Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 9

Support !votes

1. Support: as nom pbp 23:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per pbp's fine logic below. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. This is an excellent swap; Polk is one of the most overlooked presidents in U.S. history and had a dramatic impact on the subsequent development of the country. Not sure how Cleveland made the list in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Support as a good swap. STATic message me! 16:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• It appears that the list of American political leaders was formulated in part by having every single American president who served two terms. Of those, some of them served two terms at a time, but did not implement much policy. Grover Cleveland is one of those, serving a time of political paralysis. On the other hand, Polk was successful in his policy pursuits; he ran on a platform of "Manifest Destiny" and achieved his stated goals in a single term. In most rankings of American presidents, Polk is ranked higher than Cleveland and several other American political leaders that are on this list. I'm not sure that keeping both Polk and Cleveland is a good idea, due to over-10,000 and globalization concerns...27 American leaders seems more than enough. pbp 23:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Good catch, clearly vital. Jusdafax 18:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support adding Gibran subject to my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I suggest adding Kahlil Gibran to poets. He is stated to be the 3rd best selling poet. He is a good non western candidate. He was influential during his lifetime, and years after his death. (Gabe thought of him not me). Carlwev (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• I am supporting this long-pending addition to the list of writers, notwithstanding my misgivings about adding topics while still 300+ topics over the VA/E limit of 10,000 articles. This will be the last stand-alone "add" I support in the absence of a "swap" or reducing the number of listed VA/E topics below the stated limit of 10,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Weak supportCarlwev (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC) I am not too fussed on this but I will support my fellow users to get this done and to get the numbers down
4. Support - Happy to support, as it's obviously a good idea. Jusdafax 06:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Swap individual bios for article regarding creative partnership for which they are most commonly remembered. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support. - As nom. Too recent, pop-culture. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Less concerned about "recentism" than the fact that Houston will have very little long-term impact on American music. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 01:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Another very tough call. I remember her incendiary performance at the start of the 1988 Grammy Awards as being truly outstanding. Didn't have the cultural breakthrough impact of Aretha, however. Trim her. Jusdafax 20:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support, likely no lasting influence, in 50 years we might remember she had a coke habit.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC) !vote from a confirmed sock-puppet of an indef blocked user
3. Support Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Joel is one of the most influential American songwriters of the past 40 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Here is one I think is too big to kick off the list. Jusdafax 21:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above votes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Given the body of work, number of records sold, and relative critical acclaim, I'm falling on the "keep" side. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Made more important contributions as a songwriter than singer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Iselilja (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Until other less worthy entries are removed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• King was really more significant as a songwriter than a performer; her most popular songs all had greater success when sung by other artists. In that regard, she was the Anti-Linda Ronstadt, who had her huge success covering the songs of other artists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support. - As nom. Too recent and pop-culture. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Nearly meaningless in terms of her impact on American music. When the history of 21st Century music is written, she will be lucky to be a footnote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Strong support: This list is for significant people, not trailer-park trash pbp 00:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Carlwev (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - Doesn't make the cut, per DL. Trim we must. Jusdafax 21:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support His main claim to fame is the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but beyond that not much impact. A bit like George Lucas with Star wars, but Lucas went on to produce Indiana Jones, made merchandising an integral part of Hollywood franchising and generally helped to pioneer the modern day blockbuster with Spielberg. In short Lucas cannot be avoided if you are covering the medium, Jackson can. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per Betty's reasoning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: pbp 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - I realize I have argued to keep Ron Howard and cited his Best Director Oscar, and Jackson won one also. I just think Howard is more influential and his work will be seen as more enduring. LOTR sold a lotta tickets, true, but I think it was the property, not the director. Jusdafax 22:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Well, this may be the last change we have to get a Kiwi on this list for a while! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support He is the only black director on the list so it pains me to drop him (African American filmmakers are under-represented) but the bare truth is that his body of work just doesn't put him among the greats. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support Carlwev (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Concur with Betty's analysis. Yup, he's one of the few prominent African-American filmmakers, but his body of work to date does not put him on the list with Lean, Scorsese, Spielberg et al. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support: We don't even have the New York Knicks, why should we have Spike? pbp 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support: - I'll chime in with the vital fifth !vote, but it pains me also. Still, I agree with Betty's reasoning. Jusdafax 22:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I am pretty sure there must be someone of African descent who has been influential in the field of filmmaking. We shouldn't falsely compensate, but the whole of the African continent surely have produced their equivalent of a Kurosawa or Scorsese. I can name American, European and Asian classics at the drop of a hat but I can't name a single African film! Maybe Wikiproject Africa can help out. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Suport !votes

1. Support replacing CBS correspondent Ed Bradley with H. L. Mencken, one of the two or three most influential journalists of the first half of the 20th Century. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Not my favourite addition but Mencken does look more important than Bradley Carlwev (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: pbp 04:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Good swap. Jusdafax 06:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - No brainer.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support removing John Chancellor -- just another example of American broadcast news anchors from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. There are at least a half dozen others who fall into this category that can be cut, too (mentioned above). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: We have Cronkite and Huntley. That's all we need pbp 18:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - This is a hard call, as he was in the anchor seat at NBC for a dozen years. But I think we have to let him go to shorten the list. Jusdafax 07:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support: as nom pbp 18:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Sawyer is definately less vital Carlwev (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support replacing Sawyer with Lippman. Not even close. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Great swap. Jusdafax 06:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support . - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: pbp 23:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support swap of single song for entire subcategory of music. Easy choice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Great tune but better idea to swap. Easy call and I am delighted by the suggestion. Jusdafax 20:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• From Arts, Music I propose removing the Fred Astaire song The Way You Look Tonight and replace it with Disco. We have the 2 big disco bands ABBA and Beegees and a disco album Saturday Night Fever sound track but not the genre. Carlwev (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom (see discussion below).--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I am utterly surprised that St Augustine of Hippo, one of the big four saints of Western Christianity and intellectual force for the western tradition isn't in the religion section, but we have St Columba. On a side note, it's rather odd to have St Columba who "revitalized monasticism" but don't have St Anthony the Great who started it centuries earlier. Also odd that we don't have St Thomas Aquinas who I would gladly trade a Menno Simons or Patriarch Nikon for.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Augustine of Hippo is in this list, but not in religion, he is here, Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/People#Philosophers.2C_historians.2C_political_and_social_scientists.2C_142

I just text searched searched for hippo in my browser, he was also in the 1000 list for a short time if I remember, maybe not that vital though. I'll let you think about whether he's in the right section or not,he could go in either, but he's OK where he is. Carlwev (talk)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Cocktail, Gin and vermouth are already included. --Igrek (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: Far too specific for this list pbp 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. I've thought about it further. Yes, the martini is the world's best known cocktail, but not every vital parent topic needs a primary example. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Let's take it off the list. Jusdafax 08:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - I'd replace Vermouth with Martini. Vermouth only is of limited relevance, and that relevance linked with the prominence of the Martini and its lesser-known cousin, the Manhattan.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• While I agree it is the most well known and maybe the most drunk cocktail, I still think it may be too specific and it may not be needed, How many people really drink martinis? Cornflakes maybe the most well known and consumed example of cereal. Potato is in the 1000 list cocktail is not, King Edward may be the best example of a potato, but they're probably too specific. Just my thoughts Carlwev (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• @Carl, I have evolved my way of thinking on this topic area. Can we now get rid of AK-47? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose: we should have another European ethnicity (Greek? German?) in addition to Italian and French rather than simply "European" pbp 21:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose No other continents' cuisine proposed, probably poor idea for cuisine by continent. Isn't a great article and I'm not sure if it could be. There is not much content as to what could be specifically "European Cuisine" as a whole; it's a list of several nations cuisines within Europe clumped together as one article. Not as rich as History by continent is etc. Better to have another nation's cuisine instead or just leave it off. Carlwev (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. "European cuisine" is an amalgamation of a dozen or more national cuisines; this generic term is relatively meaningless. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - reasons above, just too many ethnic traditions. Sure Czech cooking isn't as prominent as French or Italian, the entire continent is a bad form of "too broad" when more precise examples (i.e. French cuisine) are more "vital"--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Not among the mostly widely used varieties outside northern Italian cooking. Again, it's a matter of prioritization and making some hard decisions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - I chime in for a fifth !vote here. This can go per consensus. Cut. Jusdafax 09:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Agree per DL's reasoning. Jusdafax 09:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support: pbp 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I propose removing Atole from Food and Drink, section of vital articles with no replacement. It is a beverage/soup/porridge/gruel it is not as important, well known, widely consumed, or vital compared to tea, coffee, soup or porridge. At the bottom of the Atole article there is an infobox, which lists Atole with Champurrado, Chicha, Colada morada, Corn steep liquor, Tejuino and Tesgüino. We have none of these others here; atole seems on the same level as them or a tiny bit higher, but no where close to tea, coffee, soup, porridge, and probably not in the 160 most vital food and drink topics, which is roughly our food amount in the list. Carlwev (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support swap per Carl's comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support I'll be the fifth !vote. Good swap. Jusdafax 09:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• At present in food and drink we have mustard listed. However I never noticed before it actually links to Mustard seed. ("Mustard" by itself rightly so, is a disambiguation page). Considering this is the food and drink section, and the sub-list is "herbs and condiments", I strongly feel it should be "Mustard (condiment)", that we have in this section. The mustard condiment article is what I would expect to find in food and drink and it's also a much better, longer article in more languages than the mustard seed article. (It is in the list with ketchup, Ketchup does not take you to tomato instead, it goes to ketchup). I could do this without asking, but it's always polite to ask first. Carlwev (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support removing sculling, as a redundant subtopic of "rowing." We don't need to have both on the VA list. In this case, rowing is the more commonly referenced parent topic; if the sculling subtopic were the more commonly used term and/or referenced topic, I probably would favor the subtopic. In any event, we don't need both. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per nom and DL. Jusdafax 18:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support: pbp 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I propose we remove sculling from sports. It is a type of rowing, and it is covered well by the rowing (sport) article, which is already included. (in fact, there is probably more info on sculling in the rowing article than the sculling article itself). Sculling is not individually a vital article standing alone separate from rowing. There are many many other rowing topics and types in the rowing infobox and rowing category that are not listed either (and probably shouldn't be), sculling probably isn't singularly the most important rowing topic after rowing itself. There are many more sports that are more widely taken part in pro and amateur that we don't have. Rounders, Pool (cue sports) for example are not there and are probably slightly more played and vital, compared to sculling. Carlwev (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Although it may get removed soon, I am not removing now, I am however moving it to beneath rowing for the time being, as it is currently under orienteering? All text and categories in the article place it as a rowing type. And also changing the spelling to match that used in the article and it's title (sculling, not skulling) Carlwev (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support removing "tan"; it's just another shade of brown. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• You don’t really hear the term “shade of tan” like you do “shade of brown”, “shade of gray”, “shade of orange”, or “shade of yellow”. Rather, tan is thought of as a shade of one or more of those four colors pbp 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• I went to art college and used many colours and words for them but we didn't really use the word "tan" at all. Maybe it is used in the USA more than the UK? We have brown I believe, Tan is just light brown isn't it. In the wikiproject color Top importance articles have some colours Black blue green etc. High imp...Pink, Purple. But Tan is only in Mid importance. It is too specific a colour, not universally known as a word, and no more important than another 20+ shades of colours that we aren't including. Yeah I would remove it.Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Purplebackpack89 explains why delete Tan but keep the rest -- Somebody (it was GabeMc) asked "why delete Tan and not all the other primary colors". For starters, see the above comments about "shade of tan" versus "shade of gray", "shade of purple", etc. For starters, deleting everything but the primary colors of red, green and blue leaves out black and white. Also consider the following:

There are three secondary colors of yellow, cyan and magenta. Those are the colors that printer ink comes in (along with black). They are also all web colors. However, there is not much literary symbolism around cyan or magenta

There are seven traditional colors of heraldry: yellow/gold, white/silver, black, red, blue, green and purple. Why does heraldry matter? Well, almost all flags of the world are composed solely of one or more of those seven colors. Almost all sports teams uniforms are too. And nearly all literary symbolism deals with those seven colors

Purple and gray join the 3 primary, the 3 secondary, black and white in the list of the 16 web colors. Five web colors are not on this list (maroon, olive, aqua, navy, silver); lime is or isn't depending on how you few green

Almost universally, if you buy a pack of 8 crayons, 8 colored pencils, 8 watercolors, or 8 markers, the colors will be red, yellow, green, blue, purple, orange and brown. Orange is also one of the colors of the rainbow (as is indigo, though some have pointed out that "indigo" is actually blue and "blue" is actually cyan), a tertiary web color, and is a secondary color in the outmoted system that has red, yellow and blue

Of the colors currently on this list, the only two not mentioned are pink and tan. Tan I'm proposing deleting. Pink has symbolism associated with femininity and is the next most common color after the eight above found in crayon, pencil and marker sets. In general, I find color to be such a basic and pervasive topic that it's OK to devote 10-20 articles to it. A children's book that covers a variety of topics will invariably mention almost all of this colors. Why shouldn't we? pbp 03:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are you equating WP:VAs with a children's book? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Along with regular encyclopedias, heraldic uses, and other measures of important concepts, yes. We have 10,000 topics; we should have at least a few for children. And color is hardly a topic reserved for children; it is quite relevant to adults as well pbp 03:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not only children that care about colors, they are important to all kinds of art, fashion, architecture, culture and more. They have been talked and wrote about for millennia. They are only thought to be a child's topic because of their simplicity I guess. But one wouldn't remove the alphabet for this reason. Although you opposed Tan's removal, your other comments look like you do believe some colors should be removed, in fact most of them. Why are you opposing removing one? If in your mind there are too many colors, is removing one not better than removing none at all? Tan is clearly the least worthy, you appear to oppose because others won't let you remove more than one color. Sorry to poke, but I cannot see any other reason. Carlwev (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add, although not an exact science, a rough clue to how important or known a topic is, is to look at how many other language Wikipedias an article is present in. For the colors Tan is by far the least represented of the colors listed on other language Wikis. A small number of languages like Japanese do not have separate words for Green and Blue (But please no one suggest deleting them for this reason). For world wide and history wide importance Imagine how many languages actually have a proper word exactly translating as tan (color), I'm not an expert but I would imagine it's not as many as for the other colors. Carlwev (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I know this is a bit old now, but I was thinking some colors of the rainbow are missing, indigo or especially violet would be better to have than tan. Carlwev (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove 4 Extrasolar planets

• PSR B1257+12 B
• 51 Pegasi b
• Kepler-22b
• Kepler-16b

Support !votes

1. Support -- none are really notable except for their discovery which barely warrants a press release anymore--lacking the vital-ness like the planets in our solar system. As long as we have the parent article Extrasolar planet, there's no need to mention the low-notability specific planets until we discover something major or unexpected there.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support:. --Igrek (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. The concept of extrasolar planet is important; the listing of these four obscure examples is not. Not one of them is anything like a household word or a major topic of discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Parent article is enough. Pull these four. Jusdafax 20:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• We currently have Extrasolar planet listed itself, I think this itself should stay. We also have 4 individual extrasolar planet articles PSR B1257+12 B, 51 Pegasi b, Kepler-22b and Kepler-16b, there are many planets now being discovered every year what makes some more important than others, first discovered using ???? method? closest to Earth? most Earthlike? are articles about single exoplanets vital articles? Carlwev (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed these now, originally brought up on 4th April, 5 support, no oppose, all in favour. Carlwev (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Carl's logic. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: pbp 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Another late addition to the "pantheon" of constellations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Nowhere near vital. Axe it. Jusdafax 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I suggest removing Puppis a star constellation, from astronomy. We have 44 constellations listed, probably too many, attempting to trim the slighly less known ones out. Carlwev (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Micrometre

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support:. --Igrek (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Not vital. Cut. Jusdafax 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Femtometre

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support:. --Igrek (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Not vital. Cut it. Jusdafax 21:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Microsecond

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support:. --Igrek (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Not vital, let's cut it. Jusdafax 21:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Millisecond

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 18:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support:. --Igrek (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - Chop it from the list. Jusdafax 21:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes