Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 27

Swap Internet protocol suite for Transmission Control Protocol

A higher level overview. While I don’t object to including a protocol specific article (so I’d be happy to keep TCP), an overview is important (and Internet, which is also included, is too high level).

Support

1. Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support TCP/IP as a whole is vital and should be covered as such. Cobblet (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Internet protocol suite or the internet in general? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Automation

The use of control systems to operate machinery, processes, etc. instead of humans is a vital concept. It is quite a broad topic and a lot can be written on it. The technology section is currently 47 articles under the target so there is plenty of room.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  04:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Papyrus

Paper is on the vital list, and papyrus is really a subtopic of paper. Some early historical importance, but negligible importance in the last millennium. There are many other special kinds of paper from particular plant/animal sources (Washi, Parchment, Xuan paper, Cotton paper, Banana paper]....). Of the paper subtopics, parchment strikes me as more important than papyrus (but still not worth including as vital). Plantdrew (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Palaeography is on the list and can cover the topic of ancient writing materials in general. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Support There are many ancient materials for writing upon and if we want to be geographically neutral, then we would have to list many of them. Alternatively, palaeography covers the entire topic which should be enough. Agree with Plantdrew and Cobblet here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. If parchment isn't included, papyrus shouldn't be either. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Papyrus, the form of paper vital to archaeology, should be included. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose it is important historically. It doesn't matter if it is not used today. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Sorry, I'd prefer to keep this, I would probably support adding parchment too.  Carlwev  12:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Zayeem ^(talk) 11:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

To my eyes, parchment looks like it has almost has a shot at being in, washi, xuan paper, cotton paper and banana paper look like they are not in the same league, just because there are several less important types of paper existing, doesn't mean the most important types of paper are not vital. Although it is borderline none the less, mainly as redundant to paper possibly? maybe, I'm not voting yet, unsure, leaning toward keep, perhaps neutral, but thinking over it.

While we're on the topic of old writing materials, what do people think of History of writing? I was looking to see if every topic from the vital 100 has a history of in the vital, 10'000, we have music then history of music, law, then legal history. Writing is in the vital 100, is history of writing 10'000 worthy? I think so probably? and I'm checking if we have the other histories of the vital 100 topics, history of religion etc.  Carlwev  20:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How to decide which fields of human endeavour deserve a specific history article is a very interesting question I would be happy to hear other people's opinions about. Ditto for histories of specific countries. Cobblet (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would support adding the History of Writing to the vital 10,000 list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised by Cobblet's oppose here. I value historical importance. Maybe I didn't pick the best examples of special papers, but it seems to me like papyrus's being vital listed (over other specialized types of paper) is Western bias. Papyrus has a special place in history to be sure; "history" is largely based on written documents, and papyrus was the major writing material available at the dawn of Western written history. Plantdrew (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed we already list palaeography, so I'll change my vote. The comparisons to other varieties of paper didn't bother me since all that can be covered by paper, which papyrus strictly speaking is not. But contrary to what Chris is saying, there are many other examples of ancient non-paper-based writing materials such as clay tablets, oracle bones, bamboo and wooden slips, birch bark and palm-leaf manuscripts: I'd agree we probably don't need any of those, and that makes the case for both papyrus and parchment look weak. Palaeography ought to be able to cover the history of writing in general. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Electrification

Mass production and distribution of electrical power revolutionized Western society in the late 19th century and remains an ongoing process in the developing world today. This singular milestone in the history of technology deserves specific coverage on our list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Zayeem ^(talk) 11:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  16:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This could be tech or history, things like, Industrial Revolution, Agricultural Revolution and other things are historical periods/events, this one not quite as much, but still is a bit, should bear in mind that's all.  Carlwev  04:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It could go in either since a large part of the article is about history. However, I would prefer to keep it in tech because it is mainly about the technology behind electrification. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Drainage

I was thinking about proposing to add stormwater drain since it plays an important role in stormwater management and flood control. Then I noticed that the more basic and vital drainage isn't listed. Storm drains are designed to control excess water in urban areas while drainage discusses the use of drain more generally. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support since it's an essential component of both agricultural and urban infrastructure. I'd support adding it to Hydraulic structures. We could probably move levee and reservoir out of the earth sciences and into that category as well. Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  04:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I don't really know where the best place to put drainage is. It can go under Agriculture with irrigation since it's essentially the opposite of irrigation (taking water out instead of adding water in). It can go with dam under "Hydraulic structure" in "Construction". Or it can go under "Food, Water and Health" in "Industry". Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I may take a look to see where I think it best fits like others have. Quite important topic, old and new and widespread, many methods and much could be written on it, I don't know what would cover it if it was left out. Ventilation (architecture), is also missing, I would support that too.  Carlwev  04:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Medical imaging

Just added to the level 3 list. The development of these technologies as a whole revolutionized the medical profession in the 20th century.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support, if it's in lv3 it should be in lv4; and although I wasn't sure of it being in lv3, it's definitely lv4 material.  Carlwev  17:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Currently MRI is the only specific imaging technology we've listed. I can think of four other imaging techs potentially worth listing:

1. Medical radiography (X-rays)
2. Medical ultrasonography (ultrasound)
3. X-ray computed tomography (CAT scans)
4. Positron emission tomography (PET scans)

The first two I think are absolutely necessary. The third is strictly speaking a subtype of the first (which generally refers to any use of X-rays for medical imaging), while the fourth falls under the field of nuclear medicine: we could either list the general field or its most common application. Thoughts on these? Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly support the first two as well. Not sure about the third and fourth. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Soviet space program

The Soviet space program was hugely significant in the early days of human access to space, with quite a few firsts to its name (early development of large boosters, first satellite, first man in space, etc.), and arguably the world leader in the late 50s and early 60s. Omitting this from "Space/Programs and launch sites" seems inexcusable. There's also a strong argument for including it's successor, the Russian Federal Space Agency, although in relative terms is much less significant (although still more significant than, say, the Chinese space program).

Support

1. Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom, PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support amazed that CNSA, ESA and JAXA are listed ahead of this. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Russian Federal Space Agency

As the successor to the Soviet space program remains one of the most capable space agencies on the planet, including almost all of the currently available manned launch capabilities (China's program is currently much more limited).

Support

1. Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

JAXA doesn't seem vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Space probe

A distinctly different category than satellites. As a link to the very considerable effort put into exploring the solar system, I think this should be included. If count is a problem, we could probable remove one or two of the observatories from the "Unmanned spacecraft" section (which itself has a rather odd selection of subjects, including only a single interplanetary probe). A problem is that the article isn't very good right now, at least the list of notable probes needs to be rather expanded.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Satellite talks about satellites orbiting Earth; this talks about satellites sent elsewhere. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support needs work, much of article is a list, but could be a great article, and is pretty vital topic.  Carlwev  18:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'd be grateful if somebody who's knowledgeable in astronomy could help us clean up our selection of spacecraft and space observatories. Some of the observatories and spacecraft listed look like very odd choices to me. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• That area was a little shabby, still is a bit, we have listed one or two probes, so maybe the overarching article should be in too, although it needs work and is very list like at present, we may have removed some by now, but we also had individual observatories and launch sites, which would at first glance seem lower priority than space probe.  Carlwev  05:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Rickshaw

Big omission. The transportation section ignores third world transport. Cycle rickshaw and/or auto rickshaw (tuk-tuk) can also be added. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Zayeem ^(talk) 11:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

What do people think about baby transport? Clearly it doesn't belong in this section (Everyday life would be better) – the question is whether we should list it at all. We don't list diaper which I would've thought was more vital. Cobblet (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I can think of right now, I believe the most important article related to child and baby care is breastfeeding, followed by diaper, baby transport and infant bed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Breastfeeding should definitely be added. I also support adding diaper in the clothing section. I am not too sure about adding baby transport and infant bed though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal to split “Early modern” and “Modern” at 1815

Informally, most people and historical events split at around 1815. However, there are exceptions here and there (Sitting Bull was one exception before he was recently moved). I propose we eliminate all exceptions and formally sort anybody or anything that flourished (a.k.a. did their thang) before 1815 as “Early Modern”, and anybody or anything after 1815 as “Modern”. That means some things would get moved following the passage of this proposal (for example, Napoleon and Toussaint Louverture, both of whom were only in power before 1815, would be pushed to early modern. In case you’re wondering, what’s so magical about 1815? 1815 marked the demise of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna, which pretty much established the balance of power in Europe for half a century pbp 04:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 04:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support A consistent dividing point is welcome; the Congress of Vienna sounds as good a choice as any. Cobblet (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think there definitely should be a cut off I'm glad someone brought it up. Do the other periods have cut offs? are they followed? should we bring them up too? Am I mistaken, the article on Early modern period, seems to say the cut off is 1800. Should we follow an existing time frame rather than picking our own? Is 1815 and Napoleon used by historians as the magic cut off? or did we make that up? Even if we did make it up it may be usable. As said before I'm presuming what counts is the bulk of a persons active and influential period, over birth and death dates, the only awkward people would be those active equal time before and after 1815, like someone active 1805-1825 or 1790-1840. would we put them in the earlier?  Carlwev  18:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say we put them where their major accomplishments were. In most cases, I would put that person in the modern era since most major accomplishments occur later in one's career. Still, it would have to be a case by case discussion on each borderline article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Banjo Paterson

The current list of writers is not only slanted towards white majority Anglosphere countries but has a disproportionately high number from the UK/Ireland and to a lesser extent North America. In contrast to 42 from the UK and Ireland and 45 from the USA and Canada, there are two writers from the English speaking Southern Hemisphere and both of them are from Southern Africa. So there are no writers at all from Australia and New Zealand. Australia's population is approximately 1/14th of the US and one third of the UK.

