Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 15

Remove Gerd Binnig

Support !votes

1. Support. As nom. Not really an inventor despite his co-design of the STM. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Add Walter Houser Brattain

Support !votes

1. Support As nom. We include both John Bardeen and William Shockley, so why exclude Brattain? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Adolph Rickenbacker

Support !votes

1. Support. - As nom. We include Leo Fender, presumably because many believe him to be the inventor of the amplifiable electric guitar, but he wasn't; Adolph Rickenbacker was. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support !votes:

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Yes, of course. Rothorpe (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

Turner appears more important than quite a few artists on the list. He definitely seems more vital than Cornell. Turner has a prize and a gallery, pretty influential. Carlwev (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes:

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

1. Oppose. - If Blake is listed twice, then we should just remove the redundant listing, not take the opportunity to keep adding when we are 400+ article over the pre-set limit. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Cornell, not vital to me, lots of users have been this this week but this is still a bit slow, I'll try another also.

artists !votes

writers !votes

1. Seems this is the best fit. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Better fit Hierophant443 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. pbp 20:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. "To Generalize is to be an Idiot; To Particularize is the Alone Distinction of Merit". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

William Blake, man of many talents, poet and painter. When we remove one of the double entries were shall we leave him? artists or writers?

Add Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Remove Thomas Chatterton

Support !votes:

1. Support STC wrote enduring works like The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan. Chatterton was a poet who died when he was 17 and has a bit of a romantic reputation for that reason, but his poetry is relatively unknown. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support I looked at Chatterton months back and he might be on the cutting list, but then forgot all about it. An improvement to the list. Carlwev (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Thomas Chatterton" — 133,000.
• "Samuel Taylor Coleridge" — 1,530,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Michel de Montaigne, Remove Laura Ingalls Wilder

Support !votes:

1. Support Montaigne was an incredibly influential essayist, influencing people including Emerson and Nietzsche. Wilder wrote books like Little House on the Prairie and does not have anywhere near the same importance. (I prefer to swap like for like, but the early modern European writers look pretty solid). --Rsm77 (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per Rsm77. Sound reasoning.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Laura Ingalls Wilder" — 153,000.
• "Michel de Montaigne" — 1,420,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Percy Bysshe Shelley, Remove James Macpherson

Support !votes:

1. Support Shelley is another enduringly influential romantic poet, most famous for Ozymandias with a big reputation within English literature. Macpherson caused a stir in 19th century poetry by "discovering" an ancient poet and translating his works (actually written by Macpherson himself). It's an interesting story but Macpherson is largely forgotten. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Again sound reasoning. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "James Macpherson" — 250,000.
• "Percy Bysshe Shelley" — 1,240,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Samuel Beckett, Remove Martin Amis

Support !votes:

1. Support Samuel Beckett has had an incredible impact on drama and a lesser impact on novels. His case should be clear. Martin Amis is a good contemporary novelist, not really that influential outside the UK. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. Easy choice, good swap nomination that improves the list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Martin Amis" — 115,000.
• "Samuel Beckett" — 1,010,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Charlotte Brontë, Remove Robert Graves

Support !votes:

1. Support CB is most famous for Jane Eyre, but her other novels have also been influential. Robert Graves was extremely prolific, probably most famous for Goodbye to All That and I, Claudius but is not really in the same league. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support improves the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

Not sure what to do with the Brontës. I'd like to get Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights into the novels list, but as WH was all that Emily is really known for (apart from a handful of poems) maybe this is one case where the book would be included ahead of the writer. I also considered adding the Brontë family. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Robert Graves" — 819,000.
• "Jane Eyre" — 721,000.
• "Wuthering Heights" - 469,000.
• "Charlotte Brontë" — 1,390,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Pope Gregory XIII in, Pope Clement VII out

Pope Gregory XIII (r. 1572-1585) instituted the Gregorian calendar instituted, and was aggressive foreign policy-wise. Pope Clement VII (r. 1523-1534) got Rome sacked, and was held hostage by the Holy Roman Emperor. Swap does not significantly change balance of power regionally, ecclesiastically, or temporally pbp 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom pbp 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)-
3. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'd like some rationale for why GabeMc and Igrek are opposing this. Clement VII is a relatively minor pope. Gregory XIII instituted the calendar we still use today. There's no good reason for Gregory XIII to be left out while Clement VII is on pbp 05:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  See Googles Books:

