Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 39

Add Mo Yan

The first Nobel Laureate in Literature of Chinese citizenship, he is one of the most famous Chinese writers. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support crystalclear (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose another proposal that seems motivated by the lack of coverage of Chinese literature, which should be nominated instead.--^Melody _Lavender 07:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There are several titans of classical Chinese literature who are not listed; Mo Yan doesn't hold a candle to Su Shi or Wang Wei or Han Yu. Is there interest in adding such figures? Cobblet (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the current bunch of writer proposals although diverse by nationality only covers the 20th and 21st centuries. Orhan Pamuk is clearly the best choice among modern Turkish writers though Yunus Emre and Nef'i are just as good candidates from their own time. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support adding any of those classical Chinese writers and Yunus Emre. I don't know enough about Nef'i at the moment to form an opinion about him, but if after researching he seems important I would support adding him too. Though not writers, I was also thinking of adding some Japanese works of antiquity, like Man'yōshū and Kojiki. Jucchan (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Nef'i has a better Britannica article than Wiki. [1] but I agree that Yunus Emre is still ahead of him. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Mycenaean Greece

Article about one of the most significant regions history for a half a millennium time period in the Iron Age, many Greek Myths are based in this real time period but we seem more focused in included many Greek myth characters and Gods, in addition to many real Greek people like writers philosophers and some leaders and artists too but have left off an article about the whole regions historical period lasting for 500 years. It's a very decent article and much written about and studied among people and books that cover ancient European history. We have too much Greek myth possibly but have left off some of it's most significant real history of the same era.  Carlwev  20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support although Ancient Greece is generally overrepresented this is indeed an omission. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per above.--^Melody _Lavender 06:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Swap: Remove Great Victoria Desert, Add Outback

I think the cultural concept of the Australian interior is more significant than any specific physiographic province located within it.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 10:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Agree entirely with this reason. Simply being there is not vital. It is what people say about what is there that makes vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support there are too many deserts in Australia to do them all justice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Cape York Peninsula, Add Great Artesian Basin

Surely the world's largest aquifer is a more notable feature of Australia's physical geography than one of its remote and sparsely populated peninsulas.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support definitely an improvement. --^Melody _Lavender 10:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support the Cape York Peninsula is a trivia quiz answer being the northernmost point of mainland Australia. Not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Speaking of Northeast Australia, Torres Strait could be swapped with Torres Strait Islands. The Strait is somewhat notable for its marine ecosystem and as a route for illegal immigration but not much. The Torres Strait Islands are home to Australia's second indigenous group, the Torres Strait Islanders who are distinct from Aboriginal Australians. Their culture and lifestyle is a fusion of Papuan, Aboriginal and Austronesian elements. Torres Strait Islanders developed agriculture unlike Aboriginal Australians who were purely hunter-gatherers. It is the TSI's who actually achieved indigenous land rights reform in Australia via Eddie Mabo who used the sedentary culture of the islands in his argument to overturn terra nullius. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Greater Sunda Islands, Add French Polynesia

Each of the Greater Sundas (Sumatra, Borneo, Java, Sulawesi) is already listed. I suggest adding the largest political entity in Oceania, which contains world-famous islands like Tahiti and Bora Bora.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support the individual islands are more significant in the Greater Sunda Islands. --^Melody _Lavender 10:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  11:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support good swap. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The Lesser Sunda Islands, which are also listed, seem to be of around equal importance to the Greater Sunda Islands. Shouldn't they both be listed or both be removed? Sunda Islands is also an option, and it's the term that Britannica uses for this group of islands. Malerisch (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We only list two of the Lesser Sundas individually and a few of the others like Lombok have some significance, so I think there's a stronger case for keeping that overview article. And the Greater Sundas are culturally and biogeographically quite distinct from the Lesser Sundas, so I think it would be better to treat the Lesser Sundas separately. Compare the Antilles vs. the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean. Cobblet (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Southampton Island, Axel Heiberg Island and Melville Island (Northwest Territories and Nunavut)

Uninhabited islands in the Canadian Arctic. I think listing the world's two largest uninhabited islands (Devon Island and Alexander Island) is reasonable but sufficient.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 10:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Let's re-add Nunavut. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  13:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

It does seem odd we have discussed to include or not, cities, regions, islands etc with population, history, culture and some significance while articles such as these remain. I guess our geography purge kind of skipped over islands and a lot of physical geography in general.  Carlwev  13:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza:: I'm not so sure Nunavut is vital anymore when Inuit is listed and Alberta and British Columbia are not. Since you've mentioned the Torres Strait Islands, how would you feel about listing Northern Territory? We don't even list New South Wales anymore. Cobblet (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, Nunavut might not be needed if Inuit is listed. I suggested Torres Strait Islands since it seems that the people prefer having articles on islands compared to non-island states and provinces. When you compare the islands with regions, islands with smaller areas, populations and less significant history and culture remain while many regions were culled. For example, Komi Republic and Udmurtia were culled while Novaya Zemlya and Severnaya Zemlya stayed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Add French Guiana

I think this is a vital encyclopedic topic. It may not have opted for independence like British and Dutch Guiana did, but I don't think its status as a French possession makes it less vital. If Corsica is vital, how is French Guiana, with a similar population and an even more distinct culture, not vital?

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 10:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support agree with nom's rational and it had already crossed my mind too.  Carlwev  11:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support pbp 23:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose--Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Just another oversea territory and collectivity

Discussion

Swap: Remove Mascarene Islands, Add Réunion

Réunion and Mauritius are the two notable parts of this group of islands in the Indian Ocean. Réunion is the most populous entity on the list of countries by population that we do not include as vital. Again, if Corsica is vital, how is Réunion not?

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 10:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  12:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Corsica is more vital than Réunion because it is prominent and well known in European history in a way that reunion is not prominent in the history of any region except the mascarene Islands itself. Nonetheless the swap is good because noone will be looking for the MAscarene Islands, they will be looking for Mauritius and Réunion. I think Mauritius is more well known and culturally important than réunion, but it doesn't matter enough not to support this proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Corsica prominent in European history either. It's certainly less prominent than Chernigov. Cobblet (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree. As you know for me prominence is not a result of any putative objective significance of a phenomenon or event, but of the feequency and intensity with which the even or phenomenon is depicted in human (particularly Western) culture. Educated people can be expected to know Corsica, one or too historical facts about the island, and maybe even have stereotypical idea of what it is like. Not so with Chernihiv regardless of how important it has been fo the establishment of the kievan rus before the Mongols. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

By making Corsica a vital article we are saying that Wikipedians should prioritize making Corsica a high-quality article: that is, something more substantial than one or two pieces of historical trivia plus some stereotyped comments about Corsicans. If the main reason Corsica's vital is because of its connection to Napoleon (I believe that's why a typical educated Westerner would know about Corsica, if they know anything at all), then Elba and Saint Helena ought to be vital as well. Yet in my mind the latter two are clearly not – don't you agree? To me, what this implies is that vitality is not simply "this is something someone should have heard of, and maybe know a couple of factoids about" – if that's the level of detail readers seek from a reference work, something like The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy should satisfy their needs.

A "vital" encyclopedia article should be more than that. It should be "something one needs to read if one wishes to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the broader subject(s) to which it is related, because the essential information it contains is not already covered in other 'vital' articles". In the context of French history and culture, an article on Corsica may be vital; but Chernihiv is at least as vital in the context of Ukrainian (and Russian) history and culture. (Meanwhile Elba's not so significant to Italy, and Saint Helena has even less significance among British colonies.) You may ask whether our readers need to know more about France than Ukraine, or whether more of our readers want to learn about France than about Ukraine. But even if in both cases you believe the answer is yes to some extent, our list already places a much stronger emphasis on France than Ukraine elsewhere in the list. I think our task is to determine an appropriate balance (and to do this, one has to look at the entire list, not just one section of it) and apply it consistently. And when I see the addition of Reykjavik getting more support than additions of Nouakchott or Canberra, and removing Donetsk getting more support than removing Kitakyushu or Arequipa, I question whether we are succeeding in this regard. It isn't even necessarily about Western bias – we're just being inconsistent in general. Cobblet (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Spitsbergen, Add Svalbard

It is the archipelago (which forms a political and physiographic unit) that is vital as a whole, not its largest island.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Svalbard is the vital term and subsumes Spitsbergen.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, Similar content, subsumes Spitsbergen and is more popular. Maplestrip (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --^Melody _Lavender 21:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support--Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support  Carlwev  12:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose it's the only inhabited island in the archipelago and is historically important. --^Melody _Lavender 10:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

How does one check which of the two has more pageviews? The two articles seem almost equally important and somewhat similar in content. Svalbard is more popular with the WikiProjects, though. Maplestrip (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

History tab, in the third line there is a link to page view statistics. Svalbard gets a lot more hits. I wonder why?--^Melody _Lavender 11:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC) .....and changed my mind because of that. Svalbard gets 8 times as many hits.--^Melody _Lavender 21:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think most people don't distinguish between Svalbard and the individual islands, and the name Svalbard is simply better known. I in fact thought that SPitsbergen was just an obsolete name for Svalbard.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Scandinavian Peninsula

I'm aware that this isn't the same thing as Scandinavia but they're so close that essentially a discussion of the Scandinavian Peninsula would be largely identical to one on the geography of Scandinavia. Surely this is a topic that can be covered by the latter article.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Clearly redundant with scandinavia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Maplestrip (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  12:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Don't The Americas have a similar problem? -Maplestrip (forgot signing, sorry)

Yes! But what is most important? General article (I think not) or NCS Americas?

I'm not sure what the Americas has that those three articles don't already show in more detailed in those three articles... Maplestrip (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Americas/Western Hemisphere/New World is a macroregion with significance outside physical geography: it's also a cultural and geopolitical concept. Several languages refer to North and South America as a single continent, for example. It may not have the strongest case for inclusion (it should be noted that we don't list Afro-Eurasia, Eastern Hemisphere or the Old World) but it is unquestionably more vital than the Scandinavian peninsula. Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think, it was me who added Scandinavia over a year ago, not sure why the peninsula article was added first/instead. It took me ages to get Korea added then the Korean peninsula article removed, which people agreed with eventually for very similar rational as this thread.  Carlwev  12:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Folk art

Not all art is done by hauty-taughty professional artists. This article could potentially note working-class art from around the world. pbp 21:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 21:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support: At least the concept. Definitely need artwork created by ordinary people. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportUser:Gonzales John 17:43, 11 December 2014
6. Support ~Mable (chat) 09:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Folk dance is another option. Folk music is already listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Hua Mulan

Of the 31 literary characters, the "easternmost" figure is Aladdin, demonstrating how skewed the list is. Hua Mulan's story stretches back 1500 years and is the best literary character to add from China. Her story is one of the best known in the world that explores gender roles in society. Way more vital than Wonder Woman. This will improve coverage of female characters as well, which are as expected a tiny minority currently (3.5 of the 31).

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I proposed this myself not long ago, I hope consensus has changed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, this is perfect indeed. Maplestrip (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Rather an exaggeration to call her the "best literary character to add from China" when there are many similarly important folk legends, but thanks to Disney, this is probably better known in the West than the others. Her ballad is standard fare in Chinese literature classes. Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support--^Melody _Lavender 18:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support; I had no idea how significant she was within China, and every American between 15 and 30 has got to know about her through Disney. Tezero (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• I am thinking that another good addition would be Sun Wukong.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

IMO that is in fact a better choice. Journey to the West is listed but the Monkey King is so iconic in Chinese culture that a good case can be made for listing it separately. We list Achilles and Odysseus along with the Iliad and Odyssey for example. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying that, we have Homer, Iliad, Achilles, Agamemnon, Odyssey, and Odysseus, (plus Troy and Trojan War in History too). Achilles is quite iconic but I have long thought Agamemnon is unnecessary, he's not really that important really is he, lower than Medusa and Minotaur for Greek mythology surely, and do we really need both Odyssey and Odysseus?  Carlwev  15:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing Agamemnon. I think Odysseus is more vital than Achilles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Hulk (comics)

The coverage of superheroes is outsized in comparison to other categories of fictional characters. We've removed far more significant and longer-lasting fictional characters from the list. I would say that Hulk is considerably less significant than Wonder Woman, and Wonder Woman's on the block right now. Marvel is not as long-lasting as its parent Disney or its competitor DC, so I'm not seeing a pervasive need for multiple Marvel heroes on this list. pbp 15:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 15:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--^Melody _Lavender 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. We reduced the detectives from four to one; five superheroes is too many. X-men might be a better article than Hulk to add from Marvel anyway not that it matters. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Supportper nom.User:Gonzales John 13:01, 06 December 2014

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Agamemnon

Same rational as I explained above. We have Homer, Iliad, Achilles, Agamemnon, Odyssey, and Odysseus, (plus Troy and Trojan War in History too). Achilles is quite iconic but I have long thought Agamemnon is unnecessary. Greek mythology is quite well represented and some have said maybe too well, even so he's not really that important really is he? Even within Greek mythology characters/creatures like Medusa and Minotaur would be more vital I would have thought. There are real leaders we are leaving off to include this mythical one. We have removed Greek Gods that seem more vital. The Iliad has many characters some that also appear in other stories, there is Priam, Hector, Paris (mythology), Menelaus. Achilles has an argument for inclusion but I don't see why Agamemnon is that much more important than those other characters.  Carlwev  18:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support A perennial supporting character.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Maplestrip (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I think Helen of Troy, Hector and possibly even Agamemnon's father Atreus are more vital. Cobblet (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support for the sake of comparison consensus is emerging to remove Arjuna, the only non-deity heroic character of Hindu mythology on the list. There are 11 such heroic characters from Greek mythology, and one or none from the mythology of every culture in the world including Norse/Germanic, which has also influenced English-speaking nations to a large degree. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The murderer who gets murdered. I can't quite say why, but I have a feeling he's vital. He is somehow closely related to Zeus, see Agamemnon (Zeus). Gets a significant amount of page views, and is ranked high importance by the Ancient Rome/Greece project. Move to mythology tab. --^Melody _Lavender 19:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Basicallly we probably shouldnt consider anything that isnt rated top importance in some wikiproject.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the wikiprojects can act like a very good guide, I nearly always look at them. Although I think they are a good guide I think of them as only a guide, as most of the importance ratings are not discussed only added by a single user and a single point in time, not voted on like our project here is, It's only the POV of one user who added it; I've even rated articles myself and added the importance to the talk page as I see fit but that was only my POV as neutral and honest as I was attempting to be. That being said I nearly always look at the wikiproject ratings though in spite of that they are pretty accurate in my view most of the time. Some of our included and suggested articles remain unrated also, and some have their importance altered from time to time just like the rated quality gets altered sometimes too.  Carlwev  20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree with Carlwev here, especially because I think most "vital articles" here are rated "high importance", not top. A WikiProject might also not fully fit the subject at hand, causing multiple mid-ratings, but no high-ratings. I do see them as an excellent guide to understand how important an article is for a specific field, though, even if it is very POV. Maplestrip (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus:, depends on the project. Some projects are large enough that we should exceed all top-rated articles (for example, Biography calls its top-level "Core" and limits it to 200); other award top status too seriously for us to notice them. pbp 21:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• If you're going to cut a Greek, I guess Agamemnon's as good as any pbp 21:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that using the importance tags from WikiProjects is helpful but they can be off the mark. Sometimes an article about a US/UK institution is "Top-importance" while the equivalent institution from China or Mexico would be "Mid-importance" (the same institution from a small non-Western country is often low or not tagged). And as others have said, how you use them depends on how broad or specific the project is. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with DaGizza, You all may want to note that importance ratings in a wikiproject are, at best, guidelines. Just to give an example at WikiProject Equine, we have very very few high and top rated articles, and often they are rated as such because of their importance to horses (diseases such as laminitis for example) not due to their importance to the wider world. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Arjuna and Rama, add Mahabharata

Arjuna and Rama are the protagonists of the two major cycles of hindu mythology. If we remove Hindu mythology from the mythology section then I think it would make sense to remove the entire section and instead add the two texts to the Religion section in order to consolidate. We already have Ramayana but not Mahabharata.

Support

1. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removals. --^Melody _Lavender 17:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The Marabharata is already listed under Literature; in fact it's also on level 3. Cobblet (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ramayana and th Bhagavad gita are under religion no. Isnt this division a little odd?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Civil marriage

This is redundant with marriage which should clearly describe both religious and civil marriage.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --^Melody _Lavender 21:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Iced tea

Why do we have iced tea when we don't have iced coffee and chocolate milk? It's not even the second tea-related article to have after tea itself. Black tea or green tea would be. Not vital.

Support

1. as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --^Melody _Lavender 14:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support, that's pretty silly :p Maplestrip (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Should be redundant with tea.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  12:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I also noticed that fermentation in food processing is included while fermentation (with a focus on biochemistry) is not. I wonder if they should be swapped. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think so. Cobblet (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Food processing and food technology isn't even on the list and should probably be considered of higher vitality than fermentation in food processing. I agree with the swap. --^Melody _Lavender 14:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Dish (food)

Dish seems redundant with Meal, both are on level 4 and we have individual meals like lunch, breakfast, dinner, and individual dishes like entrée, main course, and dessert. Dish is more like a wiktionary definition. --^Melody _Lavender 07:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --^Melody _Lavender 07:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Maplestrip (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Simply not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support easy remove  Carlwev  12:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Senet

Never done one of these before, so please be forgiving if I've formatted this wrong. With that out of the way, this is a game I've never heard of, that doesn't appear to have stood the test of time (unlike, say, Chess or Mancala) but instead has to cite a few examples of appearances in modern media to show notability. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, it's only got historical importance, being "the first" or "one of the first". WikiProjects don't rate the article very favorable (mid and low). Someone would have to convince me how important its impact was on the world or board games as a whole. Maplestrip (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support We have Go and Pachisi to represent ancient board games. There are more significant toys, games and sports of antiquity not listed, like Mesoamerican ballgame or gladiatorial combat or jianzi. Cobblet (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. 'Support Not sufficiently significant for this list. would also support removing Chaturanga.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose historically signifcant. --^Melody _Lavender 19:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Quite possibly the oldest game in the world pbp 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Things are not vital simply for being the first. ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Senet may have been the predecessor to backgammon. Other historical board games like Chaturanga, the predecessor to chess, are listed but chess as a whole is more significant than backgammon. I support adding Mesoamerican ballgame,Ancient Olympics and mob football and possibly some of gladiator, sepak takraw, kabaddi and calcio fiorentino. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Kabaddi and sepak takraw certainly seem more significant than Basque pelota. Cobblet (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support the addition of all the ones Gizza mentions, with Ancient Olympics and Gladiator (huge omission) being the most vital. Not entirely sure about Mesoamerican ballgame, we don't even have the descendant Racquetball. Sports is another area where I believe we're not doing our job, there's a lot missing, and the fact that we have many individual sportspeople doesn't make up for the lack in that area. And...there is enough quota currently to add all of them. --^Melody _Lavender 06:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Tom and Jerry

We are lacking animated series, and besides The Simpsons, what is the most well-known and influential cartoon? That might just be Tom and Jerry.

Support

1. as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Influential cartoon in the early days of cartoons. Looney Tunes would also be a good addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. Maybe The Flintstones could work? If animated films count, maybe The Lion King or Toy Story? Pokémon is already covered. Either way, I agree with this one. Tezero (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Definitely crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Add Freedom of speech

Basic human right that we take for granted but has been fought for throughout history. Important for democracy, voting, and other processes in politics. --^Melody _Lavender 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --^Melody _Lavender 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I support the addition in the law section.--^Melody _Lavender 19:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support - I think DaGizza has a fair point below, as we want to avoid "freedom creep" in the vital articles list, so to speak. But along with suffrage, freedom of speech is vital because it is fundamentally preservative of all other rights and freedoms; and many other freedoms, including (among others) the freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion, are all derivatives of the freedom of speech. This makes freedom of speech uniquely suited among rights and freedoms to be considered "vital". However, I do not support this article being listed under the "Politics and government" category; it's a legal right, and thus it should be included under the "Law" category. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support prefer to add this in "Politics". Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support ~Mable (chat) 09:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
5. It should be included under the Law section.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Just to let you know, freedom of speech and freedom of religion were proposed a year ago and failed here. Consensus may be different now but I'm still concerned that adding one freedom can result in adding a couple dozen more. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely with Prototime, I was going to add exactly that explanation. Also agree with Gizza that this shouldn't lead to freedom "creep" (much needed neologism for VA!). I'd like to add that Free speech is also a basic prerequisite for voting - how are you going to make a rational decision about who to vote for if there is no information available about the candidates? --^Melody _Lavender 19:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can understand the perspective for adding freedom of speech. Leaning towards support now. On the point of where it should go, many countries do not have the right to freedom of speech in their constitution or even statute. It only exists at a social level or implicit to other rights and rules. I personally prefer it to go in politics but I don't care about it enough to have a strong position. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Physical therapy

Since Massage recently failed here, I'm proposing the overaching article now. It includes massage and therapeutic gymnastics and similar and is popular with patients because it is a non-invasive treatment, no pills or surgery involved. The therapist just tells them how to move to increase or maintain mobility, for instance. --^Melody _Lavender 05:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --^Melody _Lavender 05:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, I'm sad massage failed too  Carlwev  18:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose : CrystalClear (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Massage didn't technically fail. There was no consensus to add it. After all, nobody opposed it. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

True, but it wasn't added.--^Melody _Lavender 21:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Add concussion

A frequently heard disease, however the list does not contain this article.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 07:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, it's an injury, not a disease, and I wonder if we already have something like this? Maplestrip (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support  Carlwev  09:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Normal force

The force exerted on an object by a surface that prevents the object from going through the surface. Makes sense to add since we list most other forces that would fall in the same category in terms of how fundamental they are such as Tension (physics) and Drag (physics). Jucchan (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I question whether we really need to separately list any non-fundamental forces to begin with. Can't force cover them all? Cobblet (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say we definitely need to list individual forces, "force" is way too broad of a topic. The individual forces have different sources and act all independently of each other, and are all vital to physics. Not having any non-fundamental forces would mean not having friction, centripetal force, and buoyancy.

You forgot Paranormal force, Pyramid power and Superhuman strength.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

But those aren't important scientific concepts at all, in contrast to the forces that Jucchan mentioned. IMO the types of non-fundamental forces that should be listed are ones that receive extended discussion in physics textbooks. While the normal force and tension are commonly encountered in physics, basic is not synonymous with vital, and I don't believe that there is that much to be written about them individually that can't be sufficiently covered in force in a list of vital articles. However, forces like friction, centripetal force, buoyancy, and drag are much more "complex" (which can be seen by the relative lengths of their articles), and extended treatment in a separate article can be substantiated. Malerisch (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I was only joking.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a reasonable distinction. So why don't we list lift? I ask because I think airfoil should be considered in the Technology section as well. Cobblet (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support adding lift and airfoil. Jucchan (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd support adding both as well. Malerisch (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Malerisch, and would support lift and airfoil. Paranormal force, Pyramid power and Superhuman strength LOL are all covered by Superhero --^Melody _Lavender 09:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Add File (tool)

Pretty vital and universal tool, we include the other tools like saw hammer screw driver, etc. We also include lists of other related objects like musical instruments, some of which may be slightly less vital. Files have been used throughout history apparently since bronze age times, and continue to be used up into modern times today, and all over the world in woodworking and metalworking and other industries. They are more used more and seem more vital than some other tools we include like worm drive and machete and at least as important as others like pitchfork and hoe (tool) etc.  Carlwev  18:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, looking at this article (as well as filing), I simply can't find a reason for file to be vital. It seems only historic in significance too. Maplestrip (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add helmet

One of the most iconic parts of armor in general, a piece of equipment with a long history in military, but also vital for construction, mining, law enforcement and sports. Definitely a crucial article and I was surprised to see it was not yet on the list~

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support see below  Carlwev  14:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support in everyday life section, or maybe in Technology - tools. I was going to suggest this. --^Melody _Lavender 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Logical1004 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Are you aware we have combat helmet already in technology along with some other personal types of armour. Perhaps helmet itself would be better, we should discus? at first glance it would seem to be better. Helmet seems wider as it would obviously cover military helmets along with several sports types, work/industry related safety helmets, police/security etc and more, whereas combat helmet only the military kind. The regular helmet article is in 56 languages which is more than triple the 17 languages the combat helmet article appears in; it appears people around the world write the regular helmet article before the specific combat one.  Carlwev  19:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware of the list already including combat helmet. It might be another idea to have both articles. Military helmets on their own are crucial as well, far more so than "sports helmet" or "construction helmet". I'd suggest keep and add, but if you support switching combat helmet with helmet, feel free to add that to "support" as "support and swap". Maplestrip (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better than combat helmet, I'd probably want to remove that one as a default swap. We probably wouldn't have combat knife in addition to, or instead of knife (although we list dagger and its removal thread failed if I remember rightly) I think Combat helmet is the most important type, but I think helmet is broader and cover it, and it would be too much to have both. I think it is probably more common search term, even for those looking for specifically combat helmets. I will propose remove below.  Carlwev  14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Combat helmet

I think Helmet proposed above is better. Although combat helmet is probably the most important type of helmet, I think the Helmet article is broader and covers the combat type anyway and is probably more common search term, even for those looking for specifically combat helmets. See above for more discussion also.  Carlwev  14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 16:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Logical1004 (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. SUpport Helmet may be vital, not specific types of helmet. Not something people look for in an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, the huge, rich history and modern use of the combat helmet shouldn't be summed up by the helmet article. The only issue I agree with is that it is an uncommon search term. Maplestrip (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add statistical significance

A crucial term in statistics, yet the list still does not contain this article.

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support more than just a term. Statistical significance is more than just a hunch, it has a real mathematical definition and you can calculate it. Basic concept. Good thinking. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose redundant to statistical hypothesis testing, p-value and standard deviation. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Gizza, it's those things that are vital. Statistical significance would be nothing without them. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I feel that this is redundant to statistical hypothesis testing. Edging towards oppose. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Although the other articles mentioned above (statistical hypothesis testing, p-value, and standard deviation) are all important concepts, "statistical significance" is a fundamental concept in empirical research, and compared to other articles, it is the concept most likely to be used in the media and familiar to lay people. I strongly believe that any redundancy aside, "statistical significance" is sufficiently vital to be listed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Prototime:, I support increasing statistics articles slightly since we're under quota in mathematics. But I think there are bigger gaps which need representation. I support adding data collection, multivariate statistics and one of either data visualization or statistical graphics. We now have 3 types of central tendency in mean, median and mode but no histogram, time series or pie chart. Then again, I can see where you're coming from. My oppose is only weak I guess and could change my mind if the other articles are added. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Ryūnosuke Akutagawa

Father of the Japanese short story, he is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential modern Japanese writers. He also names Japan's greatest literary prize. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Logical1004 (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support : CrystalClear (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Han Yu and Wang Wei (8th-century poet)

It's a travesty that Tang dynasty literature is represented only by Li Bai and Du Fu: that's like saying Shakespeare and Cervantes are the only vital Renaissance writers. Han Yu was one of the greatest masters of Chinese prose (he heads the Eight great prose masters of the Tang and Song, and the other three people I'm nominating are also part of that group – yes, the Chinese love making lists too) and a notable poet as well. He was responsible for liberating Chinese prose from the mannerisms in vogue at the time, and for restoring Confucianism to the forefront of Chinese intellectual thought. Wang Wei's pastoral, Chan-inspired poetry is one of China's greatest literary achievements; he's also credited with founding the Southern School of Chinese painting, though none of his work survives except in copies made by his contemporaries.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would like to support for diversity reasons, unfortunately I think my main criteria, that of knowledge of the topic being considered significant outside of the local cultural sphere of the topic does not permit me to.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Maunus:: To support the additions of Teresa Teng and Hua Mulan but not figures like these is the equivalent of saying we should list Elvis and Paul Bunyan (and we don't actually list the latter) but not Walt Whitman or Thoreau. Our coverage of Chinese culture is grossly distorted by the omission of such influential people. I'm not asking that we list the Chinese equivalent of every single Western author on the list; only that we fill such basic gaps that anyone with even the slightest interest in Chinese literature would immediately notice. Han Yu's impact on Chinese literature has been compared to Shakespeare, Dante or Goethe's role in Western literature, as the article points out. And the translations of Ezra Pound and Das Lied von der Erde should put to rest the notion that Wang Wei's poetry isn't significant outside China. I can point to most parts of the list, e.g. the mathematicians or athletes, and say that these people aren't significant outside the realm of mathematics or sports; the fact is we continue to list many of them, because within those realms those people are extraordinarily significant. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Elvis does come before Whitman and maybe Thoreau. I agree it may be equivalent, but only from a Chinese perspective. From a more global perspective Teng and Mulan are much more widely known. You can get by everywhere (outside of China at least) without having these two poets in your store of knowledge about China, but not without knowing Mulan (and to a lesser degree Teng). Pound's translation does add some wider notability, but not enough for me I am afraid. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Elvis was not the best comparison: Bing Crosby might've been better. I would disagree with everything else you've said: in particular, I doubt any of the other people who voted to include Teresa Teng had heard about her before I wrote the nomination. Cobblet (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly hadnt, and perhaps I might not support Teng if she was proposed today. Disagreeing with you seems to me to be a constant, so no surprise there.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I could say the same about most of the Latin and African musicians you have proposed in the past, and of a great number of proposals made by others as well, many of which I have nevertheless supported, because I don't believe "I haven't heard of this person" is ever a legitimate reason to oppose a nomination. I believe our list should aim to comprehensively cover a wide range of subjects, be it world music or world literature; and that includes finding the most notable representatives of those fields, regardless of whether a typical Westerner has heard of them. Neither Umm Kulthum nor Vladimir Vysotsky fits that criterion, for example. Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Su Shi and Ouyang Xiu

Equally astounding is the almost complete absence of cultural figures from the Song dynasty, another golden age in Chinese history. Su Shi and Ouyang Xiu would be called Renaissance men if such a term existed in the Chinese language, and I won't exhaust you by describing the multifaceted accomplishments of each; suffice it to say that they are considered the most outstanding personalities of their time.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support both but Ouyang Xiu in particular. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Su Shi, Oppose Ouyan Xiu.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Machado de Assis

The one who brought literary realism to Brazil, Machado de Assis is the first president of Brazilian Academy of Letters, and is considered by the critic the most important author of Brazilian's history. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Literary realism might be vital instead. --^Melody _Lavender 07:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I would support that first.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Realism (arts) is listed, and covers the literary movement. Cobblet (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Viacheslav Fetisov, Add Vladimir Vysotsky

Fetisov was an ice hockey defenceman most notable for captaining the spectacularly dominant Soviet teams of the 1980s. The players on those teams certainly possessed great individual skill but were most noted for their play as a team, so it's hard to say whether he's the greatest defenceman ever – Bobby Orr also has a strong claim on that title. With the list of athletes much reduced, I see little reason to keep four hockey players, and Fetisov has the weakest case. Vladislav Tretiak remains on the list so that Russian hockey from that era is still represented.

User:Maunus has often complained about the lack of non-American folk musicians. Britannica summarizes Vysotsky's importance better than I can: "Russian actor, poet, songwriter, and performer who was considered 'the voice of the heart of a nation.' His wide-ranging and forthright poems were considered subversive by the Soviet authorities and were barred from publication, but they were the cultural lifeblood for many Russians. Vysotsky was an immensely popular figure who continued to be revered, read, and listened to long after his death." In a TV show seeking the most notable personalities in Russian history, only two musicians appeared on a shortlist of 50: Tchaikovsky and Vysotsky. (In case you're wondering, the only athlete on the same shortlist was Lev Yashin – we've got him on our list as well.) There's another Russian singer on our list (Alla Pugacheva) but I'm pretty sure Vysotsky is at least as vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Very happy to support this excellent swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Billy Joel

We removed Mariah Carey recently, and don't list people like Whitney Houston and Celine Dion, which made me wonder whether we really need anybody other than Elton John to represent the pop ballad genre.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support No idea what he was doing on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, it's not like he started the fire. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --^Melody _Lavender 06:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Billy Joel is needed to give the complete picture of the pop ballad genre. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove George Solti

If we had room for twenty conductors, maybe Solti would make it. As it stands the list is simply too short for him. There are people like Jean-Baptiste Lully and Carl Maria von Weber who made pioneering contributions to the Western musical performance tradition and were also influential composers, who aren't listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Clearly not among the handful of most vital directots.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support There are more important conductors that we don't have. Neljack (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support : Logical1004 (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose From what I remember there has always been a weird bias against conductors in the list. Why are you doing that? If we decide to have such an overdimensional people section, we can't leave out the most important conductors. No idea how the nominator arrived at the "Solti is only 20th in position" statement. Hardly anybody would not place him in the Top Ten. BBC ranks George Solti 5th here. We're supposed to stick to reliable sources, aren't we?--^Melody _Lavender 06:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Melody Lavender:: I'm sorry, where exactly on that page does it state that the BBC considers him the fifth greatest conductor? I see no ranked list anywhere on that page, only an unranked list of names arbitrarily chosen for the purposes of an informal online poll – I say arbitrarily, for there is no explanation of how the names were picked. As you may gather from the comments on that page, the public was not entirely satisfied with their choices.

The only list I know of that isn't entirely based on the opinion of one person and is the closest thing to an RS on this subject is the list compiled by BBC Music Magazine in 2010, which "asked 100 leading conductors to name the maestros they admire above all others." In the resulting ranked list of twenty names, Solti is... not there. Of course, they didn't say who exactly these leading conductors were, and you may believe that you and the rest of the people reading this talk page are better arbiters of taste in classical music than any of them. Which is why I said Solti might make it if we listed twenty conductors. Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right, the list is not ranked. I don't think people are going to change their minds based on any RS anyway. Still, there are not enough conductors on the list. If by all means we have to have such a huge list of biographies, conductors should be there. There should be five at least, preferably ten. --^Melody _Lavender 07:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There are definitely ten people on the list whose significance rests in no small part on the essential contributions they made to the Western conducting tradition: Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Liszt, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Toscanini, Bernstein, Boulez and Karajan. I encourage you to read Harold C. Schonberg's The Great Conductors if you don't understand what I'm talking about – I did not just pick these names at random. Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They are mostly composers. The solution would be to have a smaller quota for biographies, then we could have fewer conductors without being biased. --^Melody _Lavender 12:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying that we're biased against conductors because we mainly list conductors who also made other contributions to music is like saying we're biased against poets because there's no section called "poets", ignoring that many of the writers we list are vital because of their poetry. I'd seriously consider cutting Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Bernstein and Boulez if it weren't for their contributions to the history of conducting. Boulanger is another figure who likely wouldn't be vital if you ignore the fact she was the first significant female conductor. Cobblet (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Reality is biased against conductors because it is a lot harder for them to achieve lasting contributions to the art relative to composers or musicians. I am not sure any conductors are really vital. It would have to be demonstrated that they have had a lasting impact on musical practice as a whole for me to consider them vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Alan Jay Lerner

We don't need seven people to represent Broadway theatre and I think he's the weakest of the bunch.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Been wishing for cuts to the broadway list for a long time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support : Logical1004 (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Ivy Lee

He is considered by some to be the founder of modern public relations. The term Public Relations is to be found for the first time in the preface of the 1897 Yearbook of Railway Literature.

Support

1. as nom. The fact that some consider him the founder of modern public relations makes him crucial, as PR is vital in modern society.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No, being the found or inventor of somehing vital does not make you automatically vital. And there are sufficient representation of PR people, at least there is when Bernays is included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus. Jucchan (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add E. P. Thompson

He was a British historian, writer, socialist and peace campaigner. He is probably best known today for his historical work on the British radical movements in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, in particular The Making of the English Working Class (1963). He also published influential biographies of William Morris(1955) and (posthumously) William Blake (1993) and was a prolific journalist and essayist. He also published the novel The Sykaos Papers and a collection of poetry.

Thompson was one of the principal intellectuals of the Communist Party in Great Britain. Although he left the party in 1956 over the Soviet invasion of Hungary, he nevertheless remained a "historian in the Marxist tradition", calling for a rebellion against Stalinism as a prerequisite for the restoration of communists' "confidence in our own revolutionary perspectives". Thompson played a key role in the first New Left in Britain in the late 1950s. He was a vociferous left-wing socialist critic of the Labour governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79, and an early and constant supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, becoming during the 1980s the leading intellectual light of the movement against nuclear weapons in Europe.

Support

1. as nom. Since he was a highly influential historian, the article should belong to the expanded list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose We have a reasonable amount of historians, and others would come before Thompson.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose He was an important historian, but I agree with Maunus. Neljack (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab

Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab was an Najdi Islamic scholar who was considered a heretic by the leading Sunni Muslim scholars of his time, as well as his brother; Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab who issued a Fatwa against him titled: "Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul wa-Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibni `Abd al-Wahhab" declaring him as a heretic. Opponents of this movement coined the term "wahabi" or "wahabism", though neither Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab nor any of the movement's participants referred to themselves as such.

His pact with Muhammad bin Saud helped to establish the first Saudi state and began a dynastic alliance and power-sharing arrangement between their families which continues to the present day in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The descendants of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, the Al ash-Sheikh, have historically led the ulama in the Saudi state, dominating the state's clerical institutions.

Support

1. As nom. The fact that he was the originator of Wahhabism makes him vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Islamic theologians of the last 700 years are absent. Should be in before Mary Baker Eddy and Joseph Smith. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Ok with adding him. Would also want to add Joseph Smith too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Had thought of this nomination before. I might support Smith, but not Baker Eddy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

What Gizza meant was that those two people are already in the list, and that al-Wahhab is more vital than those two. Feel free to suggest Baker Eddy for removal if you don't feel he belongs to the list. ~Maplestrip (chat) 20:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Eight Deer Jaguar Claw

There are no indigenous people of the Americas who lived before the 15th century on the list. Lord 8 Deer was one of the great Mesoamerican rulers who united the various Mixtec peoples for the first time. Like Sundiata Keita (see below), his life story has been transformed into an epic and has been accorded legendary status among the Mixtecos.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I have proposed this before, but he was removed recently. Consensus can change though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support', this seems to be a beautiful topic for an encyclopedia about everything and a great representation of the Americas in the eleventh century. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Andreas Vesalius and William Harvey

It's a bit premature to be considering folks like Richard Doll when the people who made fundamental contributions to the study of medicine aren't even on the list yet.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Logical1004 (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Ninja

I'm not sure on which subtopic of "History" it should be included but isn't it as relevant as samurai (already listed under "Post-classical history")? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, surprised, should be as notable as zombie nowadays, yet has a good and interesting history. Definitely a vital topic for an encyclopedia! Good find :) Would fall under Early modern history. ~Maplestrip (chat) 14:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support This is the kind of topic I think is really essential for an encyclopedia. Topics that are extremely well known in popular culture, but the actual facts of which are not well known. Making the actual history of ninjas available to the public is what wikipedia is about.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  16:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support good find. --^Melody _Lavender 19:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Support for the moment. I have a sneaking suspicion that many warrior classes could be added with a similar rationale but we'll leave that for another day. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I believe we have Samurai I would imagine ninja and samurai being close to each other in the list as the practice/discipline of both overlapped in area and time.  Carlwev  16:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If my knowledge of history is not failing me, there was defintiely a big overlap, but samurais were around for much longer, or at least much earlier. They were simply "still around" when ninjas started showing up :p Which era the topic fits on to can definitely be debated... ~Mable (chat) 08:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Severnaya Zemlya, New Siberian Islands and Franz Josef Land, Add Kuril Islands and Ryukyu Islands

I suggest a swap of two uninhabited archipelagos in the Russian Arctic for two island chains in Northeast Asia that are more geographically and culturally significant. The Kuril Islands are significant as an area of seismic and volcanic activity, as part of the Ainu homeland and for being politically disputed between Russia and Japan. I would consider them just as important as the Aleutian Islands which are already listed. The Ryukyu Islands (of which Okinawa is the best known) form a Japanese region with its own notable culture and history.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support definitely an improvement. --^Melody _Lavender 10:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Good removes. Not sure about the adds.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Neljack (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Kryvyi Rih

It is no less important than Dnipropetrovsk or Donetsk, 8th largest city of Ukraine, 650 000 pop, steel, mining industry, largest economy.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There is no way that we can list the 8th most important city of each of the worlds countries. Dnipropetrovsk is not vital. Donetsk is not vital, and is known outside of Ukraine only for its recent role as the center of conflict. I doubt highly that more than one Ukraininan city should be on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. Other too. Ukraine, 6; Russia, 15; UK and Ireland, 9;--Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe it is time to propose some removals.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose per Maunus. Jucchan (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose the geography section is much too detailed for the 10,000 list. --^Melody _Lavender 18:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Dnipropetrovsk

Ukraine is overrepresented with 6 cities. In comparison we dont even have the capitals of each of the Nordic countries (Missing Reykjavik, Tórshavn and Nuuk). France has 7 cities and Uk and Ireland has only 9. We have a single Greek city, a single Portuguese city. I really see no justification for this kind of overrepresentation of Ukraine. Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk are clearly the least vital on the list of Ukrainian cities. I think we should cut more than two, but lets start with those. I propose them separately.

Support

1. As nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --^Melody _Lavender 18:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Comparing the significance of Dnipropetrovsk to Reykjavik, Torshavn and Nuuk is beyond absurd. While European cities may be overrepresented on the list in general, Ukrainian cities are not overrepresented compared to the rest of Europe. Cobblet (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose There is no reason to rigidly portion out the number of cities for a country according to its population: some countries simply have more significant or numerous urbanized areas than others. Bangladesh, for instance, has a population of 160 million, yet I think it is appropriate for only 3 cities to be listed. India and China are relatively close in population, yet India only has 46 cities with a population of over 1 million while China has over 160, which is reflected Gizza's link below. I believe it is reasonable to list all cities that have a population of around or over 1 million and that are considered significant to that country, and Dnipropetrovsk qualifies [2] as a major industrial city. Malerisch (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose  Carlwev  09:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

On the contrary it is absurd to measure the importance of cities only in their quantitative traits such as population or economy. There is no justification possible for suggetsing that Ukraine deserves 3 times as much representation as Greece and Portugal combined. That my friend is absurd. Vitality comes from cultural, political and social impact more than from its population or industrial impact. And Dnipropetrovsk will never be even half as vital as Porto, Thessaloniki, Piraeus, Reykjavik, or Gothenburg. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So sayeth the western European. Where there are people, there is necessarily culture, politics and society. (There is no reason to put industrial impact on a lower pedestal either.) The disproportionate cultural, political and social impact of Portugal and Greece is already reflected in many other areas of the list; in contrast, the list of cities should reflect the diversity of the world. I'd even argue that Ukrainian geography is more important than Greek and Portuguese geography. Cobblet (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that the geography of Ethiopia, Central Africa or South America is a hundred times more important than that of Ukraine. The fact that there are people [in Dnipropetrovsk], does not mean that they have any impact on the cultural social or political development of the world, and that is what determines vitality. Being there is not enough.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, being there is enough. Perhaps you may not personally be able to feel their impact because you're too far removed from them; but others who are not so far removed will feel it. If you are truly comfortable claiming that Ukraine has not had "any impact on the cultural social or political development of the world", feel free to propose removing History of Ukraine from the list. It's unfair to compare Ukraine to a continent or a macroregion, and if you pointed out Central Africa because you feel we should not have more Ukrainian cities than Central African ones, I agree and have actually nominated adding Bangui before. Modern Ethiopia has no significant centres of urbanization besides the capital, but I could support adding important historic sites like Axum, Lalibela and Gondar. Cobblet (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If I were claiming that I would have proposed Ukraine for removal which I am not. I am proposing that Ukraines impact is not 6 times that of Greece, Portugal or Ireland.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