Banjo Paterson was a writer of bush poetry and bush ballads. The bush genre unique to Australasia. Bush poems usually contain iconic Australian English slang and colloquialisms and have had a profound impact on Australian national identity. This enduring legacy is why I picked a bush poet ahead of more modern writers.

Paterson's Waltzing Matilda has become an unofficial national anthem of Australia. Among his other acclaimed works are Clancy of the Overflow and The Man from Snowy River, the latter of which was also made into a film. Compared to his contemporaries, Paterson IMO is slightly more influential and vital than Henry Lawson who is in turn more influential than Dorothea Mackellar.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Maybe we could replace people like Margaret Mitchell who are known primarily for one work and replace them with their work (Gone with the Wind seems notable enough for a novel even though we already have the movie). Cobblet (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Pizzagreen (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The UK and Ireland seems to be the most disproportionately big section in the modern writers list. The number of Irish writers in particular is quite high considering their small population. Obviously Oscar Wilde is very vital but the others may not be as much. But rather than choose one myself and make it a swap, it is better to collectively decide who should be removed to make way for writers from underrepresented parts of the world.

Adding the contemporary Australian feminist Germaine Greer is another possibility. Her book The Female Eunuch was a very important book during Second-wave feminism. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Although there's no need to get too pedantic, just FYI the more appropriate ratio would actually be Aus+NZ with US+Can (1/13th) and Aus+NZ with UK+Ire (1/2.5). We of course shouldn't go as far as making quotas for each region (some demographic groups are simply more influential and vital than others) but it is good to recognise that the topics should cover as much of the world as possible. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

While we do include a lot of British writers, a number of big names are missing, e.g. John Donne, Alexander Pope, Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Robert Browning. Cobblet (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The first two would go in the early modern period where there aren't that many British writers. The number of Russian modern writers is quite high too. The Western European modern writers list seems low compared to US/UK/Russia when you consider that most countries in Western Europe in modern times have a strong literary tradition and collectively have a population of more than 300 million. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Edvard Grieg, Add Guillaume Dufay

Our list of composers is very heavily skewed toward the 19th and 20th centuries. The under-representation of Baroque and especially Renaissance music is particularly noticeable when you compare the list of musicians to the lists of writers and artists from the same time period.

I think Grieg is less notable than the other Romantic composers on the list. He's mainly known for Peer Gynt and the Piano Concerto, and there are definitely composers not on the list with as many or more famous compositions to their credit – Camille Saint-Saëns or Gaetano Donizetti, for example. Grieg was the first major Scandinavian composer, but again, he's hardly unique in being the first major composer of a country/region – Mikhail Glinka and especially Bedřich Smetana are other good examples not on our list. (To say nothing of the Scarlattis or any of the English in the Renaissance.) Nor is Grieg the only Scandinavian on the list – we also have Jean Sibelius.

Dufay, my suggested replacement, was the most famous composer in Europe in the 1400s. He represents the transition between the Medieval and Renaissance periods and would occupy the 100-year gap between Guillaume de Machaut and Josquin des Prez.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add: Art Tatum

Should have remembered him, and known how great he was. one of his nicknames was "god". huge influence on jazz in 20th century. no obvious swaps in Jazz. If we need a musical swap, perhaps Kraftwerk (as of this moment in time, i am more of a kraftwerk fan than tatum).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I was wondering if we could use a jazz pianist or two. It sucks to have to choose between him and Thelonious Monk. Cobblet (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Indian philosophy

The collective philosophy of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Carvaka. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Don't forget Ajivika :). Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I realize my !vote directly contradicts my own proposal that removed this article in the first place. At the time, I hadn't taken into account the way Western philosophy dominates the list. The "philosophy by epoch" articles on Medieval philosophy, Renaissance philosophy, Modern philosophy and Contemporary philosophy refer exclusively to Western philosophy. The number of Western philosophic concepts and schools we've got (almost the entire Philosophy section) far exceeds that of other traditions (a smattering of topics under Eastern religions). I'd support re-adding Chinese philosophy and adding topics like Hindu philosophy, Jain philosophy and Persian philosophy, while removing the articles on the history of Western philosophy mentioned above (they mostly duplicate stuff on the schools of philosophy we've listed), as a first step toward correcting the bias. Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Various childhood-related terms

Isn't it a bit redundant to include both childhood and child? (I see adulthood redirects to adult.) What about youth and adolescence? And do we really need to distinguish preadolescence as a life stage? If so, why not list early childhood as well? I'd personally keep childhood and adolescence and not list any of the other terms I mentioned, but I'm curious to hear what others have to say. Cobblet (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

At first glance skip reading the articles, considering adulthood redirects to adult, adult is the dominant term, so perhaps too child is also dominant over childhood. Child is also slightly better article in slightly more languages. Youth is an OK article but adolescence is better, they do overlap, and if I were forced to choose one it would definitely be to keep adolescence. I don't mind having some articles for life stages and having slight overlap here but I agree there is overlap, and perhaps redundancy, which isn't ideal here, I haven't 100% made up my mind, and it's not an area I feel passionately should stay, I'm pretty happy to listen to ideas and support consensus, probably. But I'll think about it more.  Carlwev  17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove Childhood

Redundant with child.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not redundant. Childhood is a developmental stage, a child is something else and the article on child cannot be expected to cover the social science aspects of childhood .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not redundant. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Zayeem ^(talk) 12:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose, would support the removal of child. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Why not? Cobblet (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove Brewery

Not vital: more akin to unlisted things like winery, distillery and slaughterhouse than to the listed bar (establishment), pub and restaurant, which serve as social gathering places. Both beer and brewing are already on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support beer is a distinct topic but brewery overlaps with brewing. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support, overlaps with brewing. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Curd

I'm not sure this aspect of cheese production is any more vital than whey or rennet. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and Drink/Popular pages, where this month rennet is in the top 50 and curd doesn't make the top 1000 food articles. If we add paneer, that would also be an example of a curd cheese.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Not more important than whey or rennet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Remove Electronic game

Maybe this is one of those somewhat artificial and list-like overview topics we don't need, since we've listed all the major types of electronic games (slot machine, arcade game, pinball, video games).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There needs to be consitency with having a topic and its subtopics vs. just having its subtopics. I feel that the main topic should be listed, and that is why Electronic Game must stay. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per PointsofNoReturn; the subtopics should be removed before this topic. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add La Liga

Per cobblet's suggestion above. Soccer is under-represented on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Real Madrid and Barcelona are third and seventh on Forbes's list of the most valuable team brands. Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Adding this and the Premier League is enough for association football IMO. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  13:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Wikipedia

Both wiki and encyclopedia are on the VA list at level 4. That should be sufficient. Although Wikipedia is revolutionary, Brittanica has been around for 250 years and IMO more vital. But I don't think any particular encyclopedia should be on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. I'll also support removing YouTube and Twitter, and maybe Facebook, eBay, and Amazon as well. (Google should probably stay.) -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Would prefer to remove wiki instead, since Wikipedia is by far the most notable example of a wiki. I think we need more encyclopedias, not less – something like the Yongle encyclopedia is more important than many of the 115 works of fiction and poetry, not to mention five editions of the Bible. Wikipedia is the most notable example of user-generated content and open collaboration (especially if we remove Youtube) and dramatically illustrates how Internet technologies have been able to replace traditional businesses like encyclopedia publishing in the 21st century, and I think its place in history is secure even if it doesn't last another five years. Cobblet (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Wikipedia is vital because millions of people use it each day to look up quick facts. I have no problem removing wiki in general, but wikipedia must stay. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  19:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose It's better to remove wiki --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If there isn't consensus to remove Wikipedia then Wiki should definitely go. The other notable wikis (Wikileaks, Wiktionary, Wikia) are nowhere near vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Gizza We should keep Wikipedia and remove wiki. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose removing any of the sites listed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Punctuation

Teaching/learning writing nearly always contains punctuation, and everyone uses it whether they realize it or not, or they use good punctuation or not. It's important in English and I imagine the majority of languages, at least modern ones. A sentence can have different meanings or understanding depending on the punctuation used, it's all explained in the article.  Carlwev  19:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 18:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose Punctuation is a set of random conventions for how to represent language in writing, and it only exists in some forms of writing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Per Maunus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Maunus and Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We definitely need orthography first. Cobblet (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Endangered language and Extinct language, Add Sociolinguistics and Morphology

As the general concept, language death ought to cover the information found in the first two articles. I suggest adding the two major subdisciplines of linguistics not yet on the list to replace them. Sociolinguistics is the study of how language is used in society – how and why people of different social classes, ethnicities, age, geographic location, etc. speak the same language differently. Morphology is the study of how words are constructed (see morpheme, which isn't on the list) and is distinct from syntax, which covers how sentences are constructed. Both morphology and syntax are integral to the overall study of grammar.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Language endangerement is a vital phenomenon, that is a major driving force in language policy in many countries and in linguistics since its inception. I would support removing extinct language since that seems redundant with endangerment. I would also support adding Sociolinguistics, but Morphology is already covered by grammar which covers morphology and syntax.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Maunus, so what you're saying is you think we need both language death and endangered language? Just looking for clarification. I understand what you're saying about morphology, but it seems "unnatural" to me to include phonology and syntax but not morphology, as if we're saying the first two subjects are more important than the last. We even include phoneme along with phonology, but have neither morphology nor morpheme. Cobblet (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Cladistics

We have 8 taxonomic ranks, the idea of cladistics and inherited traits from last common ancestor, is a different approach to classifying life, many treat is as the more correct way, but none the less, even if one disagress, it is widely used, and the idea may be more vital than having every taxonomic rank, even though I like having the ranks too. Cladistics idea is also used outside of biology, in literature, history, anthropology, archaeology, the whole idea of inherited traits from last common ancestor works with cultures and their works too.  Carlwev  19:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

oppose

1. Oppose. would consider adding systematics or binomial nomenclature over cladistics, and would suppport removing some taxonomic rank articles. Plantdrew (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Plantdrew. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

discussion

Largely overlaps with the already listed phylogenetics. There is some semantic quibbling over article scope at Talk:Phylogenetics and Talk:Cladistics; but I think that cladistics is a more or less a subtopic of phylogenetics, and the cladistics article would be best scoped as a specific theoretical approach in the development of phylogenetic systematics. Cladistics has phylogenetics as a main article for the methodology section. Phylogenetics says that the methods "are often grouped under the term cladistics". Both articles have prominent links to computational phylogenetics as a method. It's a mess, for sure. I'd also note that of the 6 references cited in cladistics for uses outside of biology, 2 use the term "phylogenetics" in the title, 1 cites a book by an author (Oppenheimer) who uses "phylogenetics" in his coauthored papers on Google scholar, 1 uses "cladistics", 1 more (Chaucer project website) uses both terms about equally, and I haven't found use of either term associated with the author (Maas) of the last. The uses outside of biology would probably be better included in the phylogenetics article.

I don't think all the taxonomic ranks are vital. Species is certainly vital. Phylum/class/order/family are not. Kingdom and domain possibly. Genus could perhaps be swapped out for binomial nomenclature. Systematics isn't very well developed, but might be worth including as a broader concept article (though there's also potential semantic quibbling about the precise boundaries between alpha taxonomy/taxonomy (biology)/systematics). Plantdrew (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Bird migration

Was removed in bulk Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_17#Remove_8_general_bird_articles in August. Again we have 150 article dedicated to bird topics, Bird migration is surely within the top 50 vital bird articles. I am considering ornithology for the same reasons, and a few more study of major groups, like Ichthyology, as we also have 159 fish articles.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, would support addition of animal migration instead. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose would support animal migration per discussion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Why not animal migration in general? And the number of -ologys you could add for different animals is pretty long, and the same is true of plants – I'm not convinced we need any of them. Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OK forget about the -ologies for the time being, animal migration isn't bad, although I've never seen a book it, bird migration is in important topic, I've seen more books and articles on it, than I have the vast majority of bird species and families. I have a book on it, and it appears in my encyclopedia. It appears as a separate article/page/section in bird science books and general encyclopias/science books that cover those things. I just think it's an important topic. to both experts and generalists, it covers so many species, and I just fail to see why we are allowed 150 birds but not this. Along with scale, skin, hair, we have feather in biology, that is bird specific too. I know its an article that is only about one class of life. but come on it's a well known, studied and read about topic, and 150 bird articles but missing this just looks silly to my eyes, what looks more vital as a 10'000 article bird migration or, kite, puffbird, and screamer. Again I can see your POV and thank you for helping all the same, I just think this should be in if we only had 50 bird articles and we have 150. It's only one article, I think it's vital, but if there's no consensus to add, then so be it, the list is getting better all the same.  Carlwev  20:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely that topics like these are way more significant than many of the 150 bird taxa on the list. I was just hoping we could discuss now whether to include animal migration vs. bird migration and/or fish migration and/or insect migration and/or Lepidoptera migration, instead of having to rehash the debate every time somebody points out one of those topics is missing. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Animal migration as the overarching topic should definitely be included. There is also human migration which is an important topic in itself. More suitable in history though. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a different topic – that has to do with distribution of humans over time. (We do list early human migrations under History.) The more precise human analogue would be seasonal human migration/transhumance. Cobblet (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Delta Works

Major series of construction projects in the southwest of the Netherlands to protect a large area of land around the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. Initiated after the North Sea flood of 1953 which killed 1,835 Dutch inhabitants. Construction lasted more than 40 years. Declared one of the Seven Wonders of the Modern World by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Classed Top importance by WikiProject Civil engineering.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Wolbo (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would support adding Zuiderzee Works, the other half of that "modern wonder", since it was the larger project, has had a more dramatic ecological impact, and is probably better known to people outside of the Netherlands. Cobblet (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Is there a name for the combination of both Zuiderzee Works and Delta Works? If so, that should be what is added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

We could add Flood control in the Netherlands. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be a better addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Flood control on its own isn't listed. Adding an article flood control in a small to medium sized country would create an anomaly when the main article and flood control in larger countries aren't included. I would support adding Zuiderzee Works. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Herzog & de Meuron

In architects this an architect company hiding in the biographies. Whilst it may be fairly significant, only the most notable companies have survived, McDonald's has gone for example, we don't have many huge influential companies like Sony, Nintendo, Time Warner, Fox, or even Disney company etc etc just to name a few. There must be hundreds of more notable firms than this. If this had been listed within Companies, or even in construction or architecture I believe it would have gone a long time ago.  Carlwev  14:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support We shouldn't have these guys when we're missing people like Frederick Law Olmsted and Louis Sullivan pbp 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, doesn't seem that notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
8. Support Neljack (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The rationale is incorrect: there are most certainly not "hundreds of more notable firms" that have won the Pritzker. The firm represents a partnership between two highly influential modern-day architects: it's like the way we list Williams sisters rather than Venus and Serena. (I think we should only list Serena, but that's another discussion.) Here's the corresponding Britannica article. All that being said, I don't have the expertise to say whether or not HdM belongs on a list of the greatest 20-25 architects of all time, so I won't !vote. There are other notable contemporary architects we don't list, like Kenzō Tange, Renzo Piano, James Stirling, Zaha Hadid and Jean Nouvel. We also have another significant contemporary Swiss architect in Peter Zumthor. Cobblet (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Frederick Law Olmsted

Very influential landscape architect and urban planner. He and his sons were responsible for NYC's Central Park and many other big-city parks, as well as the city plans for several large cities. We often cite the Atlantic list for proof of influence, he is #49 pbp 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support pbp 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Pioneer of urban landscape architecture. Cobblet (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Landscape architects are often overlooked when talking about great architects. Neljack (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Louis Sullivan

One of the first architects to build tall buildings. One of the last to build them with style. We often cite the Atlantic list for proof of influence, he is in the top 60 pbp 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support pbp 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Inventor of the skyscraper. Cobblet (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
8. Support Neljack (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Friedensreich Hundertwasser

Far less significant than the other contemporary architects we've listed. When far more prominent Austrian artists like Gustav Klimt and Egon Schiele aren't listed there is no reason to include him.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Fondly though we remember him here in New Zealand, I don't think his inclusion on this list can be objectively justified. Neljack (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove History of New Zealand, Add Māori people

It seems unreasonable to include an article on the history of New Zealand on the list when there are much more notable nations without dedicated history articles: even among English-speaking countries, I think History of Pakistan, History of the Philippines and History of Ireland should claim higher priority. At the same time, I don't want to lessen our coverage of Oceania, so I propose adding the indigenous people of New Zealand. They're the largest and most internationally well known group of Polynesian peoples, of which we currently have no examples.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)'
5. Support As a New Zealander, I agree that an article on NZ history can't be justified. I also agree that Māori should be on the list. They have had a huge impact on New Zealand culture and history. Neljack (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Bantu expansion

One of the most significant migrations in world history. Had a huge, everlasting impact on the southern half of Africa. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