  "Clement VII" - 1,050,000 results

  "Gregory XIII" - 175,000 results

  "Pope Clement VII" - 82,700 results

  "Pope Gregory XIII" - 65,500 results

  Name of Gregory XIII is associated with calendar, but this topic is covered by Gregorian calendar. As a politician Clement VII is more important than Gregory XIII (Italian Wars, Sack of Rome (1527), English Reformation, etc). --Igrek (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but in all those things, Clement screwed up. The three events you mention all turned out badly for the Papal States. He got in a war with the Holy Roman Empire that ended with Rome sacked and him in prison. Meanwhile, England pulled out of the Catholic Church. Seems like he's the James Buchanan of popes. I will concede that he is mentioned in a number of historical events, but in relatively few of them is it in a positive light pbp 14:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

For my opinion, we should include at sublist politicians of this sort also. --Igrek (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, PbP, but I don't see any requirement to get into dozens of little arguments with you over everything we disagree on. Most if not all of the swaps, adds and removals are the result of pure votes and I don't have to justify mine to you or anybody else. Also, I find it too convenient that you've now adopted the "it gets X amount of google hits" argument when a couple months ago you said that sales and popularity are not at all factors in an article's vitality to the project. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Shorten "Musical comedy and lyricists" to 8 entries

Support !votes

1. Support: Musical comedy is a quite Western centric - mainly anglophone -genre. Compared with e.g. Latin Music it covers a much shorter time span and geographical ranger. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support in theory, see below. Carlwev (talk) 10:04, 3 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 Rothorpe (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. I strongly oppose this on procedural grounds per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think stating a goal for a list's amount, is a step in the right direction. We still need to look at and vote on each case one at a time, here and everywhere else. I wouldn't want to trim this list (or any list, not just this list) to say 9 entries, find the articles left are all pretty vital, and feel obligated to remove one more because "we said we have to". Alternatively I wouldn't want to trim to 8 entries. Find that one or two more are actually terrible, but not be allowed to propose removal because the list was at the "agreed" amount. I haven't examined all entries here, but to have 11 in this list seems to many. I agree, attempt to shrink it to 8, or possibly even smaller. Don't be to harsh if we find 6, 7, 8 or 9 entries to be a good amount either. Carlwev (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is not appropriate to impose an arbitrary cap or limit on any one VA/E sublist when we are not doing the same comprehensively with every sub-sublist within the larger category or sublist. Imposing a cap on a single sub-sublist because a handful of editors feel it is of lesser importance, without prioritizing it within the context of the larger list, is bad form and I must oppose this. If you start a prioritized list of target numbers for each sublist of the current 2,100+ people on the VA/E list, begin a discussion toward achieving a consensus for those sublist target numbers, then you will have my unqualified support. Doing it for one list in isolation is foolish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Mikhail Bakunin

One of the founders of anarchism. European revolutionaries are underrepresented.

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Perhaps consider making this a swap thread with an American, since there seems to be a working consensus that we should balance this sub-list in that regard. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I had a good look at them but couldn't decide which one we can part with. Any suggestions? --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove John Glenn

Support !votes

1. Support Not vital by a longshot - the vital astronaut list is short: Armstrong and Gargarin...perhaps Laika. Being the first American to do something is not notable in itself. Being the first of one's species to do so is. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per Maunus. --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per mine and others comments Carlwev (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support Primarily known as politician/military not explorer. Not vital. Too many American frontiersmen already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Not of a high enough caliber to be on this list, sorry pbp 00:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Support !votes

1. Support Not vital. Too many American frontiersmen already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Kit Carson

Support !votes

1. Support Not vital as explorer. Famous as a lawman and "indian fighter".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Add Francis Drake

Support !votes

1. Support The first commander to actually circumnavigate the earth (Magellan died halfway). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Per PbP. This should be a move thread. I do not agree that we should have the same article listed in more than one sub-list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Purplebackpack89 --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

On the list already as a military theorist. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm that strikes me as an odd placement, but at least he's here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be withdrawn and replaced with a discussion on "Move Drake to Explorers?" pbp 00:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. OR maybe we should be able to have people included in several sections - while only couting them in one of them. Just for ease of navigation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Bulgarian Empire

Already have First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire.

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support has a disambiguation page feel, only listing the 2 actual Bulgarian empires Carlwev (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Let's cut the fat. Jusdafax 09:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Andean states

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:43, 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

1. Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap or removal. Do we want Australia's capital or not, I probably would? Andean states, well we already have Andes, although this region is big, is it a widely used term? would an encyclopedia have an article for this topic?

Swap: Add Korea, Remove French Southern and Antarctic Lands

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support this was an actual country until recently pbp 01:42, 4 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

1. Oppose adding, redundant. --Igrek (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Igrek. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

French Southern and Antarctic Lands, yet another meaningless terratorial claim with virtually no population, history or culture. Korea, why would we not have this. Yeah we have north and south Korea, but the history and culture and physical geography is all linked. There are many many overlapping geography areas, this one is too important to leave off. We have Korean Peninsula, I believe that is in no way a substitute for not having Korea. Korea is by far the dominant term used, for the area, historically, culturally in most areas. All derivative articles use it, Music of Korea, History of, Culture of etc, never history of the Korean peninsula (which redirects). We actually have history of Korea here, odd to have A history of article before the region itself. If there is redundancy it should not be the article Korea that gets left off. Korea is in more languages has more information, more views, it would be the title of what I expect to find in a print encyclopedia first. The article about the peninsula is not terrible, so I am not proposing that for this swap, but it should not be a substitute for Korea article itself. There may be room for both in the end, maybe not, but Korea itself should not be the one left off in my opinion, if we need to make that choice, later it should be the peninsula that goes not Korea. Same with Scandinavia, I added that last year, as we only had the peninsula article, you wouldn't leave of Scandinavia for the peninsula article either. Finally, technically articles about peninsulas would not include the surrounding main land areas (like Denmark for scandinavia, or parts of North Korea touching the Chinese border)that are not within the actual peninsula, or surrounding islands, that are still culturally, and politically part of the regions, and covered by the proper term. Carlwev (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK that's like saying we shouldn't have Ireland as we have Northern Island and Rep of Island. Or we shouldn't have North America as we have USA Canada and Mexico. If one is redundant, should we have Korea or Korean Peninsula? Like should we have Scandinavia or Scandinavian Peninsula? Italy or Italian Peninsula. Surely the peninsula articles are the ones to go in this case. Korea is vital. We may have to look at redundancy in the long run, we have British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Island, UK, England. Fennoscandia, Kola peninsula, Scandinavian Peninsula, Scandinavia, plus its countries. Including Korea is not out of place, it is vital. If there is redundancy issues, others articles should get booted of before Korea. Carlwev (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ufology

Support !votes

1. As nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I guess ufology is not a necessary topic, but I was wondering if we have UFO. That must be a vital topic. --Rsm77 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• UFO/ufology only need one if any. I think UFO is a fair size part of modern myth and folklore, we have Loch ness monster and bigfoot all have hoaxes sightings and research quite a few books about them. At first I would've thought ufology to be the parent topic but after reviewing the articles UFO looks better to have than, ufology. Better to have an article about a topic rather than an article about the study of a topic. (Like life, earth, history of the world are vital 10 not biology geography, history) I haven't searched every page but I don't think we have UFO. Carlwev (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see these wacko-fringe topics as vital to an encyclopedia of knowledge. Some ancient mythological animals have some underlying philosophy, but this stuff just reeks of the National Inquirer, not an encyclopedia. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Well, maybe something like extraterrestrial life would be a good addition, covering the scientific and cultual aspects which I think are important from a sober and rational perspective. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Butcher

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Common and vital are not synonyms. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• If I think of say mustard, it has maybe one or two shelves in a large supermarket, a butchery often has it's own whole counter, or even it's own individual shop on the high street. I know we have many meats listed that kind of cover it, but is butcher really covered by a list of meats? I would think butchers have also been around for 100s if not 1000s of years and still operate today, and probably appear all over the world. I know we're over, I was contemplating proposing swapping with one of, Veal, Venison, Steak, Casserole, Tripe. Any thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  "Butcher" is a job title. "Butchery" is either a place where butchers work or the type of work done by butchers. I think you're confusing the terms here, so I can't !vote until I understand the proposal. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  No I looked at that before I proposed, I supposed I could have explained, although I didn't realise people would have an issue with different terms. Butcher is an article, Butchery redirects to butcher, all information about butchers and butcheries are covered under the one article at Butcher. I think we should not add articles that are actually redirects not articles; we should add the article itself where the information is.....Thinking more about this do we need both Brewing and Brewery listed like we do? maybe Butcher could replace one of them maybe not? Carlwev (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  It is funny what has ended up as a stand alone article and what is ended up as a redirect, and to where it redirects. Butcher is an article Butchery redirects to butcher. Brewing and Brewery are articles, Brewer redirects to Brewing. While Bakery, Baker and Baking are all separate stand alone articles? That's an issue for the wider Wiki community not here. Carlwev (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Mint

Support !votes

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose: Mint is used in candies, liqueurs, ice cream, chewing gum, etc pbp 13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Purplebaclpack89. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Per PbP. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose food or plants? no matter I would prefer to keep this. Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion