Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 6

→

TV and Film

I know there's no easy answer for this but hear me out. At the moment Film articles are listed in arts, and TV programme articles are not they are in mass media within Society and social sciences. Should they be together? I would have thought so. Films are mass media same as TV shows. Films are shown on TV after some time after cinema release, some films are only shown on TV, telefilms. Some franchises like Star Trek have TV shows and Movies out at roughly the same time with the same cast and perhaps the same crew. And they are obviously made the same way eg actors filmed, moving picture with sound, and both have a story to follow, both may have a writer director producer a script. The only main difference is one you can watch on your tv one in a cinema (or at home later) and one is usually stand alone and the other a series. They are the same really though aren't they. The only thing people may bring up is that TV shows listed include news, gameshow, American Idol, which are not like a film with a story. But then again within Art, in works of literature we have a dictionary and an Encyclopedia which are books but not really "Art" in the same way fiction is, the same way BBC news is not a movie. Should TV shows be with movies? they are the same. Also while I'm here, another point, I think Video games are kind of art, but not as much, ignore this last bit.Carlwev (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think some of the present groupings are too broad. Cinema is an art form, but also a media form. I'm personally inclined to pull all the articles related to film, TV, radio and print journalism and place them in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Media p b p 16:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose moving all actors to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Media. Actors are artists, not media topics. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}

I think you misunderstood, actors/artists/real people not effected. The idea was to put TV shows in same section as Movies, as a movie and a programme are almost the same kind of art/work, (and possibly move things like radioshows newspapers and magazines too along with them too) Carlwev (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, actors (assuming we keep any) stay in bios. Non-people topics go to media. p b p 22:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bunch o’ Cuts

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.

Walter Brennan (actor)

Support as nom p b p 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. - Not many people on this list have three acting Oscars, as does Brennan. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Support cutting Brennan. He was a character actor, and all three Oscars were in supporting roles. Not a major figure when we are arguing whether we keep major figures like Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

All his oscars were for supporting actor, he was hardly ever a main part. He was good at what he done and is remembered but is not vital. Edith Head has 8 oscars for costume design, but I wouldn't think she's vital. Carlwev (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

@DL1, Morgan Freeman is also a character actor, so is Gene Hackman. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:09, 2 April 2013 (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 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.

Leonardo DiCaprio (actor)

Support as nom p b p 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Not one of the most influential actors of the last 25 years, but definitely one of the most significant/popular. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Support cutting DiCaprio. Again, Branagh or DiCaprio? Seriously? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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 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.

Sean Penn (actor)

Support as nom p b p 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support cutting Penn. Sure, he's a decent actor, but he is not iconic or particularly influential. Should not have been on the list in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 23:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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 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.

Leopold Bloom (fictional character)

Support as nom p b p 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong Support The novel is enough, character doesn't appear anywhere else, not sure why he's in in the first place. This is just the kind of character articles we should go for instead unleashing on Harry Potter,Carlwev (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Include the parent work, not the character. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

* We don’t need two characters from 1984.

Just as well, I wasn't aware he was in it. Carlwev (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (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 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.

Jimmy Cliff (musician)

Support as nom p b p 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - A relatively minor figure when you consider who isn't included. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Support MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll be bold and remove this one, if I were to agree also it would be 4 - 0 in favour of removing. We have to start somewhere or we will get nowhere, almost every suggestion has at least one person opposing, a few like this do not. Carlwev (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. Pale shadow of Bob Marley, who still dominates the genre even though he's been dead for 30 years. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Yeah agree with most other comments deleted him already but was reverted Carlwev (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Done 5-0 consensus to drop p b p 20:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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 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.

George Harrison (musician)

Support as nom p b p 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. The Beatles are already included. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. - There are many others that should go before Harrison. He almost single-handedly popularised Indian music in the West, and was important to World Music. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. This is the easy "delete" call; the tougher calls will be John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Its sadly ironic that while people have been arguing for weeks over globalisation, that we should remove perhaps the most significant westerner ever in terms of bringing about awareness of non-western music and culture. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:01, 5 April 2013 (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 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.

Dinah Shore (musician)

Support as nom p b p 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Why was she included as a musical artist in the first place? Shore was better known as a TV talk show host. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

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 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.

Tartar sauce (food)

Support as nom p b p 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Support, There are lots of sauces and condiments in the world, some like ketchup mustard vinegar and mayo have a chance at staying, in stores there are many different varieties of mustards and ketchups etc in different sizes by different companies they are quite popular in lots of places. Tartar sauce not so much, is with the apple sauce, cranberry sauce, seafood sauce. Carlwev (talk)
Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Oppose as not enough. I love tartar sauce. Why keep ketchup and mustard and drop this condiment? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the user wants this removed, just I the nominator do, this shouldn't really count as a vote against tartar sauce being removed p b p 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. Random condiment -- not vital. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

An "oppose as not enough" is simply pointless. If you want tartar sauce deleted, then support this deletion and start another discussion right below this saying ketchup and mustard should also be deleted. As for, "why keep ketchup and mustard", ketchup and mustard are much more omnipresent than tartar sauce. You can't get tartar sauce at McDonald's or Burger King or a hot dog stand. Tartar sauce and french fries isn't a thing per se. I am a bit flummoxed by Gabe's recent "oppose" votes here, at DDL, at the Old and New Testament, and elsewhere; they seem to be for no other reason than to be disagreeable towards me. p b p 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting position pbp. I quote: "Oppose as not enough:". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What's more disconcerting is that your vote is based partially on the fact that you love tartar sauce. Well, I love the combination of sweet and sour sauce, crab puffs and a Bahooka ade, but I ain't saying that those three belong in the 10,000 list p b p 02:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I love Doritos Carlwev (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I think a few foods like some of the 8 cheeses and relish can go. Carlwev (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I was joking, I don't like fish or tartar sauce. I was making a point about how personal preferences are negatively affecting this list. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated two more below. If you want to nominate some of the cheese, relish, ketchup, mustard, or mayonnaise, go right ahead. Since we're now voting on this one-at-a-time, how you feel about the merits of one article need not have a bearing on the merits of another article p b p 18:50, 26 March 2013 (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 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.

Skating (sports)

Currently a disambiguation page, not an article p b p 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Support as nom p b p 02:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Yeah I didn't think we were really supposed to have disambiguations here, probably was just not noticed, we have rollerskating, skateboarding and ice skating, the main kinds. Well spotted, an easy delete I would think. Carlwev (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been "bold" and just removed this. I can't imagine anyone would oppose removing a disambiguation page, especially since we have roller skating and skate boarding there. Carlwev (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, I really don't think that only three people should be making these choices. Can we please slow down? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This one was really non-controversial, because Skating isn't even an article. There's been a general consensus against having redirects or disambiguation pages in this list p b p 21:24, 1 April 2013 (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 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.

Breakfast cereal (food)

Support as nom p b p 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Weak OpposeCarlwev (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I hate soggy, milk-soaked mush for breakfast, but there is no denying that it is the most popular breakfast food in North America. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We have cereal on the list already p b p 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cereal is a group of plants/grasses or their grain, which we use to make many things flour bread cakes biscuits corn flakes etc. Breakfast cereal is a type of food usually manufactured that comes in bags/boxes takes up a whole aisle in a supermarket and a large portion of people eat it every day, usually in a bowl with milk in the morning. It's origins are about 150-200 years ago, several large well known companies make it, it is a substantial part of the food economy. It's main ingredient is cereals and it shares the same name but it is not the same thing. Think of how many people buy and eat breakfast cereal, compared to Scotch Whiskey, or Feta cheese which are included. Carlwev (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing as keep. No replies in last 5 weeks. 3 keep votes, no delete votes as nominator withdrew vote. Carlwev (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fondue (food)

Support as nom p b p 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Seriously, folks, fondue is a vital article? The 1960s ended 43 years ago. Next. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Overly specific. p b p 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (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 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.

Jefferson Davis (American political leader)

Support as nom p b p 00:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 17:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Per pbp. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Cut Jefferson Davis; keep Confederate States of America and Robert E. Lee. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We have American Civil War and Confederate States of America under American history; we have Robert E. Lee under military figures. Jefferson Davis is one of four American political figures on the list who weren't POTUSes, two of the others are Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton and he most certainly isn't in a league with them. His main claim to fame was being president of a country that, according to diplomats of the major world powers at that time, didn't exist p b p 00:24, 30 March 2013 (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 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.

David Letterman (host)

We've been talking off and on about axing him p b p 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Support as nom: p b p 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Per DL1 GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Great TV hosts: Ed Sullivan, Jack Parr, Dick Cavett, Johnny Carson. Last 20 years: David Letterman, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien? Not so much. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I deleted him but was reverted, he's not very famous outside US, there are quite a few hosts of similar calibur especially internationally, that have been around for years. In the UK we have Bruce Forsyth he is a "Sir" and been a host/entertainer for over 70 years, there are several more I cold mention. Hosts don't have a lot of long lasting international impact really. Carlwev (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know why Gabe wants David Letterman kept when bios are so bloated and there are "glaring" omissions among late night hosts of an equal or greater caliber (no Conan O'Brien, for instance) p b p 21:50, 1 April 2013 (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.

A couple of adds

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.

Martin Scorsese

Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Obviously. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose without identification of specific topic to be deleted to make room for this topic. Will support if and only if a lower priority topic is identified for deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, two of his fllms are included but not himself. Generally regarded as a pretty good director. Consider removing one of his films to add him, if it's all about the numbers. Carlwev (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Its only about the numbers if we choose it to be about the numbers. Also, where's Goodfellas? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to worry about this one, I went to add him a few days back and saw he was already there. My mistake sorry. Carlwev (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2013 (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 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.

Stanley Kubrick

One of the most influential directors of all time.

Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Support' p b p 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose unless and until another list item is identified to delete in order to make room. And, yes, I agree that Kubrick belongs on the list, but the recent unprioritized additions of far less important topics has created a problem that needs to be resolved first. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Again we have 2 of his films (Clockwork Orange and 2001 Space Odyssey) but not him, I think that is the wrong way. Pretty important filmmaker. In general filmmakers are more important than actors. I would include this filmmaker; if I'm honest I presumed he was probably in but never checked. Carlwev (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It really is time to exercise some discipline, folks. The list of 10,000 now exceeds its stated limit by over 300 topics. Unless and until another topic is identified to delete and make room for Kubrick, we simply cannot add Kubrick or any other topics. Yes, there are plenty of weak sisters we can delete--let's do it. This kind of undisciplined "it's important, let's add it without regard to number limits" behavior is exactly why this list is now 300+ topics over its limit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Done p b p 23:34, 30 March 2013 (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 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.

Brian Wilson out, The Beach Boys in

Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support p b p 15:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. We should consider similar swaps by adding other musicial groups and deleting the individual group members. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}
Support I don't think either should be in, but I will support having a band over one band member at this time. Carlwev (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed this over no one seamed to oppose, everyone agreed. Carlwev (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, in general, we really should wait more than 48 hours before acting on a proposal. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Gabe. I just took a look at this for the first time. 48 hours is rushing it. Ramming a change like this through on the Easter holiday weekend is additionally uncalled for. Jus da fax 2:13 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Um, we had "drop Brian Wilson" and "add the Beach Boys" in separate threads above, and before that, each of the proposals and counter-proposals on the “modern musicians cut to 100” above. It’s certainly been more than 48 hours that we’ve had a consensus to make this switch p b p 22:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Likewise, we should delete Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, and add the "Rodgers and Hammerstein" partnership; delete Alan Jay Lerner and add "Lerner and Lowe"; delete John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison in favor of the Beatles. There are easily another ten artists who could simply be deleted as not being "vital" enough (Dinah Shore? Britney Spears? Cher? Shania Twain?). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually think Harrison should be removed, but McCartney and Lennon should stay. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 19:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis Lerner, I'd just delete him outright. Think I proposed that above p b p 19:43, 29 March 2013 (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 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.

Jim Morrison out, The Doors in

Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 19:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support: This is "The End" of Jim Morrison in this list. It's time for the Doors to "Break on Through" to being on the list. p b p 19:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Need to find me an "L.A. Woman" and sleep all night in her "Soul Kitchen"
Support. - Nice job lightening things up pbp! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Carlwev (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Done p b p 16:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I changed these over, everyone seamed to think it was a good change Carlwev (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl, in general, we really should wait more than 24 hours before acting on a proposal. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd either give it 7-10 days, or an extra vote one way or t'other, before pulling the trigger. There seems to be consensus for 5 or more votes before discussion is ended p b p 21:19, 1 April 2013 (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 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.

Homo erectus

Very important and exactly the kind of article I would expect to find in a proper print encyclopedia. We have 2 sub-species/specimens of homo erectus Java Man and Peking Man but not Homo erectus itself which is the more well known and more encompassing term, both scientifically and in common language, I think. Carlwev (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If and when adding this we could just delete Java Man or Peking Man, or one of the agreed on Delete threads at the same time so not increase the number more.

Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support deleting Peking Man and Java Man, adding Homo erectus. Good call, Carl, and nice to see you're evaluating the marginal topics outside pop culture. I'm sure there are many others. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support: (adding Homo erectus and deleting the two specific examples of it) p b p 15:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. - Per Carl's, DL1, and pbp's logic. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We will remove one to add this, I am proposing removals from different areas at the same time as this addition, but I have posted separate threads in case a user agrees with a removal but not the addition or vice versa. Carlwev (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Carlwev (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (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.

Miscellaneous

Ooh and Animal trapping? I always thought this was important to man in lots of places at lots of times, not sure about the amount of foreign language wikis though quite low, is it covered by hunting enough? thoughts Carlwev (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would find it helpful if you included links to where you think articles should be added. The context of the sub-list is important for !voters. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Ooh and Animal trapping? I always thought this was important to man in lots of places at lots of times, not sure about the amount of foreign language wikis though quite low, is it covered by hunting enough? thoughts Carlwev (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would find it helpful if you included links to where you think articles should be added. The context of the sub-list is important for !voters. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Constellations

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Astronomy, 226 for complete sublist of related topics.

General discussion of topic area

None of these should be removed, apart from maybe Ara and Grus. Really, all of these are very important in both ancient mythology and modern astronomy, as they basically define the sky, and science topics should not be excluded from the list simply because they are not as "popular" as pop culture-cruft. Having these articles be good or featured would give much more knowledge to the world than featuring stuff like Justin Bieber, I daresay, as these articles are actually of importance to professionals. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In fact, I would favor adding every constellation to this list, as really, the only differences are in area, interesting astronomical objects, and history. Even stuff like Mensa (constellation) has some notable stuff in it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It just stood out as a long list of similar things, that weren't very very well known. I can see it both ways. Now you mention it a constellation may be known, documented or talked about by all the cultures of the Earth past and present that could see it, if they shared the same idea of which stars it included. If we had all 88 constellations we would cover every patch of the sky and every star within it. You could say Astronomy is important and appears in the vital 100 with universe. We have all 118 elements plus more compounds etc so why not many/all constellations. There are 88 constellations, we have 44 listed. After the Zodiac I wonder who wrote the rest of the list and what made them include the constellations they did and exclude the others, as we have exactly half of them? This is more of an open question now, how many of and which ones, of the official 88 constellations should we include and why. Should we have Asterism (astronomy) also? I would probably lean towards having asterism before all 88 constellations. Carlwev (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Journalists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Journalists, 34 for complete sublist of related topics.

General discussion of topic area

This is the list of journalists lifted straight from vital articles, currently there are 34 journalists. I fail to see why a list of about 2000 most vital biographies would have 34 journalists, there are only 31 explorers for example. There are some top selling authors and books not in the list, that are higher importance than some of these news writers and news readers/anchors, many authors are read for a long long time after their death, journalists not as much. Many news anchors I would imagine are unknown outside their own country, and the amount of languages some of these journalists appear in on Wikipedia suggests that too, do many people watch foreign news before their own nation's? I would probably delete most of the journalists, but I will nominate them one by one. Feel free to nominate any from the list too. Carlwev (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
At the wikiproject journalism, these have mixed importance from high to low to unrated, I am taking that into account when nominating, as well as how many languages they appear in as a rough hint of their international recognition. Carlwev (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I do think that our list presently favors fiction writing at the expense of non-fiction writing, of which journalism is part. However, many of these journalists aren't of the caliber to be on this list, and all of them are from the last 200 years, so I could see this being trimmed down to 15-20.
I think you have a point, you could nominate any particular important non fiction writers you are thinking about, if not now when the numbers start to go down. I would say however some of the most important works of non fiction are written by people that we do have listed but not in writers, as they are listed under the topic they wrote about and had impact in. Like Darwin in scientistists who wrote, Origin of Species. Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto. eg. As well as many of the people listed in philosophers wrote important works of kind of non fiction too. Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Carl, this is yet another example of a sublist that has been allowed to blossom without any real rhyme or reason; it is just a collection of persons who individual editors thought were important. When we talk about broadcast journalists (radio and television) in the United States, the starting point is Edward R. Murrow of CBS radio and television, whose mantel was then passed to Walter Cronkite when CBS was the gold standard of broadcast news. People should not be on this list for the simple reason they filled the anchor's chair on a network news show (e.g. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, Howard K. Smith, Eric Sevareid, Ed Bradley, Barbara Walters, etc.). This list is remarkably heavy on such broadcasters and light on actual print journalists, i.e., influential people who actually wrote for a newspaper or magazine. Even if we were to add four or five key print journalists, I agree that this list could still be pared by 40 to 50 percent. It's really quite odd that we have broadcast lightweights like Dianne Sawyer and Dan Rather on this list while omitting truly great print journalists like H. L. Mencken and Horace Greeley and Walter Lippman. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Change in science/tech quotas

After moving ~100 articles on measurement from Technology to Physical sciences, I have been bold and changed the quota for the two sections accordingly. Cobblet (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)