Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 47

Swap: Remove Babak Khorramdin, Add Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor

There are a number of Mazdakist/neo-Zoroastrianist rebels against the Abbasid Caliphate besides Babak, the most notable of whom are Sunpadh and Al-Muqanna. None of these rebels are as vital as Mazdak himself, the Zoroastrian reformer who we don't list. Alp Arslan is another figure from this period of Persian history who's more important than Babak and isn't listed.

But I think the two most notable omissions from the history of Central Asia are Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor, the first of the Muslim invaders of India. The former's repeated plunder of India allowed him to establish Ghazni as a cultural centre that rivalled Baghdad in its wealth and glory: scholars in his court included Al-Biruni and Ferdowsi. The latter laid the foundation for sustained Muslim domination of India by defeating Prithviraj Chauhan (who we added earlier) at the Second Battle of Tarain, a crucial turning-point in Islamic and Indian history. Both are considered national heroes of Pakistan.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Support additions. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
5. Support Prefer the first add more than the second - but still support.  Carlwev  09:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
6. The additions only.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. The removal. From the lede of the Babak article we know that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Sub-Saharan African music traditions, Arabic music and Music of China

Probably the best articles to cover music in each of these areas. (North African music groups better with other Arab music traditions than with the music of Sub-Saharan Africa.) Most other significant world music traditions have some form of coverage already: we have Indian classical music and several Indian musicians; Latin music was proposed in the previous nomination and is also already represented by several performers and styles; and Southeast Asian music is represented by gamelan, by far its most important subgenre.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
4. To balance the list's coverage.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  06:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would rather list specific types of music than simply regional types of music. For example, I prefer an article like Rock and roll instead of Music of the United States. For China, there are many different groups of music to choose from, such as Heterophony, which is present in traditional Chinese music as well as in Arabic music and other eastern forms of music. Other choices include mandopop and Chinese rock. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I tend to agree with Points although there is now consensus to add these articles and probably no point in opposing. Of the three, Chinese and Arabic music have some value IMO while Sub-Saharan African music is just too broad. An area bigger than Russia (nearly as big as North America) spanning 49 countries is too diverse to summarize into one article. It will always be structured like an outline or list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, although the Britannica article dealing with this subject actually seems quite good (to me, anyway; as someone with no training in ethnomusicology I found it a fascinating read.) I think an overview along those lines would make more sense in the context of this list than trying to artificially elevate one particular genre of African music above all the rest, particularly when none of us appear to know much about the topic. Cobblet (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Nikolai Bukharin

The fact that he was considered to be the best theorist in the Bolshevik by Vladimir Lenin means that he is vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose This list needs more than socialist theorists, which Rekishi has a habit of suggesting we add. Cobblet (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Ludmilla Tourischeva Add Olga Korbut

In gymnastics Ludmilla was a fine athlete, though not the most winning, and her article itself states that she was overshadowed by Olga Korbut at the Olympics who (as her article, which needs serious help goes into) innovated at that same event what became modern gymnastics by emphasising acrobatics and technique over its origins in ballet and dance. In addition to which Olga was the first gymastics hall of famer, before Nadia Comaneci who would never have happened if not for Olga, for her influence on the sport was far greater than Ludmilla to this day (and the scandal when her performance on the uneven bars, which "only" won silver leading to serious audience anger over its revolutionary aspects).

Support

1. Support as nom –– Lid^(Talk) 06:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support equal Olympic gold but Korbut is the one who will be remembered in 50 years. She redefined the boundaries of what was humanly possible in the sport. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Support I am persuaded that it was a mistake to remove Korbut. Neljack (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Support As the person who nominated the removal i can support the swap. Sorry for the late response.GuzzyG (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• A retrospective news article explaining just how important Olga was to gymnastics from her performance in the 1972 Olympics. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Just discovered that six months ago the article was removed from vital but looking at the discussion the reasoning for removal is especially specious. It's listed that she was the least accomplished/vital of the gymnasts listed but that is conclusively wrong. Olga Korbut is the most vital gymnast of the last fifty years, as established by her being the original gymnast Hall of Famer. Focusing purely on Olympic accomplishments and reducing Olga's contributions to "inventing the Korbut Flip" is utterly wrong when she is held as the pioneer of acrobatic gymnastics via performing in ways no one before had ever seen. The removal of this article originally is quite strange and seems to have not been based on anyone actually researching who Olga Korbut was or how gymnastics would not be gymnastics without her. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Add Détente

A highly notable period during the Cold War. Though several peace treaties were ratified in the world, the proxy wars in Asia did not stop.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't see what this meaningfully adds to our coverage of the Cold War. Cobblet (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Though West-Soviet trade became common during this period, and the Soviet-USA hotline was established, the proxy wars in Asia didn't go detente as well, and both the Soviet Union and USA still possessed nuclear missiles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't Cold War#Confrontation through détente (1962–79) already cover all this? Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A "Cultural venues" section?

Does anyone else think it might be a good idea to move the articles under Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Museums to the Arts section? After all, on level 3 museum is listed under arts and culture. I think a good idea might be to create a section called "cultural venues" which would contain the museums as well as opera house and music venue. We could adjust the quotas of the two subpages accordingly – exactly 20 articles would be moved from Society to Arts. Cobblet (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, there are several moves I think would be good, this is one of them. The only thing I was thinking is, The Sydney Opera House, is it not more notable for it's architecture than as a music venue? A vaguely similar discussion happened about whether the Sistine Chapel (or it's ceiling article) should be with paintings or architecture. Still think the move is good....... Also, changing the subject but, while on the topic of moves, I have for a long time wanted to have TV shows and Movies in the same section, probably arts. They are the same thing, and made the same way, both require writing, acting and filming, and only differ on where people watch them, (infact Telefilms also exist which blur the line even more, plus movies are shown on TV when they are older. Movies and Series can both be bought on Video/DVD/Other media) and whether they are usually stand alone or series. A small issue is that some TV shows are not fictional but factual, but factual books are still in literature. Writing or filming something factual is still an artform. And occasionally you do get factual/documentary movies too anyway, although they're rare. Both can have/be live action, animation or CGI, we list live action and animated movies and TV shows.  Carlwev  11:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't going to move any of the buildings that are currently in the Architecture section. It's not just the Sydney Opera House: I added the Guggenheim Bilbao to the Architecture section since it was proposed for its architectural significance, but it bothers me that it's on a different subpage than the other art museums. I don't mind as much if they're in separate sections on the same subpage.

It seems more sensible to me to keep TV shows out of the Arts section since most aren't included for their artistic value, unlike the films. Cobblet (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK I still disagree, TV shows and movies are both often covered together in media studies, many writers, actors, directors producers do movie and TV as they are similar, they are both made the same way, written acted and filmed. At the moment, Tom and Jerry is in a different page to Bugs Bunny, when I would expect them to be near one another. Star Trek an Star Wars are in different sections when they too are very similar. Also Mario and Pokemon are in different sections. I know why it is, but it seems counter intuitive to me. TV shows are an artform like movies, probably more so than Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias and other fact books we have all within arts. Cartoon is also not in arts. I would probably move all mass media to arts, as it is all written and/or filmed and published/broadcast/distributed.  Carlwev  10:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I totally get your point when it comes to Star Trek or Tom and Jerry (although now that you bring it up, why is Tom and Jerry on the list?), but I'm talking about stuff like 60 Minutes and The Tonight Show which really have no place being in an "Arts" section. Cobblet (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Add food processing, food additives and food safety

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

After several recent additions we now basically cover every specific aspect of food processing, except packaging and labeling (which I'd be happy to add, especially since the applications go far beyond food). For a high-level overview I'm more inclined to add food industry, now that we have a little room in the Society section. Also foodborne illness is listed which obviously has some overlap with food safety. It should also be noted that food additive does not cover food fortification or water fluoridation, both of which might be vital. Cobblet (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

If food industry should be added then in the same logic arms industry, software industry and cultural industry should be added as well, and there are some more vital articles which should be added to the society and social sciences subpage of WP:VA/E, e.g. modernization theory and economic system, so we should add these articles first before adding articles about different types of industry.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What logic are you referring to? Processed food is one of the most common of manufactured goods, a significant component in any but the least developed of agricultural economies. (I should add that if others are happy to add food processing I'd go along with it as well.) The types of industry you mentioned are much more niche. Plus, the arms industry is covered by military-industrial complex; we've discussed adding software industry before; and I've never heard of "cultural industry" – do you mean the entertainment industry? BTW, I probably would've supplied the last !vote for modernization theory if you had bothered to write a decent explanation of why it's vital. But you shouldn't be surprised that people ignore your proposals when you either make no attempt to justify them at all, or make no sense on the occasions when you do try. Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I changed my mind. Let's not add food industry to the list after adding modernization theory to it, but before adding modernization, now that it contains chemical industry, energy industry and automotive industry, which I didn't know until checking the subpage today after Cobblet's reply. But modernization still definitely should be added to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Add fried chicken

It is as vital as French fries, since both of them frequently appear in fast food.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose That's simply not true. I don't see why fried chicken is any more vital than fried fish or roast chicken. Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - And I'm in favor of removing French fries as well. Does not fit my definition of vital. Jusdafax 21:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add fried fish and roast chicken

They are as vital as fried chicken.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neither dish is as vital as fried chicken. There are successful global chains specializing in fried chicken unlike fried fish and roast chicken. Because of its history and the stereotypes associated with fried chicken, there is far more literature on it as well. And it gets triple the page views of fried fish and roast chicken combined. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Hardly vital, in my view. Jusdafax 21:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

Add housewife

No doubt it's crucial.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Housekeeping I could support; but adding this makes about as much sense as adding breadwinner. We already have wife and husband to cover traditional gender roles in the family. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

We have Domestic worker, similar role, but obviously not exactly the same thing.  Carlwev  16:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Call of Duty

One of the best-selling video game franchises of all time. Massively influences the modern first person shooter. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is often hailed as a classic FPS. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support To me, it seems to be a good idea to include a violent video game on the list, since that is a massive genre these days. Call of Duty does just that, as the franchise expanded the genre. Not to mention the franchise's popularity. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I think our coverage of video games is fine as it is. Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per Cobblet. Jusdafax 21:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discuss

The first sentence is definitely true. CoD is a best-selling franchise. Only sold less than Mario and Pokemon, both of which are listed so that's a strong point. Not so sure about the rest of the rationale. IMO, Doom, Half-Life and Space Invaders are much more influential shooting games. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If I were to think of something to add in the area of video games it might be something like Nintendo and/or Sony I would prefer them to Mario, Pokemon, Shigeru Miyamoto and Akio Morita. (Also on a similar rational; I would prefer listing The Walt Disney Company rather than Donald Duck, we already have Mickey Mouse)

FYI, User:Carlwev, not only do we list Donald Duck, we even have Carl Barks. Cobblet (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Add Samsung

Largest technology company in the world.

Support

1. Support as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Samsung is pervasive enough to be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Weak Support There is an element of recentism in this (I look for longevity and would have been hesitant in adding Nokia and Myspace ten years ago) and technology companies are over-represented compared to other sectors. However there doesn't seem to be consensus to remove some of the weaker companies. Adding Samsung will be a nice addition for now. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Weak Support  Carlwev  16:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add geopolitics and geostrategy

Since the terms appear quite frequently in news media, and they are useful, hence they should be added to the list.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support geopolitics This seems to be a spoken about term that appears enough in the media to be considered vital. I can't say the same about Geostrategy. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Appear with less frequency and are less useful than the, which isn't listed. But seriously, I wouldn't regard any of the subfields of human geography as vital. In particular geopolitics is nowadays frequently just used as a synonym for international relations in general. Cobblet (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose As Cobblet says, something that appears frequently in news media is not vital. But these terms don't even appear frequently anymore nor are they useful at all. What benefits do these terms have when learning about politics and international relations? Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Remove Grass, Add Herbaceous plant

Grass has been converted into a redirect to the family Poaceae. Previously, the article discussed a plant life form also known by the jargony term "graminoid" (to distinguish it from the "true grasses" in Poaceae). In the broader sense, grass/graminoid usually includes the sedges and rushes with the true grasses. I previously successfully argued here for including sedges as we already had true grasses and rushes listed (I'd consider rushes the least vital of the three families).

Presently, we list four plant life forms: grass, tree, shrub and liana (more on the last below). Leaving aside liana, if there are 3 fundamental plant life forms, herbaceous plant covers the non-woody ones (herb is probably the more common term for them, but that article covers the culinary sense of "herb"). Herbaceous plant is a more general subject that includes grasses as well as forbs, so it seems appropriate to swap it for the redirect grass. But I'm not opposed to a straight removal of grass. Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Plantdrew (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Support removal The swap is logical enough, but I don't really see a need to include the umbrella article on non-woody plants any more than I see a need to include the umbrella article on woody plants. Cobblet (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Support removal  Carlwev  12:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Support I wish the page Grass did not become a redirect because that is going to confuse most Wikipedia readers. Nonetheless, it makes no sense to have a redirect on the list. Plus we also have Poaceae. I would want to add something along the lines of lawn as a decent replacement for grass. I support the addition because it is a decent overview article to have, since other types of plant life are already covered by specific articles. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
6. Support removal - per above supports. The Herbaceous plants article is too short and should be the subject of a separate proposal. Suggest we remove, with the !vote at 6-0. Jusdafax 04:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Support --Thi (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add cell biology

Is it acceptable that the list contains molecular biology but not cell biology?

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Is there anything within cell biology nowadays that wouldn't also fall under the scope of molecular biology? Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Add animal cognition

An interesting and vital topic, yet currently it does not belong to the list.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose Redundant to ethology and intelligence. Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd support swapping this in for intelligence, which is basically an umbrella article for human intelligence, animal cognition and artificial intelligence and the second one of these is the only topic we don't list separately. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Add Animal coloration

A topic no less vital than animal cognition.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Support See comments below. Cobblet (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
4. Support I would support Mimicry too.  Carlwev  16:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose Redundant to ethology, ecology and colour. There are too many aspects of animals and animal behaviour to add all of them. E.g. animal communication, animal physiology, animal culture and animal locomotion. I'm willing to change my mind on these if you give a stronger rationale. OTOH, I'm more likely to support an article like sexual dimorphism, a more focused topic which many people including biologists such as Darwin have been curious about over the years. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Gizza, I'd say animal communication and culture are indeed redundant with ethology, but for most animals colouration is first and foremost an inherited trait, not a behavioural one (except for chameleons, octopuses, etc.) There's no coverage of animal colouration in the articles on ethology, ecology or colour. Mimicry and aposematism are subtopics of animal colouration that have attracted just as much scientific interest as sexual dimorphism (which itself could be considered a subtopic of sex) and the study of bioluminescence ultimately led to the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (which has been nominated here before). But like you said, we don't have room to add all these subtopics: hence my suggestion to add the overview article. BTW, animal locomotion is listed and animal physiology redirects to physiology. Cobblet (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cobblet. The more I thought about it, the more I realised this topic could very be vital but my oppose was strongly influenced by the ridiculous rationale. Being "no less vital than animal cognition" doesn't mean anything since animal cognition isn't listed. It's even worse than the "no less vital than (something listed)" which Rekishi generally uses. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Add chlorofluorocarbon

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Swapped for ozone depletion a while back. We have no room to list chemicals that are being phased out of use. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Magnesium chloride

The fact that this chemical compound has many applications, e.g. in making tofu means that it is vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already list gypsum, the mineral most commonly used for this purpose (and much, much else besides). Cobblet (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Being used to coagulate soy milk into tofu isn't vital. Tofu is listed and the article should discuss how it is produced. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Standardization

The setting of technical standards is an easily-overlooked but important part of making commerce and trade more efficient. The closest thing to this we have on the list is interchangeable parts, which deals with similar issues but only within the context of a factory or manufacturing company.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Good find. Standardization is one of the key developments that has furthered economic progress in the world. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support not bad, seems more sensible than multiple units of measurement in a way.  Carlwev  15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

That fifth !vote is Plantdrew's. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Plantdrew (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove Parrhasius (painter) and Zeuxis

There's not much written on either of them, none of their works survived into modern times. Half of what is written about them is doubtful, they are most well known from the quaint story of one painting grapes so realistic the birds tried to eat them, and the other painted curtains so realistic the other tried to open the curtains to see the painting only to realize his mistake that they were part of the painting. A quaint little story but hardly vital enough to include two more ancient Greeks for. I like the idea of having some ancient painters but it's so far back and undocumented that there's just not much to say, not enough to make them vital by far. We haven't bothered to list any ancient artist from other civilizations, be they Roman, Chinese, Indian, Persian, Arabic, Japanese or whatever. There are quite a lot of ancient Greeks across the biographies, and to me, these two don't seem the most important among Ancient Greeks, nor more important people among the painters. There appear to be second hand accounts of them described as the best artists of their time, but I imagine quite a few people might have been the best something of their day in their City/Kingdom, but like these haven't really survived the test of time very well. In their articles there is a list of Ancient Greek painters, most of those are also stubs, but one or two look slightly more significant than these two; namely Apelles, and he's not listed here.  Carlwev  00:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  00:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Not even the most significant of ancient Greek painters whose work is no longer extant: that would likely be Apelles, to whom da Vinci was compared. Copies of sculptures by Phidias and Praxiteles survive and they would at least be better choices, although I'm not really sure I'd support adding them. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Would've been better to swap these two with Apelles GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

If there's a missing Ancient person, I would think about who's missing it's Pliny the Elder. As far as I can tell he's never appeared in discussion as a possible addition, although someone attempted adding Natural History (Pliny) once, but never him. Much more vital than these two artists. He's a writer, philosopher, military commander, governor. Probably more significant writer? his adoptive son Pliny the Younger is quite significant, but not as much.  Carlwev  01:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Also Neljack once suggested adding Livy. Cobblet (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Darryl F. Zanuck, Add Filippo Brunelleschi

Hollywood producer whose accomplishments were outshone by those of David O. Selznick and Hal B. Wallis; versus the first modern architect and engineer, who rediscovered linear perspective and can be said to have begun the Italian Renaissance.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  01:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Prime example of what i said above. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Zanuck doesn't seem too vital, definitely an improvement. Sharing my thoughts, other people on my mind are Gustave Eiffel, Epicurus and Caligula.  Carlwev  01:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Caligula's listed; Eiffel's not bad but Brunelleschi's clearly ahead of him; Epicurus is good as well but Lucretius is significant too – maybe Epicureanism is an option. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought Epicurus was listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd support Eiffel and Epicurus, especially Epicurus. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove France Prešeren

It's not clear to me that we should list any writers from Slovenia, let alone two (Ivan Cankar is the other one), when we do not list any modern writers from Greece (Nikos Kazantzakis), Bulgaria (Hristo Botev), or the other former republics of Yugoslavia.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  23:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support One's gotta go. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support it is not absolutely clear to me which Slovene writer is more vital than the other but it is highly debatable whether we should have any at all when other Balkan writers like Marko Marulić, Petar II Petrović-Njegoš, Ivan Vazov and Ivo Andrić are missing. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Are you sure we should not remove Canker instead? Reading both of their legacy sections points me more towards Prešeren of the two. But yes two Slovene writers is extreme. GuzzyG (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but Britannica mentions twice that Cankar is the most translated Slovene author and that indicates to me that he may be the more significant of the two. Granted, both articles were written by the same person. Cobblet (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Pliny the Elder

Pretty significant writer, philosopher, commander, governor. Probably more a significant writer. Known for, among other things Natural History (Pliny), which itself was once nominated as an addition, although failed, the man himself is more sensible. Often quoted as a source from ancient Rome on a number of things. I'm not doing him must justice, check the article out. We are close to limit, however I have already suggested to remove 2 ancient Greek painters in a thread near by, which will compensate.  Carlwev  02:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  02:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support quite a big omission. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Support Rwessel (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Support Piling on. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Ludwig Feuerbach

A philosopher who was noted for his critique of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's idealism and Christianity and influenced generations of later thinkers, e.g. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels is no doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not the next 19th-century German academic I'd add. Less influential in his field than Rudolf Virchow, Hermann von Helmholtz or Richard Dedekind were in theirs. Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose There are more important philosophers that we don't list. Neljack (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose Epicurus should be the next philosopher. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Fethullah Gülen

A Muslim figure who is as influential as Karl Barth during Barth's time should definitely be added to the list, since both are equally vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support A good example of a Muslim Figure fighting for democracy in Turkey, as well as pursuing interfaith dialogue. He is vital to Turkish politics and world politics in general, given the massive controversy over Erdogan seizing power in Turkey. Good find. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support: Probably the type of person we should have. pbp 00:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Certainly shouldn't be added before Erdogan himself. And Erdogan is just one of many currently important Middle Eastern leaders who aren't on the list. Cobblet (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not the next Turkish person to be added to the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose If Erdogans not on here then this guy does not make it. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. Then let's add Erdogan, who plays a crucial role in West Asia like Putin in Russia.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

1. I had proposed to add this article to the list, however later the proposal failed since no one other than me voted (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 46#Add_Fethullah_Gülen).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Judas Maccabeus

Support

1. Support as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Replace Alexis Clairaut with Apollonius of Perga

Though the former is no unimportant, since he made notable contribution to geometry, astronomy and geophysics, he is still less vital than Apollonius, whose methodology and terminology influenced many later academics, and there are already two thousand articles in the people subpage, and there are still some vital figures not listed (e.g. Edgar Hoover and Yogi Berra).

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support His "treatise Conics is one of the greatest scientific works from the ancient world.... Apollonius’s work inspired much of the advancement of geometry in the Islamic world in medieval times, and the rediscovery of his Conics in Renaissance Europe formed a good part of the mathematical basis for the scientific revolution." Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Apollonius was the first person in the world to make substantial discoveries in conics while Clairaut didn't do much. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add history of Pakistan and history of Bangladesh

We have history of the Republic of India, but not these two articles in the list, which correspond to histories of another two strategically vital countries, which is quite strange. These two articles also have much more language editions than the article about modern India.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Support history of Pakistan. Large areas of the country have had a history of civilization and many notable empires from Alexander to the British for over 5000 years. We can have it alongside history of ROI. Bangladesh is smaller in terms of recorded history, area and nowadays in population. I don't think it makes the cut. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support history of Pakistan. --Thi (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Pakistan  Carlwev  17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add history of Syria

We have history of Iraq, but not history of Syria in the list, which is quite strange.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Right now the Syrian civil war is affecting much of the planet, Iraq was/will(?). Seems important to me. History of the Middle East seems to stop around 2010, Arab Spring in 2013. A lot has happened since then. Sammy D III (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC) On second thought, after more reading, no other history seems that narrow. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose Not really that important, nor is history of Iraq for that matter. History of the Middle East pretty much covers both articles. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

History of Iraq is actually quite vital. From Mesopotamia to the Middle Ages and to the modern day, events within what is now Iraq have always had a disproportionate effect on the rest of the world. It shouldn't be lumped with the rest of the Middle East any more than Italy and Spain should be lumped together as Southern Europe. Syria is not quite at the same level as Iraq though. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? Not just Iranian, Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Byzantine art but also Syrian one influenced Arabs a lot, creating Islamic art. Besides, Syria is a strategically vital country. Thus we can infer that history of Syria is as vital as history of Iraq.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 11:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC) added a sentence

Add English literature

Huge omission, see argument above. Will try literature by language/nation/region one at a time, hope this is the first one, but not the only one.  Carlwev  12:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Note that this article covers English-language literature as a whole: it'll be less likely that we add American literature and British literature if this proposal passes. Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Chinese literature

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Spanish literature

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

On the other hand, this article only covers the literature of Spain; Latin American literature is treated separately. Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Indian literature

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  07:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Arabic literature

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  07:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Persian literature

The facts that it is described as one of the great literatures of mankind, and it has influenced the literature of many countries mean that it is no doubt vital at this level.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  13:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add French literature

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  12:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support since French literature was among the leading literature during the Age of Enlightenment and was the lingua franca during particular periods in the 17th and 18th centuries, it is vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add German literature

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  12:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Russian literature

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Ancient Greek literature

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  21:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Latin literature

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  13:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support vital as Latin was the predominant literary medium in Europe for over 1000 years. Most of what was important in this vast corpus cannot be listed individually here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Latin American literature

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  11:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add African literature

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  11:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Japanese literature

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  12:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Remove Stranger in a Strange Land

The book has not stood the test of time. Examples of criticism: [1] [2]

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support One of the original contributors to the list was clearly a huge fan of science fiction; it's a disproportionately well-represented genre. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Certainly not the most important post 1950 sci fi novel, but the only one now on the list. Dune would be a better choice. Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Post-theism

A definition of rare term. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  10:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Yeah, rarely used. Covered in part by the listed atheism, agnosticism and History of religions.  Carlwev  10:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Swap: Remove cyan and magenta, Add CMYK color model

The significance of these colours is limited to printing, which is summarized in the model article.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Do we really need specific colors in the list at all? Rwessel (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. Yes, but just primary and secondary colours.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
      1. Why should primary or secondary article be in the list? What makes an article on the color red important? I've read the lengthy article, and it's basically a long, if well written, list of how the color has been used through the centuries. Why is that vital? Rwessel (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
6. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The removal, since both cyan and magenta are primary colours.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

CMYK color model, RGB color model, subtractive color, additive color; while CMYK is clearly the reason cyan and magenta ended up one the list, I'm not seeing why it's the one most deserving of listing out of these four. Makes more sense if we list the most common additive color model to go with the most common subtractive. Plantdrew (talk)

Add Mortgage loan

Like pension that was added long time ago, unlike paintings or TV shows, Mortgages actually have a big impact on how/where millions of people and families live, and if they can own their own home or not. For some reason not really covered in formal education, in my experience, unless one goes into specialized further education. All the more reason why one would want to read about it. Effects directly millions of people a lot, and many billions of dollars are traded within mortgages, often the biggest purchase/contract the average person will make in their life.  Carlwev  16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support yes definitely. I just checked the archives and observed that I've mentioned mortgage three times over the past 18 months. To be honest, more important than pension which is partially covered by welfare and retirement (not that it matters). The most related articles to mortgage are debt and property but they're much larger topics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Rwessel (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Swap: Remove Assamese language, Add Pala Empire

Alternative to above.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
2. Support This swap clearly improves our coverage of the culture of northeast India. The Pala Empire constitutes the high point of Buddhist influence in India and can be considered a golden age in Bengal's history. We list plenty of languages already (especially those of India) and the Assamese language is one of the weakest choices on the list. Cobblet (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
3. Support - The swap makes sense, given the 300 year history of the Pala Empire. Jusdafax 04:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Soul Train

Not very well known outside the US. The show was influential[3], but it was cancelled in 2006. --Thi (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support At the very least I'd prefer listing something like Motown or MTV instead. Cobblet (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Motown is a better choice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add extremism

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Support One of the biggest issues facing the world today, primarily with Islamic Extremism, but also extremism in politics, with people such as Donald Trump and Jean Marie Le Pen on the right, and some candidates on the left (possible that Bernie Sanders is a good example, but I will leave that out since it is irrelevant to the discussion). Either way, full support. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose Not an ideology any more than centrism is an ideology. Whether you think Trump or Sanders are extremists depends on where you stand on the political spectrum; it's not an objective label. Political views outside the mainstream have always existed; it's a resurgence of nationalism, xenophobia and protectionism that has polarized the current political climate in the West, and it's specific issues related to those ideas that should appear on the list – free trade/economic integration for example. Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Extremism is just a term without any real meaning. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add electoral fraud

Support

1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No need when there is already election, fraud and corruption listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Hypnosis

We added Aleister Crowley, I think this topic is of more interest to the area of occult and mysticism. But it's also interesting from a psychology point of view as there appears to be some truth to the concept of hypnosis as well, I think both general readers and more specialist would appreciate covering this topic, and find it important. It's been used in entertainment, for many years, old side shows and modern TV shows, and it's used or attempted in recalling events and for overcoming psychological issues with mixed results too.  Carlwev  16:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support124.83.119.39 (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Census

Well, they're important today, tried numerous times at other points in history with various levels of success from Romans like Census of Quirinius and also Domesday Book (you could argue a case for the Domesday Book itself) among others. We have numerous article on statistics that are more specialized this one is a bit more known, to the general reader, and effects and is known to most people today. Most countries have them periodically, especially in the West. Statistics is at present a vital 100 article; censuses are how many statistics on people come about. We include several articles on official government things like election etc, census fits in well.  Carlwev  02:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  02:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Finally, a proposal in this section that's undeniably vital. One of a government's most basic and yet most complex tasks. Cobblet (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We have Surveying listed, but that is to do with land surveying with measuring distances etc, a different topic.

Add Tendon

The musculoskeletal system seems to have less articles than other systems, although we probably shouldn't be listing many individual bones or muscles (except major important ones like skull and spine etc) a few more articles for a tissue type could help. Study of tendons, how to look after them, how they are injured, how they work, is of interest of several fields, namely sport, medicine, biology and similar fields...We list Connective tissue, but I think we can add this too. There is also ligament which is unlisted, and there is also cartilage, joint and Muscle contraction which we do list.  Carlwev  02:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  02:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Rwessel (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add antibody

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

We do have White blood cell and immune system. However Blood and immune system are in the vital 1000 too, expanding the area for the vital 10,000 doesn't seem too unreasonable, and it's an important topic, which many of us would have covered at school/college.  Carlwev  16:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles like the ones you mentioned are not going to cover topics like the use of monoclonal antibodies in biotechnology and medicine. The significance of this topic is much more than it just being another component of the immune system. Cobblet (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Add sports injury

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add blood transfusion

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

I see we list, organ transplant which mentions this but only briefly. There is an article we don't list: Blood donation it's pretty decent and may be worth considering, but probably not if blood transfusion is added. Also...coincidentally I was only earlier today thinking about blood type which we don't list either (whilst looking at this page which is much further from perfect than we are here at this project, but may have a few articles to think about.) Blood type might be worth discussing too, but being aware of overlap though? Lastly I also checked tissue transplant and it redirects to organ transplant which we have.  Carlwev  15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Blood donation and blood type are definitely also articles worth considering, but I felt that blood transfusion was the topic that makes the other two important, so it should go first. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Add blood type

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Anemia

While we're talking about blood donation and the like, how about adding the most common kind of blood disease?

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  09:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Article states it effects one quarter of the world population, causes about 200,000 deaths a year.  Carlwev  09:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove Field (agriculture)

Pretty much same argument as crop below, is only a parcel of agricultural land. Nothing to add that is not at agriculture or the animals or crops in the field. This is no more interesting than Land lot for real estate which we don't have.  Carlwev  23:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  23:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support From an earth-science point of view there's more to be said about something like shrubland. From an agricultural point of view I would prefer a topic like ranch that overlaps less with the other items on the list. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Escarpment

A cliff formed at a Fault (geology), We list cliff, and we list Fault (geology). We don't list Coastal erosion that causes coastal cliffs.  Carlwev  03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  03:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Lava

Volcano is in the vital 1000 so can be expanded upon here. We have Magma, but lava covers different ground. We also list individual volcanoes. It's lava flows that destroy peoples homes, and that people are untested in studying. We list over 40 kinds of rock/stone/gem, some not too known like Pyroxene, so I'm sure lava is of higher interest. We used to list lava dome I believe which was too specific a topic. But I think Lava is vital at this level though.  Carlwev  03:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  03:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support if for no reason than because the article explains two of my favourite words: aa and pahoehoe. Cobblet (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove promontory

A promontory, which is a raised area of land abrupt on one side and projecting over water or a lowland on the other, doesn't look vital to me. There are interesting articles that we either continually suggest to remove or haven't suggested to add like geyser or wildfire respectively, while there are articles like these that have no purpose being here. I couldn't find any other encyclopedia that has an article on promontories.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  09:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Rwessel (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Like you said not very well known term, I never heard the term at all in college doing geography, never heard it until here, Hill, cliff, peninsular could be a promontory, and are all included and more well known and would cover most of the same information. I think it had been brought up before.  Carlwev  09:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It just occurred to me: we don't have landslide. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Wildfire

Basic and common type of natural disaster.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support the most dangerous type of natural disaster in warm and almost semi-arid climates. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  09:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Rwessel (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Landslide

As above. Probably more common and destructive than avalanche.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  09:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Rwessel (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Agricultural subsidy

I think that this highly contentious thing is vital enough to be listed at the Level 4 List.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose Add subsidy first, a legitimate topics in economics, which also complements the already listed tariff. This is just a common example. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Crop

Nice idea and nice word, but article says it's any cultivated plant, animal fungus etc. "Cultivated" is hyperlinked to Agriculture in the article. The article has been stubby for ages, and I don't see what we could really add to it without replicating text from agriculture, or just listing many crops and copying content from the said crops articles.  Carlwev  17:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support. Agree. It is nearly impossible to write a full length article about crops itself rather than particular crops. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I feel the same way about Field (agriculture). I'd prefer having specific topics like crop rotation or center pivot irrigation. Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Add submachine gun

Though submachine guns are now mostly replaced by assault rifles, they are frequently used in the first half of the 20th century, and they are still used by some military special forces and militarized police units, hence it is still vital.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose only used for a brief period. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Modern infantry weapons are already well represented but if another article were to be added, I prefer something different and interesting like flamethrower. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove Capital ship

A concept that's covered by warship – I don't see a reason to list it separately. We already list all the types of ships that have historically received this designation.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  10:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support 16:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC) (Plantdrew)
5. Support Rwessel (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Support sea captain would be a better choice although still probably not vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Charles Laughton

Not as great a stage actor as Ralph Richardson or Paul Scofield (both cut from the list years ago) and just one of many talented film actors of his generation (we've never considered listing Fredric March, William Powell or Paul Muni).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  09:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support nowhere near as famous as Laurence Olivier. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Henry Irving

Compare Alfred, Lord Tennyson (11 times as many page views) or Mary Shelley (15 times as many).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  09:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Irving was supposedly the inspiration for Dracula but it's much better to add Dracula. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support (but pageviews aren't the best determiner) pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I don't necessarily mind keeping one of Burbage, Garrick or Irving (we've also removed Edmund Kean in the past), but having all three is definitely overkill when you see all the other names in other fields we've passed by. Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Off topic, but Drucula... We have the character, Count Dracula listed. We do not list the Novel, Dracula, or the author Bram Stoker. It's already represented, it definitely should be represented, but by how many articles and which article(s) we can discus, alter or leave if we wish. An argument could be made for any of them. Compare with Frankenstein, vaguely similar but bit different, where we'll probably be adding the author soon and we don't have the character(s) listed but the novel itself instead is. (which seems better in that case)

I prefer keeping the status quo. Vampire is on the list too. Cobblet (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove Carl Barks

We already list his creation Donald Duck, but I'm not sure if we need that either. We don't even list the huge company itself, The Walt Disney Company, that is a big player like others we do list like Apple Inc, The Walt Disney Company, Coca-Cola among others. Nor do we list other illustrators/animators William Hanna, Joseph Barbera or Stan Lee, who seem a bit more significant. Nor do we list the creator of Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and more Tex Avery.  Carlwev  13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per Carlwev and Cobblet. Being the creator of the Disney ducks and not much else isn't that important in the scheme of things. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Only Charles Schulz is more important 20th-century artist (The Comics Journal 1999) in his genre (comics, not graphic novels like Maus). --Thi (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I am not going as far as Thi, but Barks is worthy of staying vital, as I see it. Jusdafax 05:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

First, I'd argue the distinction between comics and graphic novels is pretty artificial – it's no secret the latter term was invented in the hopes that more people would take the genre seriously. Carl Barks's works are undoubtedly more popular, but I'd say someone like George Herriman was more influential. Cobblet (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Eugène Delacroix

The most important artist not already listed. His work marks the beginning of Romanticism in art and foreshadows that of the Impressionists and post-Impressionists.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  04:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Another one we are missing. We are missing so many i thought were in, i've been thinking we should cut some figures from sport down to possibly 100 and actors down to 40 to match actresses, we are missing some important scientists from centuries ago in favour of entertainers from the last 50 years with as of yet unseen lasting value. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add François Rabelais

I realize we're very close to the quota, but we cannot afford to omit such an important writer in the Western canon.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support not as nom.  Carlwev  18:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Thought he was in. GuzzyG (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Guy de Maupassant

One of the fathers of the modern short story. --Thi (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support I can support this. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support It seems to me that French literature remains underrepresented: I'd support the addition of Chateaubriand, Germaine de Staël and George Sand as well. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Agree with nom. I believe Germaine de Staël is significant as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Mary Shelley

It's remarkable that we list so many science fiction writers of the 20th century (Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, Dick, Heinlein) and yet the author of Frankenstein, arguably the novel that started the whole genre, and whose biography gets more views than Heinlein's, Bradbury's or Clarke's, is ignored. I don't see how that's fair.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Agreed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  15:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. 10:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Gizza
6. Support Rwessel (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
7. Support Necessary add. pbp 00:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Remove Ingvar Kamprad

IKEA is not on the list, the company could be better choice. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Iamozy (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Epicurus

A more significant article than many philosophers and other biographies we list. Significant work, often firsts, or at least very early, in ideas and philosophy of ethics, suffering, happiness, mortality, soul, death, god(s), free will, good and evil, and early ideas about atoms, space and the cosmos. The article describes him much better than me. There is school of philosophy named after his ideas called Epicureanism, that is a substantial article too. I did hesitate as to which to choose, my instincts said the man himself, and the biography does appear in almost double languages compared to the other, suggesting this is the better choice.

Support

1. As nom.  Carlwev  13:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Per nom. Surprised Epicurus was omitted. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Epicurus or Epicureanism or both. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - Per nomination. Undoubtedly vital. Jusdafax 05:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose

Discuss

Add Henry Dunant

Founder of the Red Cross and driving force behind the establishment of the Geneva Convention. Co-winner of the first Nobel Peace Prize. Unsuccessful as a businessman, but still more vital than most of the fabulously wealthy businesspeople we list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - if the Red Cross is level-3 vital, it makes sense to make Dunant level-4 vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  15:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Replace Williams sisters with Serena Williams

We list Jimi Hendrix and not his band, we list Eric Clapton but not either of his bands. Yes they were initially prominent as partners but Serena has increasingly approached extreme notability for her later singles career and i feel listing this is like listing Big Four (tennis) instead of Federer and Nadal. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Not fair to Serena to list her as part of a duo. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support It's now obvious that Serena has been the more dominant player. Cobblet (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  05:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
6. Support Fair enough. Venus Williams' vitality is marginal, but Serena Williams is definitely vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Human genome

A topic of obvious general interest.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support, would support genome too  Carlwev  21:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - Clearly vital. Jusdafax 06:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Our coverage of genetics remains pretty weak. No population genetics nor genotype/phenotype, dominance (genetics), Hardy–Weinberg principle. No genome, ploidy, DNA repair, regulation of gene expression, epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, genomics. No recombinant DNA, molecular cloning or even DNA sequencing. Nothing on medical genetics or eugenics. There's a lot to think about; we could really use some expertise here. Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I will support this, but I see we don't even list genome itself, normally (not always) we've done general before human. Is there a reason you didn't suggest genome? it looks very significant to me. Some of those others seem decent enough to discus. I think we had horizontal gene transfer in the vital 1000 at one point, and I suggested it be removed. I wasn't aware it was missing here.  Carlwev  21:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You could potentially argue that articles like gene, genetics, chromosome and so forth are all talking about different aspects of the genome and maybe we don't need this specific word on the list (I noticed that Britannica does not have an entry for it), particularly if you add genomics as well – arguably that's like listing both cell and cell biology or evolution and evolutionary biology (which is not necessarily a bad idea, but we're not doing it right now.) Also newly coined terms ending in -ome and -omics are all the rage in molecular biology right now so I'm personally a little hesitant to propose adding genome – in the end I'm not a biologist, although I do have some education in the area. Cobblet (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Brainstem

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Basic parts of the brain should be added. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - per Cobblet. Jusdafax 05:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Cerebellum

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - No brainer. Jusdafax 05:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Not sure how many sections of the brain we should have, they are covered by brain a bit, but brain is an important and wide topic that could use more space than one article, and in the vital 1000 too, so makes sense to expand. I'll support some of these, thinking about the others  Carlwev  16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Compare our coverage of the rest of the nervous system. The brain should probably get about an equal amount of attention. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed we don't list nerve, although we list nervous tissue and nervous system and neuron so maybe we don't need too?  Carlwev  22:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that if you talked to a neuroscientist (I've never studied this stuff beyond high school) they would consider topics like action potential and neuroglia to be more useful additions. Cobblet (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Cerebral cortex

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  16:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - Let's add it. Jusdafax 05:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Cerebrum

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - Jusdafax 06:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Add Circadian rhythm

We currently have nothing on chronobiology. This is the most important of the various biological rhythms.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  11:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - per nom. Jusdafax 05:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I'll support this, sleep is in the vital 100, and has not been expanded as much as other vital 100 topics have. A while back I contemplated insomnia and/or sleep disorder. Effects many people and expands on the topic of sleep again. (Out of the 2 Sleep disorder is wider and parent topic, but very listy.)  Carlwev  11:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Add Carnivorous plant and cultigen

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Carniverous plant.  Carlwev  16:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support carnivorous plant. It's a well-known and unique way in which certain plants obtain nutrition; it's probably of much greater general interest than many of the plant species and taxa we list. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support carnivorous plant Plantdrew (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Carniverous plant. --Thi (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose cultigen. It seems to me that cultivar is the more vital concept and that's already listed. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Carnivorous plants I kind of would expect to find in an encyclopedia, and it's an interesting topic to experts and general readers. The well known Venus fly trap crossed my mind years ago, but after reading about it, although is present as a decent article in quite a few languages, it's too small a region and effect on people and environment to have really, appearing only on a tiny area on the USA east coast. Carnivorous plant though as an overview is more sensible, and according to article may have evolved at least nine times independently, which is more than I was aware....Have to think of cultigen, seems important at first kind of, does anything else cover it? we have many of the cultigens themselves.  Carlwev  16:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been having a hard time deciding on cultigen. There's a formal process in having a plant recognized as a cultivar, and there's a lot of diversity in cultivated plants that isn't covered by the term cultivar. Landraces and heirloom plantss likely aren't formal cultivars. Cultigen serves as an umbrella term, but it's really not a very commonly used concept. And the cultigen article is pretty terrible. Ultimately, I think domestication (already on the vital list) gets at the meat of the matter. A cultigen is a domesticated plant (or one well on the road to domestication). Plantdrew (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Added: was unsure of placement, placed with tree shrub etc, as not a species or family but a type of plant among several genera. Can't really put near carnivore, as that's under zoology, animal study, and this is obviously a plant topic.  Carlwev  19:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved under botany since this is more about plant behaviour and evolution than anatomy. Cobblet (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Add Cell cycle

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support I think it's appropriate to include a high-level overview of the cell cycle if you're not going to list every one of its component phases (mitosis being just one of them, albeit the most notable one). The cell biology section should not focus only on cellular structure. Cobblet (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  10:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

Discussion

Not sure yet, have mitosis which covers very similar ground.  Carlwev  16:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Bipedalism and Quadrupedalism

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support bipedalism. An extremely notable example of convergent evolution – a big part of why dinosaurs and humans have done so well in evolutionary terms. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support bipedalism.  Carlwev  02:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Support bipedalism. --Thi (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Support bipedalism. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposition

1. Oppose quadrupedalism. It's specifically the evolution of bipedalism from quadrupedalism that's worth singling out. Other body plans for animal locomotion should be sufficiently well covered in that article. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Hypericum

Support as nom. Large and notable genus of plant. Fritzmann2002 14

43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Add blood donation

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Blood transfusion should be sufficient. We don't even have donation, charitable organization or aid. OTOH, the Red Cross is listed at level 3. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Blood donations, may be too similar to blood transfusion. One is the giving one is the receiving. You could argue if we have blood transfusion and blood donation, then why not organ donation in addition to organ transplant. Although blood donation is admittedly more of a thing we see happening compared to organ donations, due to being more widespread, and easier to carry out, possible without surgery, and possible multiple times in ones life.  Carlwev  12:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Add History of West Africa

This seems the quinessential example of where a history of region would be more useful than a history of a particular country. There's been history made in West Africa for millenia, but the present country boundaries date from the 1950s and 60s. Also a good way to cover the African end of the slave trade. pbp 00:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 00:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
2. Support In response to pbp's last comment though, Slavery in Africa is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Weak Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Simply a region that can be explained by Sub-Saharan Africa or by North Africa. It is not important enough to be considered vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

West Africa is well defined nowadays because of the United Nations geoscheme but is still somewhat arbitrary. There are shared ethnic groups between Nigeria and Cameroon and between Niger and Chad for example. Ultimately, all borders are arbitrary but some make more practical sense than others in classifying and dividing parts of the world. West Africa has many small countries outside of Nigeria that deserve a level of coverage more than History of Africa which I why I support this. Some parts of Africa are even hazier, like Central Africa. I would not support adding History of Central Africa but Democratic Republic of the Congo instead. FYI, there are many history of countries outside of Africa listed where the current boundaries are very modern compared to the overall history of the area. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's an arbitrarily defined region: there is a rich history of human civilization in the basins of the Senegal and Niger Rivers and Lake Chad (is Points unaware of this?) whose only links to the outside world before European contact were long-distance trade routes across the Sahara and Sahel. That's what the article should cover. Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not the history or civilization aspect that is ambiguous, it is the "West" in West Africa. We could hypothetically include a History of Southern Europe article but it would not be clear if it should only discuss the histories of Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal or also include the histories of Southern France, the Balkans and Turkey. This is because "Southern Europe" is not a precise term just like West Africa. OTOH, there are regions with very precise boundaries like Scandinavia and Southeast Asia. You know which countries are included and which are not. There's no grey area.

In reference to particular historical periods, the trans-Saharan and Sahelian kingdoms went beyond West Africa as east as Sudan and the Atlantic Slave Trade spread as south as Angola. I still support adding this article for reasons stated above but ideally there would be a better way to classify this part of the world. Maybe Sahelian kingdoms is a better choice although it only partially covers the same territory. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Add Visayas

There are three major island groups in the Philippines. Luzon and Mindanao are already added and Visayas completes the set. I'm shocked that a proposal to add the Visayas failed nearly three years ago when are many barely habitable, isolated and obscure islands on the list. We contain the major islands for Japan, Indonesia, Italy, Greece and others. There's no reason not to do the same for the Philippines. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support as previous nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  13:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Depends on what you mean by "major islands", but for Greece I'll point out Rhodes and Santorini are missing. Cobblet (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

We do seem a bit more friendly and sensible than 3 years ago, has it been that long? Article says Visayas has 18 million population, and a distinct cultural and ethnic identity too. Like others have said, Philippines is divided into 3 regions, we list the other 2 so we should logically list the 3rd one too, this one fits in well, and it looks like a pretty significant area ignoring those facts as well.  Carlwev  13:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I admit I missed out on Rhodes but I disagree on Santorini. It is mostly a tourist destination much like Cancun or Phuket. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Minoan eruption. Cobblet (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, I would prefer adding the eruption itself. We wouldn't add Chicxulub, Yucatán because of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove Torres Strait

The Torres Strait isn't particularly important. It is not among the ten most busy shipping lanes in the world, it isn't known for piracy or naval conflict and it doesn't have environmental or climatic significance (after the Great Barrier Reef, the most important area in that part of the world is the Wet Tropics of Queensland).

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support I would also suggest Mount Tambora (largest volcanic eruption in recorded history) or Kuk Swamp (one of the few places in the world where agriculture was independently developed, and at around the same time as it was being introduced to Europe) as being more noteworthy geographical features in the general area. Cobblet (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  05:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The most vital thing about the strait are Torres Strait Islands which are still not vital at this level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove Hudson Strait

Likewise, the Hudson Strait doesn't have any significance beyond being in between Baffin Island and Quebec, both of which are on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Even if we had to compile a list of fifty important features of Canadian geography this still wouldn't come close to making the cut. Cobblet (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  05:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Strong SupportGonzales John (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Yucatán Channel

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  05:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Both Belize Barrier Reef and Cancún would be much more vital. Cobblet (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)