Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 53

Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 → Archive 60
NO CONSENSUS
No additions in 30+ days. J947( c ) (m) 19:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Angular resolution

A key concept in almost any area of astronomy. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add precession

The changing in rotational parameters is vital too, I believe. Admittedly I consider this one more borderline, however. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Compton scattering

Not sure if here or in pure physics would be a more appropriate place, but it's very important in many areas of both physics and astronomy. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove epoch (astronomy)

Too niche. Important, but not at all to the general public, and within astronomy it's something mostly taken for granted anyways. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove stellar rotation

In a list this small, this strikes me as much less vital than the other stellar articles we list. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add stellar structure

How stars are actually structured is certainly vital in my book. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support as vital as stellar formation and evolution IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 22:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add red giant

The red giants are the most vital type of giant star. While I would not support removing the parent article, I think this one deserves to be listed as well. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove pre-main-sequence star

Not a well-known term, especially with protostar on the list as well. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No additions in 30+ days. J947( c ) (m) 19:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove binary star

A subset of a star system; covered adequately in the parent article, which is listed. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose With binary star systems being so common in the galaxy, I think they deserve their own separate article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove long-period variable star

Not vital at all; nowhere close to the same league of usefulness to astronomy as a whole as Cepheids. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove circumstellar disc

Way way way too niche for this list. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No additions in 30+ days. J947( c ) (m) 20:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add open cluster and globular cluster

While both star clusters, they are fundamentally different and cannot be lumped together into the parent article at all. Both vital in their own rights. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0. --Thi (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Carina Nebula

Along with the Orion nebula (already listed), these are the two brightest and most significant nebulae in the sky. It's in the southern hemisphere, however, so gets less press than its more northern counterpart. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Kusnir (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-1. --Thi (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Ring Nebula

The most famous planetary nebula. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Kusnir (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd prefer adding planetary nebula first. This is only mid-importance in WikiProject Astronomy while the general article is top-importance. Gizza (t)(c) 23:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Planetary nebula currently appears on the list. (Although I didn't check whether it was added after you added your comment.) Do you still oppose? ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No additions in 30+ days. J947( c ) (m) 19:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Laniakea supercluster, remove Virgo supercluster

A relatively new concept, but I think it's our current supercluster that is vital, not a section of it. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Kusnir (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal I don't think we should be removing a fairly well-known "supercluster" for a relatively unknown one. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Big Bang nucleosynthesis

We already have stellar nucleosynthesis; let's include how the first elements were actually formed in the first place. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Hm, should we start with adding Nucleosynthesis to Physics? Kusnir (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Add Nice model

The currently-favored model for the early evolution of the solar system. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Kusnir (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add lambda-CDM model

The currently-favored model for the universe. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Kusnir (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About 129.138.147.5

He should have no right to vote, since according to tradition IP users have no right to vote in the Wikipedia community, and his votes in the proposals to add interplanetary medium and meteor shower should be considered invalid.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC) 17:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC) added the fact that the IP user supported the proposal to add interplanetary medium

Oh, come on now:). Kusnir (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Meteor shower passes without his vote anyway. As far as IP's other votes go, I am inclined to allow them, since IP appears to have proceeded in good faith on this talk page. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I do have an account, I just rarely log in anymore, and prefer not to when I'm not on my own network since I don't want to get hacked :). And IP users have the right to vote in everything except RfAs as far as I'm aware. 129.138.147.10 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I find the IP's contributions appropriate and well thought out. I'm not seeing any real possibility this is another participant doubly participating through IP sockpuppetry, which would be the only real reason I see to disregard the IP's opinions. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


PASSED
Added, 5-1. --Thi (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add phase diagram

A key concept in physical chemistry.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree, it's a pretty important concept in chemistry and materials science. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support I'd much rather have this than the post-plutonium elements. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gpapazian (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
OpposeReally don't see why this needs to be added to astronomy. I might be convinced this belongs elsewhere, but certainly not here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Headbomb, I think this was meant to go in the Chemistry section immediately below. RekishiEJ, is that the case? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry for misplacing the nomination.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I've struck my oppose vote. I have no opinion on whether or not this should be added to the chemistry a section, but I'm sure if you put a note at WP:CHEMISTRY, they'd appreciate it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I just don't think this is that important of an article to list. We already have 11 listed articles related to phase transitions under the physics section and 7 more articles listed related to the states of matter. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A general note: Mathematics is at 396 entries. If/when continuous function and estimation are added, there will be two spaces left. The most obvious gaps I see are for an elementary audience, namely rectangle, parallel (geometry), and perpendicular; all three failed inclusion (along with some less notable topics) in 2014. Right angle might be an alternative to perpendicular. Star (as a shape) also is missing. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


PASSED
Continuous function added, 5-0. Multivalued function not added, 2-3--Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add continuous function & multivalued function

Support
  1. Support as nom. The former is vital in calculus, the latter plays an increasingly important role in physics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support continuous (a function secondary/high school students would come across and therefore most middle-class educated and above people around the world)Gizza (t)(c) 09:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support The concept of continuity is essential, but should be in the "calculus" section. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support continuous function. Esquivalience (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose multivalued for now as we're near quota and its relevance and application is much more limited. Gizza (t)(c) 09:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose multivalued is too niche. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Multivalued functions are rarely applied. Esquivalience (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Note that continuous function gets 8 times as many page views as multivalued function, probably because a much greater number of students need to learn about the former than the latter. Hence one is vital and not the other. Gizza (t)(c) 09:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Category:Wikipedia Version 1.0 vital articles

This category contains many articles that are not actually listed as vital at any level (and shouldn't be). Articles like Samsung Galaxy 5 and Cousin marriage in the Middle East and probably many more. The problem is that this category is one of the categories used in compiling the popular pages report, leading to bizarre results of which "vital" articles are most popular. I'm not sure how what we need to do to fix this apart from manually checking all of these concealed categories. Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Are articles put in the category by a bot or manually? Is there a better category for them to go in? Where's the concrete Version 1.0 vital list? pbp 01:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the list of vital articles for the popular pages report can't be generated automagically from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Johan (WMF): What's going on here, exactly? pbp 12:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89: Thanks for the ping, looking into it. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@DaGizza: @Purplebackpack89: The bot currently generates popular pages reports for wikiprojects only i.e. projects which tag pages under their purview by using the assessment template on talk pages. It appears to me that "Vital articles" doesn't do that. This is why the latest report Wikipedia:Vital articles/Popular pages appears blank. Sadly, the bot isn't meant to be used with categories as yet. I propose removing the category from bot config and not have the report be generated.
Aside, I'm curious where you see the "bizarre results of which "vital" articles are most popular". :) Thanks -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @NKohli (WMF):. As you say the list is now empty but I saw funny results in the historic versions (the most recent version is here [1]). Articles like Samsung Galaxy 5 in the popular pages report when they are not on the list here. Gizza (t)(c) 03:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see! That report was generated by Mr.Z-bot which is sadly, no longer operational. That bot used to operate on categories, which is why that report was available in the first place. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@NKohli (WMF): We tag vital articles with Template:Vital article. Can Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Popular_pages be edited in such a way that it recognizes that as our project tag? pbp 04:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I can look into that. It'll need a fair bit of code changes so, to gauge an impact of the work that goes into this - can you tell me how important this report is in terms of how often it is used, how many people might be using it etc.? Thank you! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, @NKohli (WMF):, what would happen if I redirected Template:WikiProject Vital Articles to Template:Vital article? pbp 04:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Good question, Purplebackpack89/C. Nothing will happen if you do that. The bot derives it's configuration from User:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json. The information about the pages associated with each project comes from a database, which is created from the assessment templates that use the WPBannerMeta template. I didn't know about the existence of Template:WikiProject Vital Articles. I am going to look into why the articles tagged with that template aren't being collected in the database. Thanks for pointing it out. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
@NKohli (WMF): Template:Vital article, not Template:WikiProject Vital Articles is what most of the mainspace articles are tagged as.
I realize that, but the popular pages report basically relies on the template using WPBannerMeta template which only the latter does. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89, DaGizza The report is now being updated on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Popular pages but as I noted above, it relies on pages using Template:WikiProject Vital Articles. Basically, a template that uses the WPBannerMeta is required for us to gather the data in a database in a consistent manner. I hope this helps. I'll keep looking into trying to make Template:Vital article rely on it as well, if possible. Thanks! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

When I looked at the list linked to, the vast majority of articles in the list appear to be articles we do list in an order I would expect, there are a few odd articles we don't have here which are listed there, probably less than 10, most near the bottom of the list. When I looked at those two articles Samsung Galaxy 5 and Cousin marriage in the Middle East, I looked at the talk pages and found they contain this ((WP1.0|class=B|category=category|VA=yes)) which has been there since the talk pages' first edit, which I think was by a human user not a bot. The VA=yes makes it say "This article is a vital article." It also puts the article in several VA categories, such as Category:C-Class vital articles among othrs. The VA=yes can be altered to VA=no, or just deleted, which stops it displaying "This article is a vital article." and removes the article from the numerous VA categories it was in, whilst appearing to leave the other parameters alone. I would guess the list mentioned is/was automatically generated from the articles in the VA categories in "number of views" order, and Samsung Galaxy 5 and Cousin marriage in the Middle East among other odd articles are at present in those categories because of this. I imagine they would pop in and out of that list when their page views rank them in the top 1000 then they drop out. I could be wrong but there didn't appear to be that many articles wrongly tagged as VA that are not, I don't think it'd take long to alter the templates manually.  Carlwev  08:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have since looked at the VA categories and found about 20 that didn't belong at all and one or two with the wrong level listed, most actually have the VA template, not WP01 template. I removed the VA template from all the incorrect ones I noticed, there are probably more. I corrected the level 1 vital 10, level 2 vital 100, and started on the level 3 vital 1000 list but haven't checked all of it, nor have I looked at the level 4 10'000 list at all. I would say less than 1% of articles in the categories were incorrectly tagged, but that could be over 100 in total on all levels, it may take a while to look through them manually and only if one recognizes obvious wrong ones like Samsung Galaxy, and a bot wouldn't be able to know which are right and wrong, unless it can be told to compare them to the actual typed out list we have here, but I don't know how bots work. The templates on the talk pages that make them appear in the VA categories appear to be placed there by human users, one user has placed several, others seem to be many different users, presume they're just mistakes, not sure what they are trying to do exactly. I have messaged the user which placed several templates incorrectly, but I won't message all users that placed single templates. It's a little puzzling, and a bit time consuming to fix, I'm giving up for now.  Carlwev  09:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Quota Adjustment?

Here's my initial suggestion, I'd like feedback before making a formal proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Decreases:

  • -30 Geography: 1200->1170
  • -15 Astronomy: 215->200
  • -20 Biology: 1480->1460

Increases:

  • +25 History: 675->700
  • +30 Arts: 670->700
  • +10 Society: 900->910
Discussion
  • Note that there is already an open, passing global proposal to drop Astronomy from 215 to 195 and reallocate those 20 articles to 'space'. If you want to start a separate reallocation, I submit that a better starting point would be to enact that proposal (as it's been open sufficiently long) and then propose further reallocations. On the merits of your suggestions, I do not see any value in adding to Arts or Society topics. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The value in adding Arts and Society topics is that we then don't have to remove TV shows, holidays, fictional characters, and the like. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Don't get me wrong--I spend a lot of my own efforts on fiction/arts topics... but never for a minute do I think they're vital in the same way concepts like Phase diagram are. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I would support an increase in the society quota mainly because it reflects the voting trends here over the last couple of years. There tends to be consensus for adding more articles but proposals to remove articles in society usually fail. Keep in mind it's a very broad section. I support a trim to the trivial, pop culture sections like mass media and the emotions but most sections are quite encyclopedic. Gizza (t)(c) 10:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
          • What exactly would you cut from Geography to do this? As a whole I'm not sure wikipedia would benefit from having academic and factual geography and biology topics removed in favour of more subjective human topics. I am unsure whether any TV shows are vital in the bigger picture, since TV is merely a representation of reality, Art is a representation of reality, and this is an encyclopedia on reality, not on the representation of such. (although the way it is represented is in itself reality, and can become part of reality, by its existence shaping reality). Sorry about dropping an existential bomb on you, but this needs to be considered:) A Guy into Books (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I doubt anyone here (judging from previous discussions in the archives) is going to propose adding more TV shows or other mass media and pop cultural topics if the social sciences quota increases. Areas such as business and economics, law, politics, education, etc. tend to be mentioned as areas that could with an expansion though everyone obviously has their own opinion. Keep in mind that there are 1162 geography articles listed as of now so if the target number was to go down to 1170 (not that I agree), nothing would be need to cut as such. Gizza (t)(c) 23:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
NO CONSENSUS
No additions in 30+ days. J947( c ) (m) 20:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Combine political leaders, military leaders and activists

The line between political leaders and military leaders is blurred (George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, Charles de Gaulle, the 1st Duke of Wellington, the Khans, Julius Caesar). The line between political leaders and activists is blurred. When you look at leaders of rebellion, even the line between military leaders and revolutionaries is blurred. We have no activists or military leaders category at VA (lv 3) and I don't think we need one here either. I also believe combining these three categories would be a better gauge of systemic biases. Right now, politicians gets a lot of scrutiny in comparison to military leaders and activists. The quota for the combined category would be equal to the sum of the quotas of its parts. pbp 06:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 06:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support adding rebels and revolutionaries (Patrice Lumumba, Nestor Makhno etc.) to politicians and military leaders. Keep the different categories for political and military persons. I prefer keeping social activists as Henry Dunant, Helen Keller and Betty Friedan in Activists. --Thi (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. I would also support moving rebels and revolutionaries into "Political leaders". Would definitely want to see "military figures" kept separate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strongly oppose I dont mind merging politicians and activists, it surprises me they are separate. However, including military with politics send a rather draconian message. Politicians are not currently generally known as war-mongering despots (some exceptions) and just because in the past some politicians were also leaders of military might in times of war does not mean they should be merged. Also i am concerned that military leaders would be removed in favour of modern politicians, or even ancient politicians, which may seem more popular or important if they are lumped together. A Guy into Books (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose partly per Aguyintobooks (despite the overlap military and political leaders are vital are for different reasons) but also because it will make it difficult the navigate the section and see what's there and what's not. The politician section is already huge at nearly 500 articles. Gizza (t)(c) 00:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discuss

@Thi:@Midnightblueowl: I don't quite understand the desire to separate military and political leaders when there are so many people on this list (see them enumerated above) who were both. pbp 04:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is true that there are a variety of figures who are as much "military" figures as "political" ones but there are also quite a number of "military" figures with no political involvement whatsoever. Equally, there are many "political" figures with no military experience. I feel that lumping them all together would just get a little too crowded and unclear. There are some individuals who fit into both categories but that does not mean that the two categories are interchangeable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment on actors and actresses

The total representation of nationalities i have counted to be are below.

Actors

19 American 9 UK 3 French 3 Indian 2 Italian 2 Japanese 1 German 1 Hong Kong

Actresses

22 American 10 UK 4 French 1 Indian 1 German 1 Japanese 1 Italian

Does anyone else think british stage acting is severely over represented? Only Laurence Olivier, Judi Dench, Ellen Terry and John Gielgud strike me as vital, stage is not vital on the world stage (!) compared to something like film. Even then we should cut down actors by a bit and maybe increase film directors as they are the main influence from film and to have less directors then actors does not make sense, we have 4 level 3 directors and no level 3 actors. A vital director can improve a terrible actor but a vital actor cannot improve a terrible director (see Dirty Grandpa) ;).

I think we should ideally have 25 of each but i would settle for 30 of each. GuzzyG (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

@GuzzyG: Cutting it down to 25 of each is OK with me. There's also too much American film as well as too much British stage. We don't have George III, George VI or David Lloyd George, and those three guys are more notable than some George (or not George) who trodded a stage. pbp 22:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: We should keep the AFI top 10 and start from there but there's gonna be a lot of resistance (ex:Mae West) so i do not know where to start (also that we have little amounts of pre golden age actors like Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Al Jolson, Rudolph Valentino or Lon Chaney. This list in all areas has a bad problem of having actors (and in comparison little directors), athletes (but not the admins or coachs who have more historical impact on how the sport is played - ex: Pierre de Coubertin or James Naismith) or pop singers but not the songwriters or producers, dancers but not choreographers like George Balanchine or Marius Petipa etc. It's something to be looked at. While we are on the subject of sport you have mentioned that you would support 50-75 athletes and i would agree with a cut down to 75 on the condition that other sports get one representative mainly focusing on sports like Badminton (ex: Lin Dan) which are olympic level and have major prominence in a country of 1,5 bil people, compare that to 325 mil people and 3 reps for American Football. I know Arnold Schwarzenegger was removed as a actor but having a representative of the global and influential health and fitness movement would be good (stick him under bodybuilding). Big team sports (cricket, rugby, basketball, baseball) should have 4 each. Soccer 10 and the rest should be worked out. I see no justification why american football has 3 but Australian Rules Football, Hurling, Rugby League and other such one country team sports have none. We also have no martial arts representatives (Bruce Lee is in actors). I think olympic level sports and others such as horse racing and mixed martial arts should have one representative. Having things like 5 gymnasts and 2 american swimmers is not indicative of worldwide sporting history . GuzzyG (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@GuzzyG: If you are willing to back me up, I may start a series of proposals reducing the sports bloat. Here are my proposals for four sports:
Baseball
Cut everybody except Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays and Sandrono Oh
Basketball
Add James Naismith, cut all players except Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Wilt Chamberlain
American football
Cut everybody except Jim Brown
Ice hockey
Cut everybody except Wayne Gretzky.
Also, if you were to nominate Coubertin or Naismith for inclusion, I would support you. pbp 22:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: I would support all of your suggestions and here are more to add on to that.
Cricket
Cut Muttiah Muralitharan and Viv Richards. (5 is decent for the major sport played in the former British Empire and for India and Pakistan (where it has popularity comparable to soccer in Brazil).
Field Hockey
Keep both, sport is massive in India and Pakistan which means 2 to field and 1 to Ice Hockey is fair if we take population size into account.
Association football
Cut Bobby Charlton and maybe Paolo Maldini?
Boxing
Cut Henry Armstrong. (lighter weight classes do not really need to be represented.)
Motorsports
Swap A. J. Foyt for Mario Andretti and Jackie Stewart for Giacomo Agostini
Cycling
Cut Jacques Anquetil and Bernard Hinault, swap Miguel Indurain for Lance Armstrong (having the titles stripped only makes him more vital to the history of cycling imo)
Tennis
Cut Rafael Nadal, Billie Jean King, Chris Evert and Björn Borg
Swimming
Cut Mark Spitz if we absolutely needed two i would support Johnny Weissmuller or Duke Kahanamoku over him. Spitz main vitality was a record that is now gone. Such is the fate of sports.

I will nominate them when some of these pass to see how it goes. These cuts are just a working idea i do not know anything about the other sports to say about them. GuzzyG (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The number of actors and actresses should be reduced appropriately, since not all of them currently listed are vital, and there are some vital directors, e.g. Ridley Scott, Oliver Stone not listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

out of modern directors it would probably be Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch or Paul Thomas Anderson over those two. GuzzyG (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

With relation to athletes, 3 American football players is probably fine, given that other sports already have far more. I would think that Association football players should have a larger reduction because there are a larger number of people on the list. 3 people in hockey is also fine, given it is a sport played worldwide. I do agree baseball should have less athletes, though I would rather remove Willie Mays and keep Hank Aaron. I would prefer to keep Ty Cobb too, but he is more borderline for me. Basketball could use a trim too. Overall, trimming athletes is a good idea, but it should be done to keep the list roughly in the proportion it is in now, in terms of number of athletes per sport. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS
Discussion inactive. If had continued on current trends chances are that would fall below 2/3. Formal no consensus as 30 days have easily passed; count an oppose from me as well if you wish. J947( c ) (m) 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reallocate 20 articles from Astronomy (215->195) to Space (36->56)

I think there's a disproportionate imbalance here. Astronomy has 209 articles, including celestial bodies that I would say no one needs to know or care about. Space--manned, unmanned, whatnot--only has 36 articles (although its allocation isn't apparently specifically set, as a subset of the technology list). The off-the-top of my head list of things missing includes JPL, anything that's landed on Mars, Mir, any of the comet missions, and far more. Since Astronomy is only at 209, that would bring it to 14 over, which could be haggled over separately, once the reallocation is made. (But just with a cursory glance, I believe we could easily lose 14 from 'constellations' and be no appreciably less vital...) Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As proposer. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Prevan (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Opposed
  1. Opposed Dawid2009 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Space 36-->56 isn't right for Wikipedia in the case when we include 260 articles related to Chemistry. According to d:Wikidata:Statistics/Wikipedia exist more articles related to astronomical object than chemical compound.
  2. Opposed There are currently 32 constellations listed and I feel it could be easily re-configured to 20. In any case, removing 3 should not be difficult. I see no reason to grow the Space list past 45 at this time. I would support moving 9 articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
As a non-quota change, perhaps Space Observatories (Herschel, Hubble, Spitzer, Atacama, Mauna Kea, and possibly additional ones) should be moved under Astronomy. This would free up articles in the space section. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That seems like an appropriate re-configuration to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Mining

I think this article should have some subjects related to Mining Engineering, it's important and there is no one. --190.95.69.40 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


2-4, failed and not removed Gizza (t)(c) 08:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Alec Guinness

No lasting influence, not vital for an encyclopedia of 2000 names. We're over the limit and he doesn't make it. Wouldn't find him in a textbook on film.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I doubt any actor will have 'lasting influence', once their audience is gone, they are history (literally history book history). Alec Guinness is very well known, even now, regardless of his suitability for inclusion in textbooks, I believe he is still relevant. He played roles in several films which are still regularly shown on television (I'm going to ignore Star Wars). He is also highly decorated (CH and knight) and was very popular in the 1960s, winning various 'most liked actor' type awards, considering the generation who saw him in the cinema are still alive, I don't think its time to consider his influence dead yet (although he is dead of course). The other less relevant people being removed, such as Derek Jacobi will put the count nearer the target. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the arguments of A Guy into Books. Dimadick (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per A Guy into Books. Jusdafax 06:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as per above. We're no longer over quota here. J947( c ) (m) 07:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

We don't have James Dean, Lon Chaney, Al Jolson, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino, Robert Mitchum, Kirk Douglas, Edward G. Robinson, William Holden, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty and many other top actors which rank above Alec. GuzzyG (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6-0 --Thi (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Philippe Noiret

Not really vital. [2]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 19:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


FAILED
Not removed; 5-5 Gizza (t)(c) 07:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Harriet Beecher Stowe

The list is full (2,004/2,000). Uncle Tom's Cabin (a featured article) is listed elsewhere. --Thi (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I understand PBP, but we list her book and that's enough. GuzzyG (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Not needed if Uncle Tom's Cabin is included Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I can't justify including both her and Uncle Tom's Cabin in a list this size. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: Top 50 all-time according to the Atlantic's ranking of influential Americans. Regarded by Abraham Lincoln as "the little lady who started this great war" pbp 16:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose – #41 on that list is a clear justification for inclusion. Also, the list is no longer full, being at 1,998/2,000. J947( c ) (m) 05:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Influential writer. Dimadick (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per the above. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 8-0 pbp 19:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Seán O'Casey for Michael Collins (Irish leader)

Mid tier Irish writer for the major figure of Irish Independence. We have too any Irish and British writers and no figure for Irish independence and the associated issues that followed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Also Collins get nine times the page views of O'Casey. It's clear which person will be remembered in the Irish history books. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Rreagan007 (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support removal; adding Collins seems like a separate nomination since he would appear in a different section. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support  Carlwev  13:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support Collins seems to have had more of a historical impact, due to his role in the Irish War of Independence. Dimadick (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose:
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No discussion in 30+ days; no clear consensus. J947( c ) (m) 07:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Mikhail Sholokhov

Russians are over represented in writing and he is one of the least vital. He did win the nobel prize but we don't list every winner.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since he was a powerful example of socialist realism, and Russian writers are still underrepresented in the list, he should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


REMOVED
Removed, 6-2 pbp 20:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Jacques Tati

Only made a few films and isn't considered one of the 25-30 best film directors OAT. pbp 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. per nom Cambalachero (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support On a packed list, he just doesn't make it. There's more notable directors out there that would be better in his place too. GuzzyG (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since Tati was voted the 46th greatest directors of all time in a poll conducted by Entertainment Weekly, he was vital at this level. Only made a few films is an invalid rationale for removal, and the list currently contains more than 50 directors, which in my opinion should contain more.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • @RekishiEJ:@Thi: The list actually doesn't contain 50 directors. There are more than 50 people in the "Directors, producers and screenwriters" category, but some of them are known primarily for things other than direction. pbp 17:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6-2 pbp 20:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Pete Rozelle

Probably the influential sports businessman in history. Led the National Football League from a niche sport to the top American sports league. Creator of the Super Bowl, which is the most watched sporting event in the World after the Olympics. Established many of the concepts now common in almost all professional sports leagues, including lucrative television contracts and revenue sharing. One of the few people from Time Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century not on this list. Not an athlete so nominating here instead.

Support
  1. Prevan (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Power~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support 2601:6C3:4001:449D:C5C5:CCED:B995:29F4 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support we don't have a sport businessman. Due to his efforts the NFL became a mass media phenomenon. GuzzyG (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 5-4, after 3 months pbp 20:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Jack Ma

Founder of Alibaba Group. Richest person in Asia. Ranked 2nd in Fortune's 2017 "World's 50 Greatest Leaders" list.

Support
  1. Support Eddie891 Talk Work 18:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Gpapazian (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support One of the richest people in the world and one of the most powerful people in China. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Alibaba is what's notable enough to include in the list, not Jack Ma. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan007 and discussion below. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Is it Jack Ma, or Alibaba which is relevant? We have Alibaba Group and we have Amazon.com. We don't have Jeff Bezos who founded Amazon.com, is worth a (similar?) amount and does the same basic work. Jack Ma is basically Jeff Bezos's Chinese clone. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We also removed the "founder" of FaceBook Mark Zuckerberg but keep FaceBook itself. Ma might be the richest man in Asia. Amancio Ortega clothes retailer businessman, founded Zara, is the richest person in Europe, apparently recently the richest person the whole world too at the moment according to Forbes, but no one's heard of him....and we removed him a while back too.  Carlwev  16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


1-3, not added

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Lawrence Kohlberg

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not notable enough to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    1. Really? He contributed a lot to psychology, mainly his study of moral development.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not the next psychologist. GuzzyG (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 04:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Charlton removed, 7-0, but Abby Wambach NOT added, 3-0 pbp 20:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Abby Wambach, remove Bobby Charlton

Vital article related to American soccer icon and sports in general. Recently retired player and GA. There is only one woman currently on the list for Association football (two women in entire Team sports section). Hmlarson (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Hmlarson (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Wambach has probably surpassed Hamm (who we have) as the greatest women's soccer player. Charlton is one of several male soccer players I was thinking we could trim from the list. He was a great player, but more on a level with some other greats who aren't featured on this list than with those who would occupy the top spots on an all-time ranking. Neljack (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Removal I don't think we need anymore Association Football figures at this stage. GuzzyG (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per Hmlarson and Neljack Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Removal --Thi (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Removal Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support removal ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
Nomination withdrawn in favor of British Indian Ocean Territory nomnation below Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Chagos Archipelago

Another island group that should be added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support The forced relocation of the people is supremely notable in my mind. GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose – I'm normally all in for more in the Asian Indian Ocean (see below), but I personally have never heard about it and from a quick look there are no special things about it. J947( c ) (m) 03:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I think the British Indian Ocean Territory is the more famous name for the islands. It is pretty much now a military base for the US and UK after expelling the people living there to other Indian Ocean islands. It is a disputed territory between Mauritius and Britain. Still not sure if it is vital. Keep in mind there are important cities and regions missing too which will fill up the geography quota, not just islands. Gizza (t)(c) 00:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both 1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Dodgeball

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not as vital as ten-pin bowling and a number of other games. Gizza (t)(c) 00:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed to add it before, however later the proposal failed (cf. /Archive_46#Add_dodgeball).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Add Practical shooting

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too niche and confined. Gizza (t)(c) 23:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. No, I don't think so since this type of shooting sport is more practical for focusing not only on accuracy but also speed (thus the name "practical shooting"), and many people enjoy this sport.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    How many is "many"? And why is this more vital than every other type of shooting sport? Gizza (t)(c) 07:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

We list Shooting sport, that article describes many kinds of recreational shooting, including this one, no individual kind stands out as more vital than others. If the shooting sport article is not in depth enough, someone could help fix that with information from other articles perhaps.  Carlwev  13:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No (!)votes in 30+ days. J947( c ) (m) 18:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Rallying

Centuries old form of motorsport, good representative of off road racing. We're under quota.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for now. We already have three car racing articles (F1, NASCAR and the main article). I think motorcycle racing should be in before another car racing article. Or the more general motorsport. Gizza (t)(c) 01:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I was gonna suggest Motorcycle racing too. F1 and NASCAR are sport leagues which predate rallying by close to 40ish years, so i don't know if that's a good comparison, they're also not off-road. I think we could fit both Rallying and Motorcycle racing. Motorsport is redundant with Auto racing in my opinion. Either way Auto racing has the same amount of coverage on this list as bowling which i think is extremely odd as Auto racing has significant cultural recognition in every continent other then Africa and Antartica. We're under quota now too and they can always be removed later on if something more important is found. Same with all of my nominations in this section GuzzyG (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


FAILED.
Not removed, 2–4. J947( c ) (m) 03:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Cheque

Cheque is listed in "Basic" section but it is now a thing of a past. The list is over quota (916/900).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't think we need to list both cheque and debit card. I realize they aren't the same thing, but they serve essentially the same purpose. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: Was a thing for hundreds of years. It probably still is a thing now, and if it's a "thing of the past", the "past" was only a few years ago. pbp 12:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Although nowadays people no longer use cheques as frequently as in the past (see below), cheques are still common. And if the cheque is really a thing of the past, it has been vital in history.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above and below. Maybe up the social science recommendation to 925 and remove 25 from another one, perhaps physical sciences/Astronomy? J947( c ) (m) 03:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • In the UK (I am from the UK), people still use cheques, mainly for business purchases or high value items like deposits for houses etc. Even though cheques are only used for 0.5% of transactions in the UK, 1.5 million individual cheques are cashed every day. Or 546 million per year (out of 38 billion payments per year total. [[3]], this is expected to halve by 2025, as cheque volumes are decreasing by about 10% per year. So they are definitely in decline, although maybe not totally dead yet. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Eagle Nebula

Probably the most famous nebula, as it includes the very well known Pillars of Creation. We don't currently list very many nebula, and with the removal of a number of stars and constellations I think we have room for a few more nebulae.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support - per nominator. Jusdafax 03:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Horsehead Nebula

Another very notable and highly recognizable nebula.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support - per nominator. Jusdafax 03:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Jordan curve theorem

I consider it the most important mathematical theorem not mentioned, but it's difficult to explain why it's important. Also unclear what section it belongs in.

Support
  1. Support as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: I would not include a theorem that only applies to a single branch of mathematics. Theorems like Gödel's incompleteness theorems are vital because they changed mathematical thought altogether. But there is little reason to include this single theorem over general mathematical concepts like (in topology) homeomorphism, which has not been included. Esquivalience (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

This can probably be closed as No Consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


NO CONSENSUS
With three neutrals, one oppose, one support, and one swap, there is quite clearly no consensus here. J947( c ) (m) 03:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Ed Sullivan

The people list is full (2003/2000). Johnny Carson is listed as a representative of TV hosts and television personalities.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Other
  1. Swap for The Ed Sullivan Show. Johnny Carson should be reexamined as we already list The Tonight Show just as we list both Lucille Ball and I Love Lucy. Television personalities and actors are normally only vital for one thing (their show). But then again we list both The Beatles and John Lennon plus Imagine (John Lennon song) and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band so it's not of the ordinary for there to be overlap. (Personally i think Lennon should be removed, he's covered by the beatles and his song) GuzzyG (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Sullivan was a rite of passage, a gateway for stars. Iconic, and therefore vital. Jusdafax 06:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Normally, I'd be all for ripping out as many entertainers as possible. However, Ed Sullivan "made" a lot of other entertainers famous. You knew Elvis and the Beatles were growing concerns because they were on his show. As such, I am neutral pbp 20:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided about this. While I agree that there is a lot of overlap in these articles, the idea of having a list without Lucille Ball or John Lennon or Johnny Carson just seems wrong to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Marking as neutral on this one. I concur with Rreagan and pbp above. J947( c ) (m) 03:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6-1. --Thi (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Fyodor Tyutchev

There is many other Russian poets on the list: Pushkin, Nekrasov, Mayakovsky, Akhmatova, Pasternak.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since he is one of the most memorized and quotes Russian poets, and Russian literature has been of high level compared to many other national/ethnic literature in the world he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No discussion for 30+ days. J947( c ) (m) 01:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add third gender

This article is both interesting and vital, since it lets readers know that though there are only two sexes, in some cultures there are more than two genders, e.g. Japan has the third gender - X-gender.

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support An important concept, increasingly prominently in Western societies but also existing in many other cultures. However, the articles on gender should not be listed under sexuality - gender and sexuality are quite different. I'm not sure where they should be moved though. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    1. Currently gender and transgender all belong to the section on sexuality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      1. I think we should move gender, man, woman and transgender to the society section, since though Category:Gender belongs to Category:Sexuality and society, gender has been discussed along with social class and ethnicity.--RekishiEJ (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Dropped the proposal 05:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
        1. I'd prefer to leave them where they are. Discussion below. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose After thinking about it more, I think the article on transgender covers this area enough in that "transgender" is an umbrella term that also encompasses people who fall along the gender spectrum somewhere in between male and female. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Transgender is not a synonym for third gender.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I never said that it was a synonym for it. But I think there is enough overlap with transgender that we don't need to list third gender separately. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, third gender is mentioned in the article on transgender. However, third gender should still be included since it does not cover third gender extensively, and third gender is vital, since some societies have genders other than men and women.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC
Discuss

I understand the specialized definitions of gender and sex in the social sciences, but I would still prefer to keep the gender articles under the sexuality section for several reasons. One is that these articles do fit together. Gender issues and sex/sexuality issues are interrelated, and the various articles included in the section reflect this. For example, the gender of a person and the gender of their sexual partner determines whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Having all the articles in one place rather than scattering them around is helpful in maintaining the list and keeping it cohesive. Another is that I've looked at moving them to the society section, and I really don't see a good place there where it would make sense to move them to. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll drop the movement proposal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed the section header from "Sexuality" to "Sexuality and gender". If anyone has a problem with that, we can discuss it further here, but I think this is a good solution. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The section "People" should be more diversified

For instance, chefs, criminals and jurists are currently not included, which is unacceptable since many people travel to a city or country in order to enjoy a cuisine or delicacies, some criminals have been glorified in popular culture, and jurisprudence is nowadays vital due to the popularity of rule of law, thus I suggest that sections "Chefs", "Criminals" be added to the list, and "Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists" should be renamed "Philosophes, historians, jurists, political and social scientists", then add some chefs, criminals and jurists to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I Agree, as i have mentioned before. We list Hugo Grotius so we have one jurist but people like Earl Warren or Clarence Darrow are sufficient adds. You forgot law enforcement which we do not have either and could have J. Edgar Hoover. Sufficiently notable chef's are Auguste Escoffier, Marie-Antoine Carême and Julia Child. Criminals are Jack the Ripper, Blackbeard, Pablo Escobar, Bonnie and Clyde, Gilles de Rais, Lucky Luciano or Charles Manson and then we can move Al Capone and Guy Fawkes into an appropriate section, just like we should move Bruce Lee to sports under Martial Arts and Shigeru Miyamoto under designers. All the people i've mentioned are sufficiently notable for a list like this but the space is not there, which is why a 10k list would be decent. GuzzyG (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    • And intelligence officers should be included as well (not in the "Military leaders and theorists" section), since in some countries intelligence officers not belonging to military intelligence agencies are not treated as soldiers as in Russia, and William J. Donovan is vital and though he was once a military officer he is best known as the father of American Intelligence--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC) added a missing "c" between "n" & "e" in "one" 07:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC) added "ing" next to "belong" 07:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • While I would not oppose the listing of "criminals", Blackbeard was specifically a pirate. We have a few hundred articles on notable pirates, privateers, and naval warfare figures. We have articles on Blackbeard's former captain and de facto mentor Benjamin Hornigold, his ally Stede Bonnet, and the naval commander who defeated and killed him Robert Maynard. Dimadick (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_53&oldid=1137397544"