There's a pretty extensive discussion of this in Bantu peoples which is on the list. Also Turkic migration is not on the list (and BTW, we should add Turkic peoples to the list of ethnic groups) and Austronesian Dispersal is currently just a redirect to Austronesian peoples (which is on the list) so I'm not sure we absolutely need these topics if they can be covered adequately by the article on the ethnic group. I previously suggested we might consider adding African-American history but now I feel we should probably just add African American instead, for similar reasons. Cobblet (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, this is just my own subjective opinion but maybe the expansion is more important a general article of the peoples. The Bantu people are no longer an ethnic group beyond linguistics. They don't have any political cohesion. Then again, a lot of the ethnic groups currently on the list are just people who are part of a common language family. But the ethnic groups which have a well-defined, modern identity seem more worthy of being listed IMO. Maasai, Han, Arab and Tibetan and good choices as well as a few others. Just like the Maori proposal is a good choice and probably better than Polynesian people. Austronesians are even more diverse. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. Another reason I didn't pick Polynesian people was because of the overlap with Polynesia – the region is essentially defined by the culture. Cobblet (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Add Denisovan

Only one of two sub/species of archaic human along with Neanderthals that have been known to interbreed with homo sapiens sapiens. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support coincidence, I was thinking about bringing this up earlier this week.  Carlwev  19:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Canaan

Split swap thread above into separate add and remove so people can vote honestly, and preserved votes, (feel free to alter votes if I got it wrong, or you changed your mind) For my reasoning about Canaan and Saaeans see swap thread above.  Carlwev  10:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The history of Canaan from about the 10th century BC onwards is well covered in Phoenicia and History of ancient Israel and Judah. Articles specifically pertaining to its earlier history include Ebla, Ugarit and Amorite; and Egyptian and Hittite colonization of the area is covered by the articles on those empires. I'd support a swap for History of ancient Israel and Judah; otherwise I think there's too much overlap here. Cobblet (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I would oppose a swap of Canaan for History of Ancient Israel and Judah. I would rather not add Canaan than swap Canaan for the History of Ancient Israel and Judah. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Ian Smith

Further to my nomination of Verwoerd below, I think the list of modern African leaders is too small and should include Rhodesia's Ian Smith, who was a figure of great international prominence during the 1960s and 1970s. Like Verwoerd below Smith effectively personifies an important subject in African history, namely the Rhodesia problem which came close to splitting the Commonwealth. As below I would consider removing one of the several Burmese figures from the modern Asian section, or perhaps one of the many Americans. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is amply represented with Mugabe.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Would prefer to add somebody that represents other countries in southern Africa (Seretse Khama, Samora Machel, Agostinho Neto, etc.) before adding a second figure for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe (we already have Mugabe). Cobblet (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Add Hendrik Verwoerd

I found this section just now and was quite surprised to see how sparsely populated our modern African politician and leader section is on the vital list. I was particularly surprised to see we do not include any figure relevant to apartheid, a vital part of African history if ever there was one. I was torn between Verwoerd and Daniel Malan as a personification of separate development—to use the system's official name—but opted for the former as he is often called the "architect of apartheid". I would consider removing one of the several Burmese figures we have in the vital list of modern Asian politicians and leaders (Bagyidaw or Mindon Min, perhaps) to make room for Verwoerd, or perhaps one of the many U.S. figures. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support There always needs to be two sides to the story, so adding Hendric Verwoerd does make sense. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I dont see a need to include a pro-Apartheid counter to Mandela. One political figure from South-Africa is sufficient. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose, the politician list is big enough as it is. I don't think Verwoerd is more vital than the other politicians that aren't on the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we should be paying more attention to earlier figures like Mzilikazi. Paul Kruger is another person who seems more historically significant. Cobblet (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Add Post-classical history

We are missing the article that covers world history between ancient history and the early modern period. Middle Ages refers only to European history. I also propose that we rename the sections in History and People currently titled "Middle Ages" to "Postclassical Era" since they contain articles on non-Western topics.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support The term doesn't seem to be geographically limited. Neljack (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- Postclassical era also only applies to Old world history, it is not widely used as a period in world history. Several of the local periods covered by the period are notable and included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Not commenting on adding this. It may be true that Medieval/Middle Ages is thought of as referring to chiefly European history. But the term Classical, and by extension Postclassical, may also chiefly refer to Mediterranean area specifically Greek and Latin. These area specific definitions all appear in My Oxford English Dictionary, although not the only source to go by; in fact according to that dictionary even the term Ancient History can sometimes refer to specifically Mediterranean and Near East area too. I don't have an answer, nor do I know which terms experts think are better, but I thought I'd just point these facts out....I'm also very surprised that Postclassical Era only appears in Englich and Catalan, but it's a decent article in English though, and if we added it here perhaps it may increase the chances of it appearing in other languages too, maybe.  Carlwev  16:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Maunus. In the lead section of the article, it says that the postclassical era applies to china too.

Cobblet, Postclassical Era is a redirect to Post-classical history, so presumably that is what should be added to the list? Neljack (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

CHina = Old World. There is a postclassic period in Mesoamerica as well but it is a different period.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Neljack, the article was moved a couple of weeks ago. Cobblet (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence

Rhodesia's declaration of independence from Britain in 1965 must be regarded as a pivotal event in history of Zimbabwe and southern Africa in general. The first such declaration by British colonials since the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776, it represented white reaction in the former colonial empires in Africa to the Wind of Change and the decolonisation of the continent. Led by Prime Minister Ian Smith, Rhodesia became a great international controversy and had the first-ever United Nations economic sanctions imposed on it. In my view this deserves to be on the list. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator —Cliftonian (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support This document is vital. It is important in African history and modern history in general. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already have decolonization and 20th-century history is pretty well represented on the list. To me, Kingdom of Mapungubwe and Kingdom of Zimbabwe or Great Zimbabwe look like more vital topics in the history of Zimbabwe and Southern Africa and should be added first. We should also consider adding Cape Colony and Boer Republics. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose -- This is specific to a single country, we would have to argue that Rhodesian independence is more vital than all the other ones.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I wonder if Wind of Change is a better add since it refers to the decolonisation of all of Britain's former colonies in Africa. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Add History of road transport

As it stands, we currently have history of aviation, maritime history (history of naval transport) on the list but we don't have history of road transport, history of rail transport and history of spaceflight. Of these five broad types of transport, road transport IMO deserves to have its history article here along with aviation and maritime transport. Comparing it to other articles in the road transport category, the general history article is more important than types of trucks and particular car manufacturing companies. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 17:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Prefer to limit our coverage of transportation history to history of transport and add other histories that might be vital, e.g. history of political thought, history of clothing and textiles, history of food, etc. Cobblet (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This proposal certainly makes some sense given we have the other articles DaGizza mentioned, as well as space exploration under History which has some overlap with history of spaceflight. But when we also have history of transport, I'm starting to think we've have gone overboard with the number of history articles having to do with transportation, when stuff like history of engineering or history of communication is missing (Carlwev also mentioned history of writing in the proposal to remove papyrus). Maybe this will be easier to figure out if we group all the histories together like Ypnypn is suggesting. Cobblet (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there are too many of these "history of" articles and we'll get a better idea if Ypnypn's proposal is successful. I suggested this add on the basis on consistency more than anything. But if one history of transport subtype should occur it should be road transport and not aviation or maritime because road transport has a longer history and is more important to society. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At present time, we have 20 articles in the history of scitech pbp 17:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I keep wondering if History of the automobile has a chance?  Carlwev  17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If there isn't clear consensus to add history of road transport, I don't think I could support history of automobile. The former discusses how humans have moved on roads for thousands of years instead of a couple of hundred. Not to mention that the history of the automobile won't cover other modern forms of road transport such as bicycles. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Move Continent to Earth Science

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• All other articles about types of physical land forms are in earth science, while the lists of specific examples of the are in geography. This is true for islands, peninsulas, mountains, deserts, rivers, lakes, seas, oceans. Continent is the only type landmass than remains in geography with the examples of it. Although one of the biggest it's still just a type of land mass like island and peninsula etc, and although there are only a limited amount on Earth today different ones existed in the past and probably will in the future. This belongs in earth science.  Carlwev  12:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Sundarbans National Park, Add Sundarbans

Sundarbans National Park is part of the greater Sundarbans reserve forest that also include Sundarbans South, East and West Wildlife Sanctuary. The whole Sundarbans reserve forest is designated as a World Heritage Site as the largest mangrove forest in the world.

Support

1. Support - as nom. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I didn't know that Sundarbans National Park was listed. We definitely need a second forest to accompany the Amazon Rainforest and I had thought about Sundarbans before. Good proposal. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove: Buckingham Palace

It has a 19th century facade that imitates the facade of an English Baroque house like Chatsworth. It is famous, as a residence. It isn't particularly noteworthy as architecture. The stately homes/country houses of England, as a group, are notable, and one ought to be included, but not but not the highly imitative Buckingham Palace.

