Tibetan Plateau in physical geography, but that is only about the climate, geology and wildlife, almost nothing about people, history, culture or religion. Tibetan Plateau is in no way a substitute for not having Tibet, and it doesn't even cover the same area anyway. We have a "regions" section in addition to a countries section, which is good place for it as it's definitely a region and we don't have to address it's status or non status. Tibet is a no brainer for me, I just hope I have selected a good swap for this though. Carlwev (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Turan Depression

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Amundsen Sea

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Amundsen Sea" — 8,540. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose, Bellingshausen Sea is more inportant than Amundsen Sea. --Igrek (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Bellingshausen Sea" — 19,100. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --Igrek (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I was contemplating this one already and a few of the other small seas within SE Asian archipelago Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Flores Sea" — 15,400. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Longer isn't always more vital, as I thought with the Thames. I always thought the Jordan River to be fairly important, but I'm not as sure with this one as I was with the Thames. I will propose it anyway as the support Thames got surprised me a bit. Jordan is mentioned in the Bible is some of the border beween Israel and Jordan, and like the Nile, although no where as big serves as the main water source in an otherwise baron area. The damming or potential damming or diverting of its water is part of the reason for the states hostility to one another. I think it's more vital than Benue, but is it that vital? would it be better to just remove Benue out right? I'll let people vote on both. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Benue" — 440,000.
• "Benue State" - 37,100
• "Benue River" — 19,700. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Benue" — 440,000.
• "Benue State" - 37,100
• "Benue River" — 19,700. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk&#124 contribs)} 23:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Liao River" — 20,400. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Kara Strait" — 3,280. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Koro Sea" — 3 330. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Country and Sovereign state listed twice

Leave Country in geography and leave Sovereign state in political science

Support!votes

1. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Country is a (political) geographical concept, sovereign state is a political science topic. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Country and Sovereign state from Geography

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 22:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Country and Sovereign state from Social sciences, Politics and government.

Support !votes

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

It appears the list is orientated toward having things that are not places not in geography, having kinds of Physical Earth features at Earth science, that is river, mountain, ocean, dessert. But individual examples of them that exist as places within geography, Nile Everest, Atlantic, Sahara. There are many government body kinds of articles in Social sciences, politics and government. Like state, empire etc, so these kind of look better there. Country is not a place. I can see this both ways but am leaning slightly on way. We may need to discus the placement of City, Town etc later they're presently in geography. Core project a separate project, uses the same placement for country and city, as I am supporting here. Carlwev (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cook Islands

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Niue

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I'm really wondering about these 2, what makes them more important than say, Jersey or the Channel Islands. Jersey is partly independent too, has more population, more hits more languages. And if that, what about another city say Bristol? also almost 1000 years history more views and languages, much higher pop. I don't know?

Swap: Add Wellington, Remove Te Wahipounamu

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose, Brisbane and Perth are more important, Auckland (largest NZ city) is included. --Igrek (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• National park in New Zealand, we hardly have any New Zealand places, in fact we don't even have its capital city, this park was only designated in 1990 by clumping 4 parks together and giving it one name, hardly vital. Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• @Carl, maybe we should consider converting this to a swap of the park for the city of Wellington? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes OK I will Carlwev (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I propose to add New Zealand's capital city Wellington in the appropriate list, with the removal of Te Wahipounamu, a national park in New Zealand. The capital city seems much more a vital than a national park made in 1990, from a national or international point of view. Carlwev (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• I didn't see any other world-heritage-sites or national reserves in New Zealand on the list - did I miss something? Wellington should be added, but probably not at the expense of Te Wahipounamu. Melody Lavender (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Brisbane and Perth have since been added, Yes we have Auckland. Question still remains, what is more vital out of Wellington and this park. I still say Wellington. But that's just me. Carlwev (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Te Wahipounamu

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Do we really need 277 articles. The majority of the articles are not important at all. Some countries are listed with 10/20 regions while other are not at all. I don't think we need more than about 50 articles. We should decide what makes a region vital enough to be on the list. Any suggestions or ideas?--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

While I think we could shed 40-50, I do feel that Geography is fairly right-sized as a whole, and I am worried how the proposed cuts will affect globalization bias pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added some western regions to keep the balance. USA in my opinion is overrepresented, but I couldn't decide which states are the least vital. My greatest concern is that only few countries are represented. Obviously we can't add every country, so the best choice is to keep only the most vital and remove the majority of them. IMO we should leave the autonomous regions, the historically important ones and the supranational ones. The others can go. Considering the fact we already include an article about the country and perhaps at least one of its cities, I see no reason to include the majority of its regions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to some comments, I think this is a great idea, well over half or more could go, still need to look at them one by one. Some obvious keeps, many obvious boots, some half and half. More likely to keep autonomous regions, and culturally and historically significant regions. Less modern administrative only regions. We'll probably disagree on a few but all agree on most. I would also look at other areas, namely peninsulas, to reduce I would rather have/keep Korea and Scandinavia, but remove Scandinavian Peninsula, Korean Peninsula, Fennoscandia, Kola Peninsula. Had this section in the back of my mind for a while, but it involves so many articles I put it off for ages. I am also wondering how much we can gain from having Italian Peninsula, in addition to Italy? If we have ended up less global, like keeping US states but removing Sudanese states, If and only if we get under target, then I would look at topics from other areas that are probably more vital than administrative regions, such as Maasai people, to restore a better balance. But that's way in the future not now. I will review them one by one later when I have more time, busy at the moment, it's not going anywhere for the minimum 2 weeks anyway. Carlwev (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

We are having a discussion which articles to keep on the bottom of the page. You might want to check it out. These proposals were made before the decision to scrap the entire section so they are redundant now. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ethiopian regions: Amhara Region, Oromia Region, Somali Region, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region and Tigray Region

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Population (2007):
• Amhara Region 17,214,056
• Oromia Region 27,158,471
• Somali Region 4,439,147
• Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region - 15,042,531
• Tigray Region 4,316,988
• We have many counrtries and cities with populations less than 1000 000. --Igrek (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Nigerian regions: Anambra State, Borno State, Delta State, Kaduna State, Kano State, Lagos State, Niger State, Oyo State, Rivers State and Plateau State

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Population (2006):
• 1 Kano State 9,401,288
• 2 Lagos State 9,113,605
• 3 Kaduna State 6,113,503
• 4 Katsina State 5,801,584
• 5 Oyo State 5,580,894
• 6 Rivers State 5,198,716
• 7 Bauchi State 4,653,066
• 8 Jigawa State 4,361,002
• 9 Benue State 4,253,641
• 10 Anambra State 4,177,828
• 11 Borno State 4,171,104
• 12 Delta State 4,112,445
• 13 Imo State 3,927,563
• 14 Niger State 3,954,772
• 25 Plateau State 3,206,531
• We have many counrtries and cities with populations less than 1000 000. --Igrek (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sudan regions: Darfur and Kurdufan

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Kurdufan pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Darfur pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Population (2007):
• Darfur 6 million (2004)
• Kurdufan 3.6 million (2000)
• We have many counrtries and cities with populations less than 1000 000. --Igrek (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Turkey regions: Aegean Region, Black Sea Region, Central Anatolia, Eastern Anatolia, Marmara Region, Mediterranean Region, Southeastern Anatolia and Turkish Kurdistan

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support many of them provided that there are articles devoted to Anatolia and Kurdistan pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Both Anatolia and Kurdistan are on the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Antarctic regions: Argentine Antarctica, British Antarctic Territory, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Marie Byrd Land, Ross Dependency, Victoria Land and Queen Maud Land

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Volhynia

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Donets Basin

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Emilia-Romagna

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Apulia

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Lazio

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Piedmont

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Aquitaine

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Historically significant region pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Burgundy

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Historically significant region pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Brittany (administrative region)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

• #Oppose Historically significant region pbp 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

This isn't the article about the historical region, it's about the modern one. I'll add a swap proposal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap:Remove Brittany (administrative region), Add Brittany

Support !votes

1. Support per discussion above. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 19:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Languedoc

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Rhône-Alpes

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Rhineland-Palatinate

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Hesse

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - --Igrek (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Chłopi, Add Snow Country

Support !votes

1. Support The writer of Chlopi, Władysław Reymont, is not on the list and the article itself only exists in three languages. I have a hard time believing it's vital. It would be nice to replace it with another novel that's not in a major European language though, so I have selected Snow Country (Japanese) which is the most famous novel by Yasunari Kawabata, another Nobel Prize winner, but who has had more of a worldwide impact than Reymont. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Being familiar with both works, it behooves me to mention that this is a tough swap. However, Snow Country is vital in modern Asian literature. Chłopi, while a significant and worthy work, is not as comparatively vital in the scheme of Eastern European literature.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I have read Snow Country but not Chlopi. I think it's worth noting that Snow Country is currently available in several European languages while Chlopi is out of print. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Duino Elegies; Remove Kipling's "If" or Rimbaud's "Season in Hell"

• Per discussion below, I would propose replacing either Kipling's "If" or Rimbaud's "Season in Hell" to add Duino Elegies to the list.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)