But nobody is claiming that Ukraine's impact is "6 times that of Greece, Portugal or Ireland". We're only talking about cities in the geography section. I'm not saying Ukrainian mythology is more important than Greek mythology or Sagas of Icelanders, but I do believe it's more important to have Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk on the list than Piraeus (subsumed by Athens IMO, just like Ostia is subsumed by Rome or Newark, New Jersey is subsumed by New York City) or Reykjavik (a distinct exaggeration to call it a major European cultural centre, frankly; that seems much less justifiable than calling Chernihiv a European city of major cultural importance – that would be a Ukrainian city I consider to be just as important as Thessaloniki or Porto). Cobblet (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is this: Any person in any country that is not Ukraine is able to function in a reasonably sophisticated cultural setting without knowing of the existence of Dnipropetrovsk or Chernihiv. A person who does not know the capital of Iceland would not in most countries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

How presumptuous of you. Cobblet (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Donetsk

Ukraine is overrepresented with 6 cities. In comparison we dont even have the capitals of each of the Nordic countries (Missing Reykjavik, Tórshavn and Nuuk). France has 7 cities and Uk and Ireland has only 9. We have a single Greek city, a single Portuguese city. I really see no justification for this kind of overrepresentation of Ukraine. Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk are clearly the least vital on the list of Ukrainian cities. I think we should cut more than two, but lets start with those. I propose them separately.

Support

1. As nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. --^Melody _Lavender 18:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, and I do think we have a lot of arbitrary cities listed. Maplestrip (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose The Donbass is one of Ukraine's most historically vital regions. Coverage of its largest city is essential. If Daejeon was deemed vital earlier this year and cities like Turin, Pittsburgh and Kitakyushu remain listed, we shouldn't be picking on Ukraine's industrial centres either. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Donetsk is important, even more so because of its relevance to the Urkainian-Russian conflict. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose  Carlwev  09:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Looking at cities there is really a lot of arbitrariness regarding inclusion. Why does the US have 26 cities while Canada, UK and Ireland has 13 (the english speaking wikipedia argument doesnt work here at least). And why does China have 33 and India 36? Why does Iran have 8 and Turkey 9, and Mexico 10, while Greece has 1 and South Africa 5 and Brazil 14? I cant see any good arguments for these random allotments of space. Is it because there is a population cut off? (that would be a bad way to determine vitality). Is it relative to the population of the country/region? (woudl make some sense but doesnt explain why China has less than India) We ned to do some thinking about how to organize this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe it should be relative to their current and historical population, and have long argued that more Chinese cities need to be listed. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I consider that argumentation absurd in the extreme.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to explain yourself. Cobblet (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I support reducing the number of Indian cities to 30 at least. They can be replaced with other Indian articles within and outside geography. For example, Coimbatore can be replaced with Kaveri river. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The US is the 3rd largest country by population. Therefore it should have the third most cities. It is really that simple. Whether 26 cities is too many cities for one country is debatable, but if we are going to reduce cities, they should be done in proportion to the population of the countries on the list. Also, all capital cities are vital and should be added accordingly. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

BY that reasoning Congo, Burma,Bangladesh, Vietnam, Ethiopia and Vietnam each of which now have less than 3 cities should have more than Ukraine which currently has 6. And Indonesia should have more than any European country.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cultural, historical impact is more important than population count. We put these articles on a vital article list because it is important to cover them well. Cities without much to talk about are by that definition not vital. ~Maplestrip (chat) 19:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I echo Maplestrip and Maunus' sentiments although I still think population one of many factors to consider. Besides that, matching cities with total population is silly when cities only represent urban population. Here is a list of countries by urban population [3]. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Monomyth

Another vital literature topic is Monomyth - I wanted to nominate Adventure first, in keeping with this project's established ways to have the articles listed that correspond to WP:COMMONNAME and are more everyday-life-like and easily accessible to the average reader without being too scientific. But the pageview statistics clearly show that I was wrong: Monomyth is viewed twice as often as adventure. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Absolutely crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, ah, the hero's journey. Most definitely vital in an encyclopedia. Maplestrip (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I have my doubts that a theory on comparative mythology is vital when the person who proposed the theory is not vital. Universal grammar is considerably more vital than this. Can't see a need to add theories to the social sciences, especially smaller fields like comparative mythology. Something like flood myth has a stronger case IMO. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose: This topic would be covered as an overview under archtype. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree universal grammar is at least equally vital, if not more so. The article doesn't really portray what this is about. It's usually called the hero's journey and it is basic pattern that occurs everywhere, when you turn on the TV, in video games, and in any literature from millenia back to this day and age. Even though the non vital person you're mentioning coined the term, the pattern exists for much longer than that. Putting this under the heading "a smaller field of comparative mythology" doesn't quite portray it's meaning in literary theory, it's a basic topic in literature. --^Melody _Lavender 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Carillon

We are over the quota in the music section so we need to make some cuts. This doesnt strike me as a vital percussion instrument.

Support

1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --^Melody _Lavender 06:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Logical1004 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Song

We are over the quota in the music section so we need to make some cuts. I consider this redundant with Singing which we have.

Support

1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support hardly vital for an encyclopedia too ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Logical1004 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove I Want to Hold Your Hand

The Beatles and their individual careers are overrepresented with The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Imagine and this all listed. No other modern musician has more than 2 articles.

Support

1. Support nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Most individual songs aren't vital and this is no exception. I'd prefer a second Beatles album if a replacement is desired. Cobblet (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, would probably even support getting rid of McCartney and Lennon themselves. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support, would keep Lennon and McCartney, at least whilst Sgt Pepper and Imagine are listed. A few more modern works can go, don't we have works by Rolling Stones, Marvin Gaye, Fleetwood Mac (but not Fleetwood Mac themselves?) are they needed?  Carlwev  16:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Not even a good song. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support per Maunus. Malerisch (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Support. There are plenty of more notable songs, even by the Beatles. Tezero (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
9. Support I love this song, but it is not necessary to include every Beatles song. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I said that I'd support the removal of McCartney and Lennon because we already include The Beatles. Though they both have their own career (Lennon's post-Beatles career being covered by Imagine), they are definitely best known for their part in the Beatles. I'm not too fond of getting rid of modern music, though I think artists/bands are probably better to cover than specific works most of the time. (I can't get no) Satisfaction, for example, seems redundant when you have the Stones themselves. On the other hand, Rumours (album) honestly seems more vital than Fleetwood Mac, and Sgt Peppers really isn't redundant with the Beatles themselves. ~Maplestrip (chat) 18:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Astrological Sign

This would cover all of the constellations that I have proposed to remove here. The article would also cover the signs of the Chinese Zodiac, which is unrepresented (Astrology doesn't list symbols or meanings). Jucchan (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support good replacement for the non-vital constellations. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Maplestrip (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Arjuna and Rama

Arjuna and Rama are the protagonists of the two major cycles of Hindu mythology both of which are already listed. I think the protagonists are redundant with the texts. If we remove Hindu mythology from the mythology section then I think it would make sense to remove the entire section and instead add the two texts to the Religion section in order to consolidate.

support

1. support as nom User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support removal of Arjuna --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support removal of Arjuna and oppose removal of Rama per Redtigerxyz. Cobblet (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support removal of Arjuna and oppose removal of Rama. Neljack (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

oppose

1. Oppose Rama With Krishna, the most important avatar as well as Hindu god as well as protagonist of the Ramayana.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

discuss

Switch Bigfoot (per above) and Loch Ness Monster with Cryptid

These creatures are cryptids, as well as the Yeti and Man-eating plant. Cryptids are also timeless; a new cryptid like Bigfoot might be suggested sometime in the future. As discussed above, really. Cryptozoology is also an option, though this wouldn't include the small cryptobotany.

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Important concept as a whole; individual instances not vital. Cobblet (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --^Melody _Lavender 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose Cryptid or the cryptobiological disciplines is not a wellknown or widely established term. Any notability these disciplines have they derive from the fact that people are iterested in mythical mysterious creatures. So no, these cannot be swapped.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus. We could replace all of the creatures with broader classifications (Mermaid, Centaur, Chimera, Siren and Sphinx with mythological hybrid and ghost, zombie, vampire, demon with undead) but I'm doubt these broader groups are vital. We could even replace many of the gods and goddesses with articles Sky father, Solar deity and Earth mother but again these classifications are too general and inevitably become list-like. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

I undid my support due to Gizza's examples. I don't entirely oppose to the switch, just don't have a solid stance on it anymore. Maplestrip (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Daughter, Son, Uncle and Aunt

These topics have very little to talk about and it is questionalbe if they have a place in Wikipedia at all, but could rather use a Wiktionary definition. Regardless, they are topics that are hardly vital for an encyclopedia, as there is little to explain about them. Daughter and son are currently covered under child (as its second definition) and uncle and aunt are a very similar concept with different genders - the difference in gender is hardly vital. I do suggest to keep cousin, as there is more than enough encyclopedic material to explain for that topic.

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Weak support per nom; I think a good number of entries could be removed under this rationale but might as well start here. Tezero (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Not encyclopedic topics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per Maunus. Cobblet (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I was thinking that daughter and son may have been vital. The difference in gender between children does indeed make a difference to their lives. Many if not all cultures treat their songs and daughters differently and each face different issues (rites of passage, male circumcision vs female circumcision, female infanticide, dowry). But boy and girl are listed so they should cover it.

The difference in gender only really seems important enough in mother, father, husband and wife. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

About 7 months ago, I proposed that uncle and aunt be merged together primarily on the basis that if brother and sister redirect to sibling and grandmother and grandfather redirect to grandparent, then a fortiori uncle and aunt should be merged. It didn't really go anywhere and the alternative of splitting sibling into brother and sister hasn't occurred, so the inconsistency remains. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What would a gender-neutral term for uncle/aunt be? ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nephew and niece redirect to nephew and niece. So "uncle and aunt" or "aunt and uncle" would be a few options. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Add lineage

The kinship section is too focused on the institutions of Western kinship. We need to add more kinship forms from the anthropological literature. A crucial factor in determining kinship in many languages.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 20:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
5. sUPPORT Whoops, caps-lock ~Mable (chat) 08:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Lineage (anthropology) is currently a redirect to kinship.--^Melody _Lavender 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That is absurd, and siply attest to our non-existent coverage of classic anthropology subjects.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is leaning toward adding the lineage article, so perhaps someone should create it? There seems to be a policy of not having redirects listed (e.g. the removals of human heart and field theory (mathematics)), so IMO it would be odd to simply add a redirect now. Malerisch (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, ultimately, it's the job of this entire project to improve the articles listed here, isn't it? ~Mable (chat) 08:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see why that means we should list redirects. Consensus here certainly leans toward not having them. Perhaps Maunus could create the article? Malerisch (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, human heart was created but became a redirect as a result of discussion in an AfD or something equivalent (I believe on WikiProject Anatomy). It is hard justifying keeping an article on the list when consensus says that it should exist as a separately article on Wikipedia at all. In this case, the redirect seems to have been created in 2006 without discussion. It would be nice if it was at least a stub though. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Fermentation in food processing, add Fermentation

Per above discussion. Fermentation would likely go in biochemistry and food processing in tech.

Support

1. as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 07:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support fermentation only Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I don't think I can support adding food processing – it seems there isn't much to connect the variety of topics this article could potentially encompass. For example, I think I'd rather support adding something like convenience food by itself, while something like food packaging ought to be subsumed by packaging and labelling, which is something else we could add. Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Food processing has been separately proposed below. I've removed it from this proposal now. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Age disparity in sexual relationships

The difference in age in sexual relationships has always been important to people, particularly when the difference is deemed to great.

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Clearly not the next addition to a list that does not have articles such as: Sexual fetishism, Sado-masochism, Anal sex, Eroticism, Erotic fantasy, G-spot, Asexuality, Paraphilia, Pedophilia, Sexual abuse, Courtship/Dating, Premarital sex, Polyamory, Promiscuity, Safe sex, Contraception, Erectile dysfunction etc. All of which I would consider much more vital than the suggested topic and some of which I might support the inclusion of.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Far too many cultural components in this issue. Smacks of a western civ/modern focus. I also agree in part with Maunus' arguments; at east insofar as this being of far less importance than at least half of the stuff he lists. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Not keen on this but some of the other mentioned articles may have a chance, like anal sex, promiscuity, sexual abuse, asexuality. Some we already have, like pedophilia, (in medicine, mental illness) Contraception (redirects to the included birth control), dating, safe sex, maybe more?. Also maybe we should put family/relationships and sexuality together or at least next to each other, as romance, dating, courtship, and similar articles could be included in either section...and shouldn't childbirth be with pregnancy rather than with relationships, it's clearly more a medical/biology topic. Finally age related articles that have crossed my mind before are Life expectancy and Gerontology.  Carlwev  16:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

...That's a lot. Well, I'll suggest a few that you two suggested. I somehow knew there was a lot missing in sexuality, but just couldn't think of what. I was thinking of hugging, but it seemed too simple. Hmm, I think safe sex and contraception might be too close to birth control, condom and the pill. Maplestrip (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Pedophilia is probably a better addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Sexual fetishism

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Suppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. weak Oppose: Seems like this is undue where we have inadequate numbers of articles on basic human sexuality or even courtship, premarital sex or dating. But at least it's an overview and preferable to having a dozen other articles on every sub-variant. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Paraphilia

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. weak Oppose: Seems like this is undue where we have inadequate numbers of articles on basic human sexuality or even courtship, premarital sex or dating. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think the currency of this term is limited to the psychiatric study of sexuality. Too narrow a topic for my tastes I think.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Fetish is the better of the two despite getting less traffic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

• Ranked 9234 in traffic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Rubik's Cube

The Rubik's cube is not the most significant invention of the 20th century (though still way more important than the Sudoku), despite its huge popularity. Everyone has seen such a cube once in their life, most usually not having a clue how to solve it. The reason I suggest it is, however, because of its encyclopedic value. It is hard to explain the inner workings of the Rubik's cube, despite its... simplicity? It seems the job of an encyclopedia to explain this odd toy. Besides that, the Rubik's cube has a history to it, it's own move notation, competitions and different variations. It's simply the perfect subject of an encyclopedic article, not just vital for its notability alone. (Also, high importance in WikiProject Toys and Invention)

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Rubik's cube should be renamed to Rubik's Cube, since it is the article's current name.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Wish I could solve one. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add industrial organization and international economics

A typical beginners' economics textbook first covers microeconomics, then industrial organization, then macroeconomics, and finally international economics, therefore industrial organization and international economics are not less vital than microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Support

1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support the first is synomymous with industrial economics, and yes, both are vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The topics taught within industrial economics also comes under microeconomics. Likewise, international economics is a part of macroeconomics. There are international and industrial economic concepts that are definitely vital. Some of them are already listed. Not sure about adding more subbranches though. I think macro, micro and econometrics is sufficient. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Sinterklaas

Sinterklaas is the biggest holiday in the Netherlands, and is almost unique to the country. The only holiday that seems to come close to its importance in my country is Easter. There's quite a culture build around it, and there's even the controversy that is happening lately around Zwarte Piet. The character of Sinterklaas is even the basis of Santa Claus.

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too local to be vital. We dont list other purely national holiday characters. Also it is factually incorrect that he is the basis for Santa Claus - he is simply one of many sources that fuse St. Nicholas and pagan folktraditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose the holidays should either be very pan-national or be celebrated in much bigger nations/regions than the Low Countries. Carnival, Vesak/Buddha's birthday and Nowruz are all up there as potential additions. Adding National Day or Independence Day would also be a good idea if it was possible to write a substantive article on the topic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Vowel and Consonant

The two basic parts or sounds of speech, obviously present in every single spoken language that has ever been, so are not not specific to a single language or group of languages. The different vowel and consonant noises that exist within different languages are often studied by those studying a single language or languages in general, I believe it to be of interest to the common reader as well as experts too. The articles cover the range of noises used by different languages throughout the world in many languages. The articles are both present in over 90 languages, so it appears to of interest to people world wide. I have put these in one post, which I don't normally do, as I would have thought, you can't really have one without the other, it's either both of neither.  Carlwev  14:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. Technically, a few conlangs have gotten by without vowels and/or consonants, like Solresol, but your point stands. Tezero (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support pbp 01:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Support Logical1004 (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
9. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Morpheme

Another topic pretty universal to all languages. The smallest grammatical unit of a language or the smallest meaningful unit of a language. If we are listing several main, basic or universal language topics this one should probably be one of them, an encyclopedia would benefit by having a well written article on this. Has been mentioned several times, a few people have said they like it but it's not been proposed yet. Article appears in over 70 languages on Wikipedia.  Carlwev  14:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, definitely prefer this over Morphology. ~Maplestrip (chat) 15:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Maplestrip. Morphology overlaps with grammar while morpheme doesn't really overlap with anything. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Morphology (linguistics)

Couldn't decide between this and morpheme itself, we could have one or both; I thought I would open them both, see what happen. Both are significant and well represented, this article appears on even more different language wikipedias at about 85, covers similar ground to morpheme itself.  Carlwev  14:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Could support morpheme as well (we include both phonetics and phoneme). Cobblet (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose redundant when morpheme gets added ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Japanese writing system instead of kana, hiragana and kanji

Would you support adding Japanese writing system instead of the ones discussed above?

Support

1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support : Logical1004 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gabriel Yuji (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --^Melody _Lavender 07:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Japanese language is fighly infuential.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add South Park

It reflects the problems today's American children face, and it is no less crucial than The Simpsons.

Support

1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, It's definitely less crucial than The Simpsons, but seeing our lack of animated series and the braod impact that Soutpark did make, I most definitely support adding. Maplestrip (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Much, much much less significant than the Simpsons.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus. Malerisch (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose If we're going to have another American cartoon, The Flintstones. Looney Tunes. Scooby-Doo and Tom and Jerry are all better candidates. Though to be honest, one children's show and one animation out of 15 is sufficient IMO. There are genres with no representatives at all such as soap operas and game shows. Days of Our Lives and Jeopardy! are more vital than South Park, not that they should necessarily be added. The biggest elephant in the room is the lack of TV shows outside the US and UK. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose More American TV shows is not what this list needs at this juncture. pbp 18:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose; significant, but definitely not moreso than Family Guy, which IIRC isn't listed. Tezero (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com

If we don't consider Walmart vital, Amazon.com shouldn't remain listed—surely Walmart has been more influential in the history of retail! Amazon isn't even the largest e-commerce company in gross merchandise volume (that would be Alibaba Group). Amazon's founder, Jeff Bezos, isn't vital either; within American businessmen, Thomas J. Watson, Alfred P. Sloan, and Henry Luce are more important than him. Malerisch (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support the only internet entrepreneurs close to vital IMO are Larry Page and to a lesser extent Sergei Brin. We removed Mark Zuckerberg from the list as well. If we were to keep lower-tier internet entrepreneurs then we might as well add Jimmy Wales! Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support having both is especially silly, and Amazon is indeed not as vital as something like Wallmart. ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Monarch

Perhaps redundant to Monarchy, as it is basically the one who reigns on a monarchy(?). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --^Melody _Lavender 07:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support there's no reason to have only one type of head of government. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Monarchy is fine.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Monarch covers succession, history, current monarchs, and other titles. Seems to be vital enough to stay on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Somewhat neutral on this one, as the redundancy is clear, but "king"/"queen" is particularly interesting for an encyclopedia on its own. I think that's probably the reason it was added to the list in the first place. ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC) (signed later)

Any argument would be fine, RekishiEJ... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The monarchy article also covers succession, history, titles and current monarchs. The sections are pretty much identical. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Add ageism

A definitely crucial topic.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support unfortunately still a vital topic in our times. Might be even more vital nowadays. --^Melody _Lavender 19:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Weak support; it's a recent addition to the cultural lexicon, but I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon and it's certainly existed for a great while. Tezero (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale given. Recent neologism. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per Maunus. Maplestrip (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

I think it's fair to have both race/racism and sex/sexism at this level, but with regards to the other groups and form of discrimination, one article is enough. In this case ageing ought to cover the biological and social aspects of ageing, of which discrimination is one part. Similarly with disability/ableism, various LGBT/heterosexism or homophobia, etc. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gizza. Discimination is similar across all these topics as well, safe for sexism, thus I believe discrimination should suffice. Racism is "important enough" to warrant its own vitality. Maplestrip (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Add ableism

A definitely crucial topic.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support unfortunately still a vital topic in our times. --^Melody _Lavender 19:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale given. Recent neologism. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, per Maunus. Maplestrip (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Add heterosexism

A definitely crucial topic. Some countries have banned employment discrimination based on religion.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support; it seems to have a history of documentation similar to those of racism and sexism and is similarly well known. I would prefer if there were a general "orientationism" article to also encompass, say, hatred or discrimination against heterosexuals, or against bisexuals by gays, but things like that admittedly haven't been covered much in reliable sources. Tezero (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support changed my mind - it's the only article we have that covers discrimination of LGBT.--^Melody _Lavender 20:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No rationale given. Not vital. Adding Patriarchy if it is not already there might be an idea.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What? Patriarchy is about gender, and I think sexism is already on the list. Heterosexism is about orientation. Tezero (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Patriarchy is vital and heterosexism is not. And heterosexism is about gender too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender and sexuality are two very different things, Maunus. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but they are very closely related. Heterosexism specifically is based in the normativity of specific heterosexual gender roles in society. That is also the reason that heterosexism is much more commonly called heteronormativity in the literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose Maplestrip (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

#Oppose because it affects only a smaller part of society. --^Melody _Lavender 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

I do think this article has a pretty strong case, but we don't need to to make all major kinds of discrimination vital, as they are all similar to discrimination itself - with the exception of sexism - and racism being too vital on its own to leave out. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated here, we also have the Heteronormativity and Violence against LGBT people articles covering discrimination against LGBT people, but I agree that the Heterosexism article seems to be the main article for that topic (and, besides, not all discrimination is violence). Flyer22 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, a violence article doesn't cover discrimination. Discrimination can be much more hidden (for lack of a better term, I'd hate to call it subtle). --^Melody _Lavender 11:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Add religious discrimination

A definitely crucial topic. Some countries like the U.S. have banned employment discrimination based on religion.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support unfortunately still a vital topic in our times. Has lead to all kinds of problems in history. --^Melody _Lavender 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not vital. Sufficiently covered under discrimination. Might support Freedom of ReligionUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus. Maplestrip (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Freedom of religion is in fact listed under religion. Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Add employment discrimination

A definitely crucial topic. Many countries have prohibited some or all types of employment discrimination.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support work and all its correlates are ubiquitous, ancient, and all in all very vital. Employment discrimination has huge historical importance and is still vital to this day in all countries around the globe.--^Melody _Lavender 09:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. That something is frequently prohibited does not make it vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Maplestrip (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose One of the weaker discrimination articles out of all of the above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Remove Capricornus, Cancer (constellation), Libra (constellation), Pisces (constellation), and Aries (constellation)

As discussed here, these constellations contain no vital objects, and are therefore redundant with Zodiac. I have proposed adding Astrological sign to cover these constellations, along with Zodiac and Astrology. Jucchan (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. Maplestrip (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose : CrystalClear (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Move Superconductivity to appropriate place

Support

1. Support nominated by: Logical1004, on 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support When books called States of Matter or The Physics of Phase Transitions analyze electronic states of matter like paramagnetism, ferromagnetism and superconductivity in much the same way as the classic physical states of matter (see here for some of the history behind this with respect to superconductivity), I have no problem supporting this proposal. Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Per Logical1004 and Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support sounds reasonable. --^Melody _Lavender 07:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support : CrystalClear (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

As superconductivity is a state of matter in which the matter behaves like a conductor with zero resistance. It is currently placed in Electromagnetism section. Though it can be placed there, but more appropriate place for it to be in Condensed matter section under States of matter subsection. Please discuss. Logical1004 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard somebody call it that, but having read a bit more I understand that some people now refer to magnetic states as states of matter – things like paramagnetism, diamagnetism and ferromagnetism for example. How widespread is this practice? I understand there are parallels between the two, but I've always thought of them as electromagnetic phenomena quite distinct from physical states of matter. Cobblet (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cobblet, thanks for discussing this. I will be more happy to discuss it, as I am a research scholar in this field and this is my area of working. Regarding the practice, whole research centres treat them as a distinct state of matter, within the category "Magnetic states of matter" just like "Superfluids" or "supersolids" or other magnetic states. In general each phases (or you may call states) are distinguished with each other by a phase transition, just like solid, liquid or gas(the most common example from daily life). Yeah you are right in some sense that electromagnetic phenomena is the response (or you can say is the property of superconductors, like any liquid have the property of flowing with some viscosity). So their basic classification comes under "Magnetic States of Matter". Every scientific journals refer them as a superconducting state. If you want to study more about that from a physics point of view, I can refer many research articles. This article is one of them. If you have more doubts, I will be happy to clear them. Logical1004 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. I didn't realize just how closely related those concepts are to classical thermodynamics. Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Genetically modified organism

As suggested by Sarr Cat: GMOs are used for many purposes, like in agriculture, medical research, creation of novel pets like the Glofish. Important topic area that goes beyond nutrition. Ethically controversial and has huge potential and impact. The article is at an unbelievable 4042nd position in Wikipedia's article view ranking. --^Melody _Lavender 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --^Melody _Lavender 08:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, sounds like an awkward name, but if it's high enough in article view count, apparently people can find it ~Maplestrip (chat) 12:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support I'd support cloning too.  Carlwev  16:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)