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Remove or move. Clearly not notable as architecture, only as centre of (historic) power. --ELEKHH^T 11:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Iconic, but not too important as architecture. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support There are plenty of palaces with more architectural significance. Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support being the home of political power does not equal architectural significance or vitality. We removed the White House recently for similar reasons (even though BP is prettier than WH, it is still not among the best). Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Pretty significant but perhaps not vital, I'm glad we have Palace of Westminster, but I think Buckingham Palace is behind White House, and St Paul's Cathedral which we don't have.  Carlwev  13:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
7. Support, while a famous place, it's not architecturally important. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
8. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
9. Support per nom and Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Home of the British monarch, perhaps the most important building in London behind Big Ben. Still architecturally significant. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think it is a mistake to argue that the architecture should include only entries that are vital for the field of architecture. This is not how I think the sections are supposed to work, the sections are merely headers that we use to group entries of topics that are vital, and make sure that we cover different kinds of vital topics in a specific proportionality to eachother. The section on architecture should contain topics that are vital and that fall under the header architecture, for example a specific building may be vital but have no relevance for the history or development of architecture whatsoever, for example the White House let's say, the reason it goes on the list is because it is a vital topic for an encyclopedia to have an article about, the reason it goes in the section on archtitecture is because it is a building. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Maunus, I did nominate White House once before, so I understand where you're coming from. I think both factors need to be taken into account: the most vital articles are the ones that are vital to both a general audience and a specialist in the subject area. Beyond that, we should and have been including both types of articles. However, I think we should distinguish between things for which people should know the dictionary definition and things for which people should have read the encyclopedia article. People need to know that the White House is "the official home and workplace of the President of the United States of America" (to quote Wiktionary); I don't think they need to know the architectural layout and history of the White House (which is what the Wikipedia article is about). Things that are essential to a dictionary of cultural literacy do not necessarily carry an equivalent amount of encyclopedic value. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the different rooms of the white house actually appear often in cultural depictions and in everyday conversations. I am also pretty sure that both the white house and buckingham have more annual visitors than Durham cathedral. That means that people are morelikely to know about it, and more likely to want to know more than a dictionary definition. This is not to be understood as an argument from popularity, but as an argument from cultural relevance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The vital article in that case would be Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, a vital architecture article is an article about a building that people are likely to want to know more about, those are primarily buyildings they are likely to hear about. Buckinham palace I think is probably one such building.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing Graceland, the Bellagio or Macy's get more visitors than Durham Cathedral and come up more often in everyday conversation. Does that make them more architecturally vital buildings? Cobblet (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Add: St Paul's Cathedral

Christopher Wren's masterpiece; the greatest work by the greatest English architect

Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. per nom: "the greatest English" - this is of great notability to England. But we need global perspective here. --ELEKHH^T 14:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. If Buck House goes, there is no English building, and no? Baroque church. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Being the "greatest work by the greatest English architect" isn't a reason to add this. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

ELEKHH, Tell me you are joking. Do you want me to say that it is "One of the greatest Baroque buildings in the world"? Buckingham Palace is currently on the list. St Paul's is just a teeny bit more significant. Amandajm (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not joking. Buckingham Palace is of course ill-placed, at least in the architecture section, and another good example of bias, so we shouldn't take that as standard. But regarding Baroque architecture I would have thought that first we should have Baroque architecture on the list, thank key architects such as Francesco Borromini (Wren already included). --ELEKHH^T 10:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, I have just arrived here, and I am having difficulty coming to terms with the fact that when I suggested, in passing, several months ago, that the main architectural periods were added, then it happened,at level 4, not at Level 3. If Baroque architecture does not appear at one level up from these buildings, then it is merely an indication of the fact that this has not been very well thought through by previous contributors. Having only briefly passed by once before, I was unaware of how this worked, or even where to leave suggestions. What I discovered was that at Level 3, there is a list of individually notable buildings, but Architectural style doesn't get listed. The system needs looking at and fixing. I left a lengthy message on what I thought was probably the right talk page, but then again, maybe it wasn't!

OK! How does one get the list of MAJOR architectural styles/periods such as Ancient Greek architecture, Romanesque architecture, Pre-Columbian architecture listed ate either Level 2 or Level 3, not at Level four? Please help/fix or something. Ihave identified what I consider to be the necessary list. Someone might want to add something. I can't tell you what talk page they are on, because every time I try to look, I seem to end up some associated, but not the same, page. Amandajm (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

ELEKHH, At Level 2 the entry is Architecture. At Level 3 the entry is: Architecture: Angkor Wat, Colosseum, Great Pyramid of Giza, Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, Parthenon, Stonehenge, Taj Mahal

Clearly this was done with very little thought.

I have made suggestions for Level 3 at this page. For some reason it doesn't seem to stick to the "Level 3" [[1]] I will delete this here and trust that my level 3 suggestions may be found. Amandajm (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't despair, and thanks for your help in improving this! I am not much involved in this, just from time to time try to help. Unfortunately these lists are managed without involving relevant WikiProjects. Is indeed all rather confusing, and not very accessible. There is a separate talk page for each level. My understanding is that the way it works is like this: level 1 (top 10) is included in level 2 (top 100) which is also included in level 3 (1,000), and again is included in level 4 (10,000). For example the article Earth is included in all four lists. If you want to propose an article to be in level 3 (top 1,000), than you have to first make sure it is included at Level 4. Otherwise when you propose an article at level 3, and is not included at level 4 people will tell you: 'this cannot be top 1,000 if it isn't even in the top 10,000'. Hope this clarifies things. --ELEKHH^T 11:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Also don't forget that not all architecture related articles are in the architecture section. For instance notable architects will appear in the 'people' section, while architectural elements (i.e. arch) appear in the 'Technology' section. --ELEKHH^T 11:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Add: Fallingwater

Frank Lloyd Wright's acknowledged masterpiece

Amandajm (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
2. This was in the top 1,000/Level 3, and when removed from that list should have been moved here. --ELEKHH^T 14:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
3. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
4. cracks & all! Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Add: Kinkaku-ji

Icon of Japanese architecture in a landscape.

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Japanese architecture deserves representation. Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Add: Persepolis

Support

1. Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  18:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support I agree about including this in an archaeology category. Neljack (talk) 07:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The lines between ancient historical architecture and archeology are often blurred. I wonder if we should create a new section on archeology. But the organisation of articles isn't a huge concern as long as we get the right articles on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a good suggestion. What we have at Persepolis, however, is not simply a site which is archaeologically important; it is the remains of buildings which were of demonstrable architectural significance. Truly great architecture.

Things like Knossos and Petra which we have, are similar territory, historical cities or sites, that are archaeology sites, and examples of architecture too. Someone, maybe Cobblet also suggested creating a list for historic cities, I think this is along the same lines. We'll just need decide a cut off for historic and non historic, probably if it's still inhabited, because Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, Gaza are all old cities that still exist as cities, while Knossos Petra and Persepolis are not. Also a cut off between site and city. How big does a site have to be before it's a city not a site, like Machu Picchu, Petra, Knossos, Persepolis, Çatalhöyük? I think I agree with suggestions, there just needs to be discussion as to what belongs in each list.  Carlwev  18:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Alhambra

Since a couple of people have suggested this to represent Islamic architecture, I'll open the nomination. I don't know much about architecture so I'll quote from the Britannica: "The Alhambra is especially important because it is one of the few palaces to have survived from medieval Islamic times. It illustrates superbly a number of architectural concerns occasionally documented in literary references: the contrast between an unassuming exterior and a richly decorated interior to achieve an effect of secluded or private brilliance; the constant presence of water, either as a single, static basin or as a dynamic fountain; the inclusion of oratories and baths; and the lack of an overall plan (the units are simply attached to each other)."

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Bluegrass music, Alternative rock, Heavy metal music and Punk rock

There is a distinct American bias to the musical genres on this list. Of the 32 items in that subcategory, 13 are primarily American: in addition to the four on the block, there is also Jazz, Blues, Country music, Funk, Ragtime, Hip hop music, Rhythm and blues, Rock and roll and Soul music. Cutting the number of American genres in music to 5-6 would probably make the list more balanced, but I'm not sure what else should be on the block. There are also recency concerns with the genre list, having disproportionate representation from the last 40-60 yrs. pbp 16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The genres are strongly slanted towards American music, rock in particular. Bluegrass is only popular in the US and has a cult following in the Czech Republic. It isn't even popular in other English-speaking countries. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You can't just remove generes of music because they are American. American music led to the development of KPop, British rock, Japanese music, etc. Just because something is American doesn't mean it should be removed. Not to mention that hte US is the third most populated country in the world. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, see comment below  Carlwev  19:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Agree with Maunus's assessment in the comments below. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose - The US has been disproportionately influential when it comes to popular music globally, so there is absolutely no need to "balance" the list by removing notable genres just because they originated in the US. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There are other genres that originated at a similar time to some of these genres but have had a much longer lasting influence. House music sprung up around the same time and as of 2014, is far more influential on current mainstream music charts in Western nations than the rock derivatives. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:PointsofNoReturn, we need to have balance between America and other countries. Even with these four removals, one-third of the genres would be American, even though America has been a country for less than 250 years and constitutes but 5% of the world's population. China and India are more populated AND older, but have considerably less representation on this list. KPop and British rock stemmed from pop music and rock and roll, which are still on the list. pbp 14:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Purplebackpack89 You are also forgetting that American themes of music have the most influence over world music. If you didn't watch the rock music trend or the pop music trend, that is beyond me. Even rap has spread, including to foreign countries that speak different languages. My point is that American music is on the last because it largely defines entire genres of music worldwide. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Rock, pop and rap are not up for removal, though. Only less-famous subgenres of rock and country. Rock, rock and roll and country music all remain on the list. Sure, America has an outside influence...this makes it 30% of the list instead of 40%. If there are less than 3 dozen genres, a dozen or more of them shouldn't be American. And I say this as an American. pbp 03:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The thing is that the genres labeled up top are popular in other countries. Many American genres are also popular in Britain and Australia. Punk rock is popular in places besides the US. Bluegrass music is popular in the Czech Republic. Heavy metal is a vital American genre. Alternative rock is questionable and I wouldn't mind removing that. Worldwide, people copy American music. I am an American too, but even with the inevitable bias I still think that American music is not over-represented. There shouldn't be a mass removal of genres of music. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
        • A mass removal would be 10-15. I don't question that heavy metal has spread to other countries in the last couple of decades. But that can be covered in the rock music article that is already on the list pbp 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though I am a bluegrass fan myself I would support removing it and Alternative rock, but not Heavy metal or Punk both of which have had a much more worldwide impact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair compromise. I support Maunus' proposal. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry I have to oppose this one, most (not all) of the time I think a topic, or genre is better than an example or person (or band in this case). A huge chunk of the modern media/entertainment topics and people remain American or British, in this case I think removing the topics "heavy metal" and "alternative rock" but leaving bands Metallica, Black Sabbath, Nirvana and perhaps more like Pink Floyd whom have been described as part of those genres (and are also US and UK as well) seems odd. Leaving huge numbers of US and UK people in Music sports film and other areas but removing wider topics I don't think is good in this case. Besides the genres may be predominantly US/UK but not completely they are known in other nations and many other nations also have their own heavy metal (or alternative rock etc) musicians and sub-genres of their own. That being said I too think Bluegrass is the weakest. Also although they are relatively recent, many of our musicians are even more recent. And finally we still list a number of individual songs and albums from the late 20th century, if my memory serves, we have several Beatle works, Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, A Marvin Gaye song/album, Thriller, Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys and many many more, although they may be fairly significant, not more so than most whole music genres surely, and nearly all of them are also US or UK too.  Carlwev  19:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove Bluegrass music

Not global in scope, not one of the 30-40 most important genres ever, somewhat redundant to Country music, American bias pbp 20:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 20:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Definitely the weakest of the four proposed above. There must be at least 20 others genres at a similar level of popularity and influence. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC
7. Support Just a type of country music, really. Neljack (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Alternative rock

Not one of the 30-40 most important genres ever, redundant to Rock music, American bias pbp 20:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 20:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support As the youngest of the four rock sub-genres listed, alternative rock has the shortest and most uncertain legacy. Less worldwide appeal than the older rock genres as well. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

User:PointsofNoReturn, you said above you'd support the removal of those genres when Maunus suggested it. Now you don't. Why? I'm confused pbp 19:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I misinterpreted the vote from last time. I will change my vote. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Airbrush

I don't see how this is vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support not as vital as palette which we removed some time ago. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Along the River During the Qingming Festival

A masterpiece (perhaps the masterpiece?) of Chinese painting. Its incredibly detailed realism is the source of both its artistic and historical value – to quote Britannica, it "preserves a wealth of social and architectural information in compellingly artistic form". Of the 32 artworks currently listed just three are not from the Europe/USA; adding this helps redress the balance.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Occult

Synonymous with esotericism and that article looks better developed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support The related articles of esotericism and spiritualism cover the area sufficiently. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I was surprised that Occult was on the block, and that it was assumed to be synonymous with esotericism. Esotericism is not the only occult-related article on this list, but we also have Gnosticism, Wicca, Alchemy and Rosicrucianism on this list. However, the topic I associate most with the occult is Spiritualism, and Spiritualism isn't on here. As such, I'm proposing spiritualism below pbp 22:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

FTR, spiritualism has been added. Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Noodle

A staple of many cuisines. I'm fine with listing pasta but we should list the general type of food as well.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom and discussion below. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Comment: See this discussion from Archive 14 pbp 13:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to those who commented in that discussion, they are mistaken. Pasta = Italian noodles. Noodles come in many shapes and sizes in every cuisine and just because Westerners tend to think of long noodles as the norm in other cuisines does not make that a rule: see silver needle noodles or google dao xiao mian for instance. If anything, we should include noodles on the list and not pasta. Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't support the removal before and I don't oppose the ad now. pbp 21:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I know :) Cobblet (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Archive 14 shows the removal of McDonald's too. I understand VA/E was around 200 articles over the limit at the time but McDonald's is more vital than many of the companies currently listed. It will be easier to get it back on if you propose it as a swap although for the moment fast food is more vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Add Mexican cuisine

Since food is the topic of the day I'll bring this up, we voted before resulted in 5-3 Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_16#Add_Mexican_cuisine. We have 2 cuisines from Europe, French and Italian; 2 from Asia, Chinese and Indian. We have none from the Americas nor Africa. I think Mexican Cuisine pretty vital close to the others we list. I know of more Mexican restaurants than French, but that might just be where I live? International food in supermarkets I know have Italian, Chinese, Indian, Mexican section, tiny Thai section, not much French, although I still think French vital too. There are many Mexican foods and dishes that are quite well known and eaten and fairly important, like Taco, Tortilla, Enchilada, Fajita, maybe not quite important enough to include singularly in this list but we can cover the general topic and the nation's cuisine as a whole.  Carlwev  19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I hope this trend of bringing back last year's failed props isn't a long-lasting one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Plantdrew's comment bellow. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'm not convinced that Mexican cuisine is as popular or influential as the ones that are already listed. Is it any more popular or widespread than Thai or Japanese cuisine? Neljack (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Including Mexican cuisine seems like United States bias; Mexican food is essentially only available in Mexico and the US. The big 3 ethnic cuisines that you might find in a small town in the US are Chinese, Italian, and Mexican. Actually, it seems to me like including Cuisine of the United States would be less biased towards a US perspective; US cuisine is available globally (but mostly in fast food restaurants, and we got a proposal to add fast food above). I could see removing all of the specific cuisine articles (though I can also see good reasons for keeping French, Indian and Chinese). Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never been to the US or Mexico. For restaurants, and supermarket sales in the UK, where I live, Mexican food looks like it is a huge market, it's not as prominent as Chinese and Indian, but it's place is maybe above French cuisine. I've been to several countries across continental Europe and Mexican Cuisine still looks bigger than French cuisine there too (apart from France itself), funny considering France is closer, and within Europe. Being a supermarket manager (yay) the top selling "international foods" in the UK grocery, in order, if my memory serves, is something like Italian, Indian, Chinese, Mexican, French, Thai, Japanese. It's not just popular on the west side of the Atlantic, If people think it's not vital is fine, but I just want to say that if people think it's only known in the US and Mexico is I believe this is not accurate, I have no idea how big it is in Asia though.  Carlwev  13:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I proposed adding Cuisine of the United States last year, and it failed :-( Partly due to the fact that there isn't one American cuisine any more than there's one American accent. But I agree it doesn't make sense. pbp 04:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Market failure, Remove Moral hazard

A moral hazard is one of countless examples that illustrate market failure. The concept of market failure definitely has a stronger case to be listed. There are other equally important concepts in economics that are not listed yet. This would still be a big improvement. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Market failure is clearly vital. Neljack (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Moral hazards also illustrate information asymmetry though I wouldn't consider that vital since information asymmetry is just a factor that leads to market failure. Information asymmetry and the related concept risk are more important than moral hazard. I'm a little surprised something quite specific ended up on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Derivative (finance)

Per Gizza's suggestion above.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove wiki

An alternative proposal. There's no need to have both Wikipedia and Wiki. If Wikipedia stays then Wiki should go.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Wikipedia is important, but not the umbrella topic. When I think of a wiki, I immediately think of Wikipedia, not the other wikis. That is why Wikipedia is more vital than wiki. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

For everyone's information, wiki is in the technology section not here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Hanukkah, add Rosh Hashanah

Hanukkah is a major holiday in the Jewish faith, but Rosh Hashanah is more important, being part of the High Holy Days. Rosh Hashanah is basically the Jewish new year. I wouldn't mind a straight addition of Rosh Hashanah since we are under quota in society and social sciences, but I am proposing this as a swap so that nobody can claim that Judaism has too many vital articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Norwegian language and Bulgarian language

Norwegian and Bulgarian only have about 5 and 7 million native speakers respectively (Ethnologue). The number of speakers of a language is only one factor in deciding whether it is vital but neither language has any other particular reason for being listed such as historical significance, religious significance or linguistic significance. The Northern branch of the Germanic languages sub-family is represented by the more widely spoken Swedish and Danish. The Southern branch of the Slavic languages sub-family is represented by Serbo-Croatian and Old Church Slavonic (a language which is historically important).

There are many languages not listed with a similar number of speakers if not slightly more including Albanian, Zulu, Finnish, Akan, Mongolian, Santali, Guarani and Catalan. Many of these languages are part of sub-families or families not at all represented on the list of specific languages. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Suggest swapping creole people for creole language. Cobblet (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think that all languages with less than 10 million speakers that do not hold historical or linguistic significance should not be on the list. Also we're missing crucial articles like creole language. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Sabotage, Add Will and testament

This swap again tries to redress the balance between crimes and other areas of law. Sabotage can involve a number of things. Damaging property, boycotts and protests. But it is not that widespread or harmful compared to the other listed crimes. Property law is currently underrepresented. Wills are fundamental to property and inheritance law and are important to the ordinary person not otherwise connected to law.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Sabotage is a modern concept. Wills have a long history and are more vital to the vast majority of people. Cobblet (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Wills are of immense practical importance. Neljack (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support as the proposed swapped topic is a much more central issue in legal systems around the world. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, I think that sabotage is an important topic. Would support the addition of Will and Testament. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I support the add, but would prefer to keep sabotage.  Carlwev  06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Poaching, Add Murder

Rape is one type of sexual assault, both of which are on the list. Likewise even though there is homicide I think murder as the moist heinous type of homicide will be a good addition to the list of crimes. OTOH, poaching is just one of many illegal activities relating to the environment. It is no more vital than illegal fishing, polluting and illegal logging. We neither have environmental law nor environmental crime FWIW. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would prefer to keep poaching, but I believe murder should be in too.  Carlwev  15:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose removal, support addition. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There are a lot of other areas in the law section that need remedying (pardon the pun). We currently have a type of IP crime (copyright infringment) and two types of intellectual property (copyright and patent) but not intellectual property itself. Arbitration is on the list but trial and legal case aren't. We have judge and judiciary both of which overlap but we don't have jury. I'm sure there will be other big omissions or redundant inclusions when we look at it further. And as always, there are articles which could fit into the law section perfectly but are elsewhere on the list (prison and war crime are in Society and War and Military respectively). Grouping will always be an issue at the 10K level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We're way under quota in Society and social sciences: I'd support adding more legal articles and your suggestions and Carlwev's are exactly the kind of thing I'd consider vital. Cobblet (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought murder and jury were both in, I was wrong, they both probably should be. I don't think poaching is that insignificant, the concept is centuries or millennia old, for animal stuff in general, there are still loads of obscure creatures listed. Poaching exists in much of the world and for quite a lot of it's history, as old as the concept of "owning" land and stealing things. It's a topic more significant for Africa and other places outside the West which are under presented. There are many things I would remove first, it may be less important than murder, but still in the grand scheme of things an encyclopedia should have, it's more important and should appear before 16 tennis players and hundreds of musicians and actors, sorry. If anything I would swap murder for homicide, or just add it. Carlwev  16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Gizza might be trying to say that illegal hunting is one of several types of environmental crimes that are certainly vital collectively, but if you compare it to the dumping of hazardous waste, illegal fishing and illegal logging, it might not be worth singling out. (Of course killing cute animals makes for better TV documentaries than killing fish or trees, but receiving more coverage by the media doesn't necessarily make it more vital.) I'd also point out that wildlife trade would present a broader overview of the subject (it would also cover the exotic pet trade, for instance). And laws regulating homicide have a much longer history and affect people's lives much more intimately than laws regulating the environment – it is unquestionably the more important topic. Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't explicitly suggest to add environmental crime or environmental law yet because I was unsure of consensus but either one would be a far better addition than just poaching. But then purely from a legal perspective, environmental law is considered to be a non-core area of law as you can see from Template:Law. Perhaps wildlife trade would fit well at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Society_and_social_sciences#Issues.2C_15 since many environmental issues are covered here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Murder should definitely be added. However, I think that poaching should still be on the list too because it is an international problem. I think we should create a thread for just adding Murder and keep poaching. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Carlwev, do you want illegal fishing, illegal logging, hazardous waste dumping, environmental crime and environmental law added as well? I'm curious as to why poaching is singled out when it is either equally significant or less significant than the other pages I mentioned. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, we could add environmental law so that we cover poaching as well as other environmental crimes and regulations. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Add murder

Alternative to the above.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I've stated my case for supporting murder above but adding it without removing the weaker crimes is going to further distort the balance in the law section. There are areas of law just as big as criminal in terms of the amount of work and academic literature such as contracts that have minute coverage in comparison. Of course, Wikipedia's target audience goes beyond just lawyers and law students. It includes people with a curiosity to learn about a particular topic. It is why I don't believe only people from a particular WikiProject should decide what is vital in that area. Experts and non-experts should decide together. Having said that, the list is currently slanted towards pop cultural perceptions of law. It doesn't even include vital articles that affect the average Joe outside of crime such as wills.

Even within just criminal law, the list is out of proportion. There are more than 20 offences but not a single defence (self-defence, provocation, insanity, consent, intoxication are some of the well known ones), let alone defense (law) itself. Then there are the more fundamental concepts of actus reus, mens rea, legal burden of proof, causation (law) and sentence (law) which books on an introduction to criminal law will discuss first before describing particular crimes.

I'm still having a hard time figuring out why poaching is in when illegal fishing and illegal logging are not. Poaching is just "illegal hunting". They are all on the same level. Arguably illegal logging has a more devastating impact on wildlife by destroying the homes of the animals as well as killing plants.

I am still supportive of adding more focused environmental topics into the vital articles list. At the moment, some environmental topics are covered in "Social Issues" in Society while most of them are in "Ecology" in Biology and Health. They should probably be merged together. That aside, I would support adding human impact on the environment, either environmental management or natural resource management and possibly conservation biology (which overlaps with wildlife conservation already listed). Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not mind adding the topics that you mentioned above. I proposed this mainly as an alternative to a swap, although I still think a swap is better. Murder needs to be on this list, it is just a matter of how it gets on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Suffrage

A subject of importance since antiquity, suffrage has global significance today. It is a fundamental governing principle in most governments throughout the world, a right preservative of all other rights, and countless social movements and many wars have been fought to achieve suffrage. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support See comment below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support  Carlwev  06:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Just noticed we seem to have nothing related to elections: neither election, voting, voting system, nor political campaign. Other essential government-related topics like corruption, international relations and activism are also missing. (I've nominated the last one before, as well as public policy.) On the other hand, we do list women's suffrage under History. Cobblet (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would support one of election or voting. I would support international relations and activism too. The main methods of activism such as protests, boycotts and strikes on their own would be close to being vital but are probably not quite there. I don't think I 'll support adding voting system or political campaign since they're fairly specific. I proposed corruption in the form of a swap above. While suffrage fits well in "Law", the other additions could go in the section on government. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would support adding election, corruption, international relations, and activism. How they are added I am not sure about. With respect to suffrage, I would prefer to put that in government since voting is what forms democratic governments and it is similar to voting. Also, women's suffrage may have been added, but suffrage is a much broader concept, including a possibility of a property requirement like in the early United States. It could also have a race requirement, a wealth requirement, a religion requirement, a gender requirement as stated above, etc. Adding the suffrage issue is vital because it encompasses every issue relating to the right to vote. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, including that "Voting" is more appropriate for the Government section. But I do think the "right to vote" (Suffrage) is more appropriate for the Law section; it's a legal right and concept that traditionally is the subject of legislation and court cases. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Suffrage could go either way, so I am fine with leaving it in Law. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

We would probably support things like voting, election, activism (we already have a list of activists/rebels). Also, universal suffrage exists as an decent article, I've seen that as the topic of an article somewhere else too, it's probably not needed if we have just plain suffrage, but then we're keeping women's suffrage.  Carlwev  06:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Negligence

Negligence is one of many torts. While it is probably the most important tort, I don't see that it's vital when we already have a an article on tort law, particularly when it only exists in common law jurisdictions. Neljack (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose see below. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Our coverage of civil law (as in the branch of law encompassing contracts, torts and property not the type of legal system) is already very lacking compared to the coverage of criminal law. There are only one type of tort but there are 18 types of crimes and there are two types of intellectual property, which is itself one type of property. Even though I proposed intellectual property in the form of a swap a while ago, real property/immovable property is the most important type of property and should really be in before IP and its subtypes. In terms of its wider effects on society, negligence accounts for more damage (financially, personal injury and death) than many of the crimes listed.

To go off on a tangent slightly, within criminal law all of the articles only cover offences. defence (law) (including self-defence, provocation, insanity, consent, intoxication among others) is more vital than many of the crimes listed.

On an interesting note, Ypnypn's question about the time between proposing suggestions again is quite pertinent here since negligence was only recently added 8 days ago. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Gizza, thanks for your comment, which has persuaded me that I was wrong, in light of the imbalance towards criminal law that you point out. In any case, I hadn't realised that negligence had just been added - I haven't been around here lately and, while I looked through the recently archived threads in this area, this obviously didn't register when I made the proposal. Anyway thanks for the great work you've been doing in this area and others! I apologise for the inconvenience! Neljack (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A small quibble: intellectual property is so-called because it involves the assignment of exclusive rights to intangible assets like knowledge, but otherwise it has very little in common with other types of property – knowledge is a public good, not a private one. Property law deals with real property, not intellectual property, and could be said to adequately cover that legal concept. Adding something like real estate might be more appropriate. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Add Openness to experience

Openness, now removed, was originally added in the thread Add the big five personality traits.... as pointed out by Carlwev. Obviously this was the article that was actually intended.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Why was this removed? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add IQ classification

IQ classification, formerly IQ reference chart, has long been a highly visited page and is currently among the 4,000 most visited pages on English Wikipedia, and a good article candidate with a lot of references to reliable sources and many wikilinks to other articles on psychology and related topics. The concept of categorizing people by IQ often comes up in popular discussion and is a core concept in psychology, as the cited sources make clear.

Support

1. Support as nom. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Should we not have IQ before IQ classification? I think I would, one is slightly wider, one slightly more specific, I personally would call IQ itself as more of the vital article, not IQ classification. Anyway a good IQ article should cover classification of IQ among all other information about IQ. Also talking about "highly visited pages" as maybe a factor of many, IQ classification had 91,270 hits last month making it the 3925th most visited article that month; Intelligence quotient (IQ) itself had 116256 hits making it the 2227th most visited article. Also IQ classification, according to the language links at least, appears in no other language, only English, where as IQ appears in 54 other languages. Both of those facts could be called meaningless, but they still make me think. I think this topic may deserve a place it's just for these reasons I would pick the other article.  Carlwev  15:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• [[2]] (IQ classification viewed 91270 times in May, 3925th)

• [[3]] (Intelligence quotient viewed 116256 times in May, 2227th)

Thank you. I'm just now checking what's been on the vital articles list (in its earlier forms) from the psychology Wikiproject. (And, by the way, thanks for your reversion, with comment, of my edit to the current list. I understand the process here now better and agree with your rationale.) For sure, Intelligence quotient (that is the base name of the article, with several redirect names) is a more vital article than IQ classification, although it needs a lot more improvement of its references (which I am continuing to do this year) than the latter article. I'm a very active participant in WikiProject Psychology (I was interviewed by The Signpost about the project), so I'll take a top-to-bottom look at the topics already taken up by earlier iterations of the Vital Articles project and the newly proposed articles in this iteration that relate to psychology. Thanks for your thoughtful comments on many of the topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Learned society

Not a great article, and not something I believe would be looked up in an encyclopedia. I strongly doubt this appears at all in other encyclopedias, not as one of the most vital articles anyway. I don't think there's even an agreed upon definition of what a learned society is exactly, there is no entry at all for this term in my huge Oxford English Dictionary for example, I don't think the term is used a lot, it's a big of an ambiguous term. I'm not very keen on all the other articles in this sub list either, like Consortium, Voluntary association, (would simple Volunteering be better?)  Carlwev  17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Not vital. I'd support volunteering; we're also missing trade union for some reason. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
8. Support Neljack (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Yeah trade union is a pretty strong case, I'd support that. I am thinking to soon open add either Welfare, or Welfare state, both are good but to have both, well is similar overlap; slight preference for welfare state, but not sure. Slightly unsure of it's place without looking through the lists, government, social somewhere else? thoughts?  Carlwev  20:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Britannica has developed articles for social welfare program and welfare state. Potentially we could add both under government. Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support replacing voluntary association and consortium with just volunteering and adding something related to welfare and trade unions. The Partnership article should move to the Business and Economics section. Although the word partnership can be used in a non-business sense, it is not vital in that sense. The non-business meaning of partnership is similar to consortium or voluntary association and none of them are vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Consortium

Similar rational to learned society above. Consortium is not as vague as learned society, and maybe slightly more important but I still don't think it's very vital. Although not exactly the same meaning, it overlaps a lot with partnership, which we have in the same list.  Carlwev  11:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  11:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Move Partnership to Business and Economics

The OED and other dictionaries give multiple definitions for partnership. It can be a synonym of association, club, organisation and consortium. It can also mean when two or more parties carry on business together. It is vital in the latter sense only IMO (the former sense is already covered). The biggest businesses in the world that are not corporations tend to be partnerships. The type of entity affects the management, financial structure and level of taxation for the business.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The article is about the concept in companies law. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  09:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add binomial nomenclature

Per plantdrew's suggestion above.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support a concept more important to classifying organisms than ranks like Class and Order. Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  18:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Chihuahua and Dalmatian, Add Merino

Out of the 25 animal breeds on the list, 10 are dogs, 9 are horses, 4 are cattle and 2 are cats. There are clearly too many dogs and horses while some breeds of other major domesticated animals should be added.

Looking at the sources found on List of most popular dog breeds, the Chihuahua is never in the top ten of most registered dog breeds in the US, Canada, UK, Australia and Italy. The Dalmatian is also hardly ever in the top ten. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/Popular pages, there are again more than ten dog breeds above Chihuahua and Dalmatian in terms of view count. Removing these two won't affect the variety on the list as there are other toy dogs and companion dogs listed.

The merino is the most economically important wool producing sheep breed. The merino wool industry created a large amount of wealth for Spain during the Late Middles Ages onwards and from the 1800's was the key export commodity in the Australian and New Zealand economies.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Better to list economically vital breeds of livestock than have an arbitrary selection of pet breeds. Cobblet (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Suport -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Merino wool and products made of it continues to be an important high-value export here in New Zealand. Neljack (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I don't have any expertise with regards to dog breeds. If somebody can find and link reliable sources on the most popular breeds for countries other than those mentioned it will much appreciated. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the dog breeds list should be reduced to primarily working dogs with only the most popular one or two companion dogs. A lot of breeds like the various retrievers and German Shepherd fit both categories anyway. But instead of listing many companion dogs, human-canine bond may be a better choice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Add Animal migration

Essential topic in ethology.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  06:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Bathing, Oral hygiene, Hair removal

If we consider things as specific as shaving, beard and moustache to be vital, then hair removal in general along with other hygienic practices must be vital as well.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Support bathing and hair removal. Neutral on oral hygiene for the moment. Bathing is a huge omission. Surprised that it isn't listed. See below on hair removal. With regards to oral hygiene, it is important but I wonder how many types of hygiene we can include when hygiene itself is only introduced at the 10,000 level (arguably it has a case at being promoted to the 1,000). Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

   I support all three now. I think oral hygiene is just vital enough from a health perspective. Public health is another related article we can add. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

4. Support the first two pbp 18:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
5. Support the first 2 also. Shaving which we have is the only vital hair removal, waxing, cream, lasering etc exist but are less used more recent and less vital. Washing/bathing is universal and if we have 4 types of dentistry we can have people keeping their mouth clean.  Carlwev  20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
6. Support bathing and oral hygiene, both of which are of considerable importance in health. Neljack (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I would support removing shaving and moustache. And perhaps beard.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Commonplace is not synonymous with vital. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose, would support the removal of shaving, beard and moustache. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I think these are the sort of everyday life topics that are actually vital to people's well-being that we are making room for by removing non-essential things like desk and necktie. I considered nominating hand washing as well. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should pay a lot more attention to literature and to coverage in other encyclopedias to establish what is vital. What is vital is what humans have written a lot about. There is no "Introduction to Bathing" or "Routledge encyclopedia of hair removal" or "international journal of shaving". There are works on bodymodification and body aesthetics that include such topics and THEY are the vital topics. I am very much against the idea that just because something is extremely commonplace or very important to peoples' everyday lives that that means that it is necessarily vital as a stand alone encyclopedia entry. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there need to be at least 100 articles on this list of stuff like that. And I would point out that bathing, beard, moustache, etc probably DO appear in most print encyclopedias, and the number of entries in a 20-volume print encyclopedia is on the order of magnitude of this list pbp 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I you search for "bathing" in Encyclopedia Britannica you will be redirected to Anseriformes. There is no article on hair removal either. To me these kinds of entries are dangerously close to conflicting with WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and not at all vital. I realize most people here disagree.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

What about the World Book or Encyclopedia Americana? pbp 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Britannica does have articles on bath (which is a disambiguation page here) and hairdressing (which redirects to hairdresser on Wikipedia; I think hair removal is a better choice). And Wiley publishes the International Journal of Dental Hygiene. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though I supported it then, I no longer believe moustache is vital. It is one type of facial hairstyle and there are too many hairstyle of the head, face and other places. I think none of them stand out. If moustache is included, why not ponytail or braid? Hairstyle itself is more noteworthy. The contrasts in hairstyles through history, between the genders and among cultures, sub-cultures, etc. is quite informative and has a stronger case IMO. Again I would support hair removal in place of shaving. Is shaving more vital than other methods of hair removal like waxing, laser and plucking? Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

We have bathtub, I think the article on bathing, is better to have than the article on bathtub  Carlwev  15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Barracks

This doesn't seem so vital to me when fortification and castle are already on the list. Their history as a distinct element of urban infrastructure is relatively short (basically just the 18th and 19th centuries). Military camps have been around as long as armies have and even that isn't listed; we could add it as a replacement, although we do have quite a few military-related articles already.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
3. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion