Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 20

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 20)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by GabeMc
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25
NO CONSENSUS
No new votes in 30 days

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: Remove Charles I of England, add George III of England

I had thought we were going to nix Chuck a while back, but apparently we didn't. We have the two rulers Chuck was between (James I/VI and Cromwell), both of whom are considerably more significant than Chuck, whose primary significance seems to be being separated from his head. Meanwhile, we've got nothing from the 18th century, including leaving off one of Britian's longest-reigning monarchs pbp 19:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom pbp 19:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I strongly oppose this, for reasons given in my comment below. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Comment Charles I precipitated the English Civil War, one of the most important events in British history and an important source of influence on the American and French revolutions. George III - well, what did he do? Lose the American colonies? Actually that was largely Lord North's doing (you could make a decent case for North on the list). I suppose his refusal to countenance Catholic Emancipation delayed it for quarter of a century or so, but I don't think that's really enough to warrant inclusion.
It's not surprising that the number of British monarchs on the list declines as the power of the monarchy declines. And guess what started that decline? The English Civil War. When Charles II was restored, the Divine Right of Kings was no more - English was a parliamentary monarchy. By the time of George III's accession, cabinet government had developed. Britain was largely governed by the Prime Minister and Cabinet - and, reflecting this, we have two 18th century British Prime Ministers (Sir Robert Walpole and William Pitt the Younger) on the list, so it's not like we're devoid of British leaders of the period.
There's a reason countless historians have written books on Charles I but few have on George III - Charles's historical significance is much greater. If we want to get rid of anyone from the 17th century, James VI & I would be a better candidate - I was a bit surprised to see him there. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Why? James VI/I unified England and Scotland, commissioned the King James Bible, and didn't get executed. You're essentially arguing that Charles I should be on there solely for his incompetence, and besides, we already have the English Civil War. pbp 03:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
pbp, well we have the King James Bible too. James VI & I actually failed in his attempt to unite England and Scotland - the Union didn't occur until 1707 (under Queen Anne). Happening to inherit the English throne and not getting executed are not exactly impressive claims for inclusion. What is important is how much of an impact he had on British history, and I believe Charles I clearly had more. But that's not terribly relevant since we're not choosing between James and Charles.
Saying Charles I is only important for being executed is like saying Lincoln is only important for being assassinated or Hitler is only important for committing suicide. Also I don't think it is correct to call him incompetent - most historians think he was quite able in many ways, but that his extremely inflexible views on kingship and policy led him to disaster. And regardless of what led him to disaster, his actions had a huge impact on British history.
Which brings me to what I want to ask you: what did George III do that was so important that he should be included? All you've said so far is that he was one of the longest-reigning monarchs, but length does not equal importance. Neljack (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
A lot of things happened in England under George's reign: the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the Napoleonic Wars being some of the high points. How much of that is attributable to George himself? Hard to say (though he was a patron of agriculture and the sciences, he didn't actually discover anything himself). You appear to be a British historian, so I'll take your word that something important happened in Charles' reign. But I genuinely feel this list would be amiss without George on it. And not having North somewhat surprised me as well. I'd have nixed one of the other second-tier monarchs, but I tried that a few months back, and people screamed bloody murder pbp 04:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Neljack:, out of curiosity, which British leaders would you pick given the current constraints of the number of British leaders (24) on the list? Conversely, who would you pick constrained only by the current size (~1970-2000) of the bios list? pbp 16:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
pbp, I agree that Mary Queen of Scots and Mary I should be removed. I'd also be inclined to remove King John (not sure being forced to sign the Magna Carta is quite enough for inclusion on this list) and Richard the Lionheart (not nearly as influential as he is famous - he barely ruled England at all and his crusades didn't meet with lasting success or impact). Among monarchs I would add Edward III, who turned England into a major European military power and started the Hundred Years' War, and possibly Henry VII, who restored stability after the Wars of the Roses and laid the foundations for the modern English state, particularly in the naval and financial spheres. Prime Ministers who have strong claims include William Pitt the Younger (who was instrumental in the fight against Napoleon and made major financial reforms), Earl Grey (responsible for the Great Reform Act of 1832, which set Britain on the road to democracy and averted the spectre of revolution), Sir Robert Peel (who repealed the Corn Laws, which had a lasting impact on British economically, politically and socially), Viscount Palmerston (a towering figure in European diplomacy for several decades - up there with the likes of Metternich and Bismarck, who we both have, as one of the most important European diplomats of the 19th century), and David Lloyd George (who led Britain during the First World War, as well as implementing major social reforms such as unemployment insurance and pensions as Chancellor of the Exchequer). I think that's a couple more than we currently have, but I'm struggling to decide who I'd leave out. Neljack (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
On a different but related subject, When I learned English/British history at school and College, Apart from a few like Henry VIII and William the Conqueror we didn't devote much learning time solely to individual monarchs, but we spent a lot of time on "Roman Britain". To me this topic seems more important than most single British/English leaders. It lasted over 350 years, much longer than any ruler obviously, and British Roman rule had an enormous lasting impact on many aspects of life in Britain. I know users seem to like biographies in themselves and sometimes to "represent" topics, but I find something like Roman Britain, is an actual vital topic of study in itself when looking at history in Britain. What do users think of this topic? to me seems at least equal or probably higher than say Maggie Thatcher, or Charles I. Carlwev (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The difficulty would be that then the question would arise - what about the history of other Roman provinces? Is the history of Britannia any more vital than the history of Gaul, Germania, Hispania, Dacia, Illyricum, Judea or Africa Proconsularis? Neljack (talk) 20:07, 3 November 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 50+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:26, 11 December 2013 (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 Robert Hooke

A true polymath: he was a pioneer of microscopy (his book Micrographia coined the biological term "cell"), was one of the first proponents of biological evolution, discovered Hooke's law, and was assistant to Christopher Wren, among other achievements.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Did very significant work in a range of fields. Not at well known as he should be, but scientists recognise his importance. Neljack (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. I dont think being well known is necessary for early scientists. influential is more important in this arena. and hes one of the pantheon, im not sure how he was missed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - not vital thoiugh his discoveries may be.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Maybe the Royal Society would be a good add. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 50+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:26, 11 December 2013 (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 Robert Noyce

Co-inventor of the integrated circuit, and co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Had a huge impact. Perhaps Jack Kilby (the other co-inventor of the integrated circuit and winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physics) should be included too. Neljack (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. -jack kilby is already on the list. this is a close call, though, and i can see reasons for not including, such as recentism and limited scope of his direct work. i know his name really well, didnt know kilbys that well, but kilby is definitely more lauded.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - not vital. His (co-)inventions perhaps.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 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.
Added pbp 16:53, 29 November 2013 (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 Rosalind Franklin

Important woman of science, helped discover DNA

Support
  1. Support as nom pbp 16:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support I tend to a agree with Cobblet about Lovelace, but not about Franklin - even Crick acknowledged that her contribution to the discovery of DNA was crucial. Neljack (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

One thing though; while Franklin and the recently-added Lovelace are frequently quoted examples of notable women in science, their contributions are markedly less significant than that of even other female scientists in the same field such as Hodgkin and Hopper, even though the latter names are less publicized. If we're to make a serious attempt at correcting issues of gender and ethnic bias on this list (this is a fine time to do it, since we've got less than 1000 people), let's do it without failing to give credit where credit is due. Cobblet (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hodgkin pioneered the idea of using X-ray crystallography to determine the structure of complex biomolecules, and developed the necessary techniques to do so. The importance of DNA makes Franklin's work notable, but if you look at the field of crystallography as a whole, Hodgkin's contributions dwarf Franklin's. For example, there is no mention of Franklin in X-ray crystallography#History. On the other hand, Franklin's tragic life story makes it an easy sell to the public, which is why I suspect most of us have heard about her but not about Hodgkin. Cobblet (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Hodgkin is extremely important - I just thought you weren't giving Franklin enough credit. Neljack (talk) 03:36, 9 November 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.
Completed and closed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:09, 10 December 2013 (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.

List of regions to keep, pending !vote, 139 99 articles

  1. Arctic Kept

Africa, 12

  1. Canary Islands
  2. Darfur Removed
  3. Mayotte Removed
  4. Puntland
  5. Réunion Removed
Large Regions, 7
  1. Central Africa
  2. East Africa
  3. North Africa
  4. Sahel
  5. Southern Africa
  6. Sub-Saharan Africa Kept
  7. West Africa

Americas, 24

  1. Amazon rainforest
  2. Central America
  3. French Guiana Removed
  4. Gran Chaco
  5. Latin America
  6. Patagonia
  7. São Paulo (state) Removed
  8. Southern Cone
Caribbean, 3
  1. Caribbean
  2. Curaçao
  3. Guadeloupe Removed
  4. Guam Removed
  5. Martinique Removed
  6. Puerto Rico Kept
Canada, 2
  1. Atlantic Canada Removed
  2. Northwest Territories Removed
  3. Nova Scotia Removed
  4. Nunavut Removed
  5. Ontario
  6. Quebec
  7. Yukon Removed
US, 9
  1. Alaska Kept
  2. California Kept
  3. Florida Kept
  4. Great Plains Kept
  5. Illinois Removed
  6. Midwestern United States
  7. New England
  8. New York Removed
  9. Pennsylvania Removed
  10. Southern United States
  11. Texas Kept
  12. Western United States

Europe, 34

  1. Crimea
  2. Eurasian Steppe
  3. Vojvodina
Belgium, 2
  1. Flanders
  2. Wallonia
Czech republic, 0
  1. Bohemia Removed
  2. Moravia Removed
France, 2
  1. Alsace Removed
  2. Brittany
  3. Languedoc Removed
  4. Provence
Germany, 1
  1. Bavaria
  2. North Rhine-Westphalia Removed
Italy, 1
  1. Southern Italy Removed
  2. Tuscany
  3. Veneto Removed
Portugal, 2
  1. Azores
  2. Madeira
Romania, 3
  1. Moldavia Kept
  2. Transylvania
  3. Wallachia
Russia, 10

Some of these are in Asia.

  1. Bashkortostan
  2. Caucasus
  3. Chechnya
  4. Dagestan
  5. Kaliningrad Oblast
  6. Komi Republic Removed
  7. Sakha Republic
  8. Siberia
  9. Tatarstan
  10. Udmurtia Removed
Scandinavia, 2
  1. Sápmi (area)
  2. Scandinavia
Spain, 3
  1. Basque Country (autonomous community)
  2. Catalonia
  3. Galicia (Spain)
UK, 4
  1. England
  2. Northern Ireland
  3. Scotland
  4. Wales

Asia, 38

  1. Central Asia
  2. Greater Khorasan
  3. Karakalpakstan Removed
  4. Kashmir
  5. Southeast Asia
  6. South Asia
China, 13
  1. Guangdong
  2. Guangxi
  3. Hebei
  4. Henan
  5. Inner Mongolia
  6. Jiangsu
  7. Manchuria
  8. Northeast China Removed
  9. Shandong
  10. Sichuan
  11. Tibet
  12. Xinjiang
  13. Yunnan
India, 8
  1. Andhra Pradesh
  2. Bihar Removed
  3. Gujarat
  4. Karnataka Removed
  5. Madhya Pradesh Removed
  6. Maharashtra
  7. Northeast India
  8. Rajasthan
  9. Tamil Nadu
  10. Uttar Pradesh
  11. West Bengal
Indonesia, 2
  1. Aceh
  2. Papua (province)
Middle East, 5
  1. Bahrain (historical region)
  2. Hejaz
  3. Kurdistan
  4. Levant
  5. Middle East
  6. Najd Removed
Pakistan, 2
  1. Balochistan, Pakistan
  2. Punjab, Pakistan
  3. Sindh Removed

Oceania, 7

  1. Guam
  2. Australasia Removed
  3. French Polynesia Removed
  4. Hawaii Kept
  5. Melanesia
  6. Micronesia
  7. New Caledonia
  8. New South Wales Removed
  9. Oceania
  10. Polynesia
  11. Queensland Removed

Antarctic, 1

  1. Queen Maud Land Removed

User:ColonelHenry User:GabeMc User talk:Maunus User:Purplebackpack89 User:Jusdafax User:Rsm77 User:Bedrieger User:Lukobe User:Rothorpe User:Igrek User:Cobblet

This is the compiled list of all the suggestions in the discussion above. As discussed on August 6th we will start proposals whether to keep the contested articles or not. Until then please take a look at the list and contest any articles you think are not vital enough to be on the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there were five articles on my original list (all Oceania articles) that I forgot to add to this one: they are Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia, New South Wales and Oceania. I've added them and updated the counts. Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawing Tundra, Taiga and Pampas from consideration; they're already listed in Biomes under Earth science. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 2 August 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.
REMOVED; 2–4 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Mayotte

Supports
  1. Support I think the overseas departments of France are significant enough to be included. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

A lot of island aren't included. I don't see why we should make an exception for France. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to make an exception for France (I'm not suggesting Saint-Martin or Wallis and Futuna), I just think more islands should be included in general, which is why I also suggested Guam and Curaçao. I'd agree that Mayotte is the least significant of the French overseas departments, and I'd say that French Polynesia is also more significant. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 6 August 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.
REMOVED; 4-4 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Réunion

Supports
  1. Support I think the overseas departments of France are significant enough to be included. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

A lot of islands aren't included. I don't see why we should make an exception for France. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we should include more islands. john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 22 September 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.
KEPT; 10–3 after 120= days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Sub-Saharan Africa

Supports
  1. Support An important term used to describe the part of Africa not in the Arab world. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Major world geo-political and economic unit. Can't even understand the idea that we would have a list of 10000 viral articles and omit sub-Saaran Africa. Guarantee no one on non-Western wikipedias would weigh this question. Oddly, this is the Western vision, also. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support Probably more important to have than East, West and Southern Africa. Neljack (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  9. Support Ypnypn (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  10. Support - --Zayeem (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose, already have East Africa, West Africa and Southern Africa. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 5-4 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep French Guiana

Supports
  1. Support I think the overseas departments of France are significant enough to be included. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 4–5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Guadeloupe

Supports
  1. Support I think the overseas departments of France are significant enough to be included, especially when this is one of the more well-known islands in the Lesser Antilles. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 3-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Martinique

Supports
  1. Support I think the overseas departments of France are significant enough to be included. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 3-6 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Atlantic Canada

Supports
  1. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The region didn't even exist as such until 1949, when Newfoundland joined Canada (the term was coined by Joey Smallwood, the leader of the confederation movement in Newfoundland and first Premier of the Province of Newfoundland). The Maritime Provinces, a better known and more historical term, would be a better choice. Neljack (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd say British Columbia or Alberta or Canadian Prairies would all be more significant, but none of them were kept. Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This process isn't going to work if not a single supporter of a proposal gives any rationale for doing so. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Atlantic Canada has been a significant region longer than the three provinces you've listed. It was one of the first parts of Canada settled; it has a distinct culture compared to the rest of Canada. It also saves us from having Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick or PEI on this list pbp 16:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There must be thousands of regions worldwide that have a "distinct culture". And why keep this and not Western Canada? Furthermore, why such generosity toward Canada and not Australia, nor other English-speaking countries with a much larger population and a much longer history, particularly India, but also Pakistan and the Philippines (Visayas was unanimously rejected not so long ago)? Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 19 October 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.
REMOVED; 3-6 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Northwest Territories

Supports
  1. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Sparsely populated and not very important; if provinces or territories they used to incorporate are very important we should include them, not this. Neljack (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

The Northwest Territories once encompassed most of Western Canada; until recently, they encompassed most of Northern Canada pbp 01:00, 7 August 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.
REMOVED; 4-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Nunavut

Supports
  1. Support Homeland of the Inuit people. I'm pretty sure that apart from the forced resettlement of Native Americans into the Indian Territory, this is the only case of an indigenous people in the Americas having their own self-governing territory. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    (Greenland)
  2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support GizzaTC 22:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 2-6 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Illinois

Supports
  1. Support I think the most populous and economically powerful US states deserve inclusion. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Ypnypn (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Chicago is very important, but there isn't much else of importance in Illinois. Neljack (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 4-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep New York

Supports
  1. Support I think the most populous and economically powerful US states deserve inclusion. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Northamerica1000(talk) 03:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose, we have the city. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose the city is enough.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Mainly important because of New York City, which we have. Neljack (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

#Oppose - Ypnypn (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC) changed to support

Discussion

To say that the state isn't worth including because we have the city is a little bit like saying Belgium isn't worth including because we have Brussels. What are the folks in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse going to think? Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not a human right to be on this list. IF the people of said towns would like to be on the list they should move to NYC.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Har har. My point is, both in this case and in that of Sao Paulo, the significance of the state is in no way subsumed by the significance of the city. Please don't let the coincidence that they share the same name mislead you into thinking otherwise. I mean, should we remove Guangdong because of Guangzhou? Or why stop at states? Let's remove Algeria because of Algiers. Or Taiwan because of Taipei. Or Mexico because of Mexico City!... Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Belgium is important, even aside from Brussels. Mexico is a major country, even ignoring its capital. Without NYC, how significant is the state? -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:54, 10 November 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.
REMOVED; 2-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Pennsylvania

Supports
  1. Support I think the most populous and economically powerful US states deserve inclusion. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose'User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose An important, but not very important, state. Neljack (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 3-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Bohemia

Supports
  1. Support, important historic region. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I agree it's redundant to Kingdom of Bohemia. The region article is 90% history too. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose since we have the Kingdom of Bohemia. Neljack (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd say that the only reason this might be more historically more significant than neighbouring regions, e.g. Silesia or the Sudetenland, is because it was once the Kingdom of Bohemia. But we already have that article in the History section. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 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.
REMOVED; 3-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Moravia

Supports
  1. Support, important historic region. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. Keep this and remove Great Moravia. Unlike the case of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Great Moravia was an ephemeral state. It makes much more sense to include as a region. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd say that the only reason this might be more historically more significant than other neighbouring regions, e.g. Silesia or the Sudetenland, is because of Great Moravia. But we already have that article in the History section. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 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.
REMOVED; 4-3 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Alsace

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support, because of an important linguistic aspect: people in this French region speak German. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose Not vital. How is it more significant than Lorraine? Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 5-4 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep North Rhine-Westphalia

Supports
  1. Support Most economically powerful state in Germany. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Has only existed since the Second World War. Not an historically important territory. Neljack (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 2-6 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Southern Italy

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Difference from North can be adequately explained in Italy in an abridged encyclopedia. It's a rather amorphous region. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Someone not using his real name. Neljack (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I could see an argument for including Kingdom of Naples in the history section, but it's probably overlapping History of Italy too much. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:51, 7 August 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.
REMOVED; 2-6 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Veneto

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Only one of 20 modern Italian regions and there's a separate history article for it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Cobblet and Someone not using his real name. Neljack (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Its historical significance is covered in the article on the Republic of Venice. Why include Veneto and not, say, Liguria because of the Republic of Genoa? Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 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.
REMOVED; 4-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Bihar

Supports
  1. Support Third most populous state in India, home to the Bihari people and languages. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support More than 100 million people; was very important in ancient India - Buddhism and the Maurya Empire originated there. Neljack (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose, too many Indian regions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

We should make sure India isn't under-represented on the English-language Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO 13 regions is too much. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My point is that India is part of the English-speaking world. With the removal of Sikkim and South India we stand at eleven Indian regions. China's represented by twelve if we remove Northeast China. How many more do you want to remove? Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If 13 is too much then it is better to divide India into regions. North India, South India, East India, West India and Northeast India perhaps? Otherwise some states will be included and others excluded arbitrarily. Gizza (t)(c) 11:14, 1 December 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.
REMOVED; 4-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Karnataka

Supports
  1. Support The erstwhile State of Mysore and home of the Kannada language. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Has a similar population to Britain, France or Italy, and considerable historical, cultural and economic significance.
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose, too many Indian regions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I don't think Karnataka's less significant than Tamil Nadu or Gujarat for example. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Neljack (talk) 10:46, 11 November 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.
REMOVED; 3-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Madhya Pradesh

Supports
  1. Support Second largest state of India. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Population of more than 75 million, similar to Turkey, as well as a long and rich history. Neljack (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose, too many Indian regions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 4–5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep Sindh

Supports
  1. Support Home to the Sindhi people. Plus English-speaking nations should not be underrepresented on this list. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Has a rich history. Neljack (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 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.
REMOVED; 7-5 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep French Polynesia

Supports
  1. Support We don't have Tahiti or Bora Bora, which I'm sure many people have heard of. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Ypnypn (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Enjoys political autonomy; has a significant history and distinctive indigenous culture. In reply to Maunus's point, surely the territory is more vital to have than particular islands in it? Neljack (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support Per Cobblet and Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 10:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose, we have Polynesia. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. 'Oppose the fact that we dont have Tahiti and Bora Bora which many have heard of should logically mean that we don't have French Polynesia which few people are aware of.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Polynesia includes a number of countries, including New Zealand, as well as the state of Hawaii. By that logic, we at least shouldn't be including Hawaii either then. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd prefer to have both Tahiti and French Polynesia; having at least one of them is definitely necessary, IMO. Cobblet (talk) 10:14, 25 August 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.
REMOVED; 3-4 after 120+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (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.

Keep New South Wales

Supports
  1. Support Vital in an English-language Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support GizzaTC 22:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. OpposeBedrieger (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

If we keep one state from Australia it should be this one. Nobody objected to including Ontario for Canada either, and Canada's got Quebec as well. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the arguments of those opposing. Too similar to Australia as a whole? Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:35, 7 August 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.
NO CONSENSUS; 2-0 after 60+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:10, 10 December 2013 (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 Add American Cordillera Remove Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains

Support !votes

  1. Support as nom -- --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support. Bedrieger (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Many geologists consider the American Cordillera to be the most interesting mountain range on Earth. Its geological history covers great accretions, great thrust belts, both thick and thin skinned, the uplifting of ancient batholiths, the great sedimentary strata present undeformed in areas and highly metamorphosed then uplifted in other areas. Its omission gives the list an F in geology. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Did you mean American Cordillera or North American Cordillera? I'm slightly concerned by the text in the lead of the latter article, which seems to imply that the term isn't well-defined (but the rest of the article doesn't seem to mention how this is the case, so maybe it's just a case of a poorly written lead.) I'll also note that Rocky Mountains is currently on the Level 3 list. I could support adding the more general North American Cordillera to this list if we remove Sierra Nevada. If you did in fact mean to suggest American Cordillera, I will note that we already added Ring of Fire—there isn't total overlap, I know, but for an overview article on orogeny related to the Pacific Plate, that seems to be the best article. Cobblet (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The American Cordillera. Some of the geology articles appear to have been written by an editor using a wide range of archaic sources, leaving the editor grasping for a modern-day definition. Actually, Ring of Fire in no way covers the American Cordillera; the former is defined by volcanics and earthquakes, while the latter is defined by continental accretion and thrust belts. No way does Ring of Fire even go near the continental importance of the American Cordillera. The Rocky Mountains on the Level 3 list is a purely American-centric listing; they are no way vital to the rest of the world; it's the American Cordillera that should be on the Level 3 list, if that is a place where mountain ranges go. Also, because the processes change through time in a north to south direction, although the North American Cordillera is more vital than the South, it is better to include the big daddy of mountain ranges, the American Cordillera. That is the article that should eventually be developed to one of Wikipedia's finest as a vital article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
But even in terms of plate tectonics a distinction can be made between the Rockies and the Andes and to a general audience I think both are equally vital (which I suppose why they're both on the list), and the geology of both can be covered by those articles. If we made this swap, wouldn't we not only have to remove Andes, but also have to make the analogous swap of the Alps and Himalayas for the Alpide belt? And that term's probably even less frequently encountered in a non-geological context. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 28 September 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.
Added pbp 16:33, 3 December 2013 (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 National park

Support
  1. Support -ELEKHHT 20:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Indeed. Cobblet (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 19:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support Makes sense. Neljack (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support GizzaTC 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Seems odd to have 13 individual national parks but not the overarching article. --ELEKHHT 20:59, 18 October 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.
FAILED; 2–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (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 White House

Comparables on the list: Moscow Kremlin, Buckingham Palace.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per Elekhh. I think the United States Capitol is actually more interesting. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Doesn't really fit well in architecture, as its notability is mostly due to being a place of power, regardless of its architectural design. --ELEKHHT 01:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

True, although since the other comparables are listed here, I put the nomination here as well. We can always move them around later. Cobblet (talk) 01:59, 19 October 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.
FAILED; 1–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (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 St. Basil's Cathedral

Comparables on the list: Chartres Cathedral, St. Peter's Basilica.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm thinking about this one, I was also thinking if we should have "Cathedral" itself which is also missing and quite important. Carlwev (talk) 01:37, 24 October 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.
FAILED; 2–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (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 Forbidden Palace

Comparables on the list: Buckingham Palace, Palace of Versailles.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Should be Forbidden City though.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Also notable for the Palace Museum, which is one of the most important museums in the world. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (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 Chichen Itza

Comparables on the list: Machu Picchu, Petra.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Crossed my before Carlwev (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Although better candidates from Mesoamerica would be Palenque (more notable architecture, as a prime example of clasic Maya art) or Teotihuacan (greater historical importance, and greater architectural influence as the place of origin of the Talud-Tablero pyramid).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 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.
Added pbp 16:30, 3 December 2013 (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 Ancient Greek architecture

Important in itself, as well as for its long lasting influence on Roman architecture, Renaissance architecture and 19th century neoclassicism.

Support
  1. Support -ELEKHHT 01:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support Very influential. Neljack (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 13 November 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.
Added pbp 16:30, 3 December 2013 (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 Modern architecture

This article summarizes a broad range of 20th century movements and styles that broke with tradition.

Support
  1. Support -ELEKHHT 01:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Essential at this level pbp 17:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support We need to cover contemporary, as well as historical, architecture. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 13 November 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.
FAILED; 2–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (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 Temple in Jerusalem

Support
  1. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 13 November 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.
FAILED; 6–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (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 Palace of Westminster

Support
  1. Support Carlwev (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 19:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Possibly the best known building in the whole UK, more vital than other buildings, bridges, and museums we have included from within London. A UNESCO World heritage site notable for architecture, role in government, and history such as the Gunpowder Plot. Carlwev (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Nah, Buchingham Palace, Big Ben and the Tower are all much more well known.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for saying Big Ben is well known but, The Palace of Westminster is Big Ben. (officially the bell is called Big Ben, The tower is called Elizabeth Tower or just clock tower, and the whole building is called Palace of Westminster also called the Houses of Parliament or Big Ben too) Carlwev (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Big Ben and the palace are covered in different articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • On a side note concerning all these works of art and architecture. It looks odd to me there are 168 works of literature expanded from 5 in the 1000 list. 69 works of music, expanded from none in the 1000. 30 works of art expanded from 1 in the 1000 list. Works of architecture has 8 in the 1000 list expanded to currently 29 here, seems proportionately low. Maybe it's an unfair comparison but Palace of Westminster, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Christ the Redeemer, Chichen Itza etc seem more vital to me than a painting like The Blue Boy, or text like Dashakumaracharita. Carlwev (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that architectural works are under-represented here, but would argue that they're extremely over-represented on the Level 3 list. Personally I believe only two topics have strong cases to be on that list—the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China; and I've already suggested swapping three of the others for what I consider to be more notable topics. Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I would say 50 works of architecture seems to be the number. pbp 19:39, 15 November 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:39, 28 November 2013 (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 Cerberus and Siren

Support
  1. Support as nom. Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose.Especially Cerberus is vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

pbp 16:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC) (to keep this from being archived by a bot; I'm still neutral)

  • I note that they are actually listed under Mythology in the Philosophy and Religion sub-list, not under Literature on the Arts one. Neljack (talk) 23:13, 14 November 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.
Removed pbp 16:30, 3 December 2013 (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 The Fantasticks

Support
  1. Support Not one of the four most notable musicals ever. Could be replaced by something like Cats or The Threepenny Opera --Rsm77 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support When we don't have Show Boat or any of the George M. Cohan musicals, this seems like an easy axe pbp 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Not even the longest-running show in general, which would be The Mousetrap. Cobblet (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Way too much musical theater already.-User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support GizzaT/C 08:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support Yeah, an odd choice. Neljack (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
Added pbp 16:30, 3 December 2013 (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 Terracotta Army

We have precisely one non-European work of art on the list: The Great Wave off Kanagawa. It's time we added a second.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support I was thinking of nominating this myself, I was thinking of Leaning Tower of Pisa and Christ the Redeemer too. Carlwev (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support (arts quota should be officially raised) --Rsm77 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  7. support Bedrieger (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support GizzaTC 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
Removed pbp 16:30, 3 December 2013 (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 Manneken Pis

This work is a minor joke, not a vital world class piece of art.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. support Bedrieger (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
Added pbp 16:30, 3 December 2013 (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 Olmec colossal heads

Among the earliest and most impressive sculptural works of the Americas.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. support Bedrieger (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Haven't made up my mind here, but it seems to me like the Moai of Easter Island have a stronger case.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Moai may be more known but they didnt mark the beginning of a complex civilization that lasted for two thousand years. And whereas the Olmex heads are known for their level of craftmanship the Moai are mostly known for being mysterious.
I think both make excellent additions. Cobblet (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I would support the addition of both the Moai and Olmec colossal heads. Gizza (t)(c) 23:00, 1 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS; 3–2 after 90+ days with no !votes in the past 30 days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:34, 12 November 2013 (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 Imperial cult

We have Imperial cult (ancient Rome), but the Romans were hardly the only ones who practised it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 23:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not that vital, a swap of the general topic for the specific might be in order.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:15, 9 October 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.
FAILED; 2–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:50, 28 November 2013 (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 Underworld

Just a list of underworlds in different mythologies, and we already have afterlife, heaven and hell.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is another case of an article on an important topic needing fixing. I believe this to be a pervasive enough topic (it's in almost every mythology) to belong on this list pbp 23:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

It's definitely pervasive, but doesn't it go hand in hand with afterlife? Do we really need both articles? Cobblet (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

By the same logic, heaven and hell should also be on the block. I believe that those three articles are of relatively equal importance, and we shouldn't delete one without deleting the other two pbp 15:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind removing those two either—there are probably better articles on religion to include, aren't there? Cobblet (talk) 17:28, 21 October 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:52, 28 November 2013 (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 Christian monasticism

From scholarship to music and even to brewing, monks have left a lasting impact on Western culture.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 23:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:05, 14 November 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:31, 28 November 2013 (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 Diwali

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 03:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support GizzaTC 22:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

We have 10 articles dedicated to holidays, 6 are Jewish or Christian, 1 Islamic, 3 traditional. If we want several holidays There are no holidays from the far East nor native American. To make the religion biographies more even we are including Madhvacharya, Gaudapada, Kanada and Kapila for Hinduism. Although biographies and festivals/holidays are in different sections, to me these 2 Hindu festivals seem of equal or greater importance than those biographies to Hinduism and to an encyclopedia, even so I think adding these holidays improves the culture list, makes that small holiday list more diverse, and adds articles that are more vital than many things we have. Diwali and Holi are possibly the best well known and important Hindu Holidays/festivals, we should probably have them if we are having 6 Judo/Christian festivals. Carlwev (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd support adding this and Holi, but we probably also need to add Carnival, Eid al-Fitr (Ramadan's not a holiday), Eid al-Adha, Chinese New Year (most notable example of the Lunar New Years), Harvest festival, and possibly International Workers' Day and Remembrance Day. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I could support some of those pbp 03:33, 30 October 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:55, 28 November 2013 (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 Holi

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support GizzaTC 22:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:28, 13 November 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.
FAILED; 1–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:55, 28 November 2013 (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 Day of the Dead

I think we are including many artists and works of art that are much less artistic and culturally significant than this festival, very important cultural/religious festival in central America, and well known everywhere, the festival's macabre artistic style has had a fair amount of influence to many areas of art. Carlwev (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

In my opinion this isn't notable enough: the Chinese analogue Qingming Festival would have a better case (Du Mu's eponymous poem is one of the most well-known Chinese poems, and Along the River During the Qingming Festival is China's most notable painting), but I wouldn't even consider any Chinese celebration besides Chinese New Year worthy of inclusion on this list. Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 25 October 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.
FAILED; 5–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:01, 28 November 2013 (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 Shooting sport

This is the one Olympic sport (I'm not referring to sub-disciplines or multiple-sport events; I don't believe we need all of those) we don't have on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Can't believe I missed it several years ago when I cleaned up the Meta sports list that was later transcluded here pbp 15:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support GizzaTC 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - There are far too many sports related topics already included in this list. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. opppose Sport is already overrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose; I don't see why every sport ever played at the Olympics is vital. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

What do people think about adding Triathlon? Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 21 October 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.
All three removed :-( pbp 16:40, 3 December 2013 (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 Reversi, Cluedo and Sudoku

Quite simply not vital. These are fad games, and games that are not socially or culturally significant even in the few cultures where they are known.

Support
  1. Support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom on Reversi and Cluedo; support removing sudoku on grounds of recentism. Cobblet (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support per Cobblet. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Cluedo has the strongest case, I think, but it's not quite up there with Monopoly and Scrabble--Rsm77 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. - An excellent suggestion! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

With it being 6-0 within 36 hours of the thread opening, these are probably going to be deleted, and I am personally neutral on the three. However, I think it's wrong to classify Reversi and Clue(do) as "fad" games. Not as important as Monopoly or Scrabble or the other games on this list, sure. But they have various international versions, and both have been existence for at least 60 years, Reversi for over 100. pbp 18:48, 5 November 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.
FAILED; 2–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:40, 28 November 2013 (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 Royal Library, Denmark

And I'll suggest adding the one national library not on the list that's got a larger collection than Canada's.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I know this library well, but still I dont think we need the 15 largest libraries. 5 should be enough.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:35, 13 November 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:56, 30 November 2013 (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 University of Virginia

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose see below pbp 15:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - Per PbP. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agree with pbp. It was also the first US university that was completely unaffiliated with any religion. Neljack (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

One of America's first and most significant public universities. The first American university to offer extensive studies in astronomy, politics, and natural sciences. Still one of the highest-ranked American universities in the world. A UNESCO World Heritage site. pbp 15:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Founded in 1819 it is not among the oldest universities in the US public or private, Rutgers, Georgia, Chapel Hill and William and Mary are all considerably older. Its ranking is not in the global top 100.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The thing is that UVA was different from all the universities founded before it. And it was still ranked #2 among American public universities recently. pbp 15:24, 27 November 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:58, 30 November 2013 (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 Imperial College London

No longer part of the University of London, which is on the list. If we don't consider it vital, there are a number of comparable modern European universities we'd have to remove as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not necessary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

This raises an interesting point. The University of London is basically a very loose confederation of colleges. As our article on it points, the colleges acts as individual universities for most purpose. Some even award their own degrees now. The leading colleges are certainly better known than the University. So does it make much sense to have the University? Would we be better to have the University College London and the London School of Economics, the most prominent colleges? They are at least as important as Imperial College, I would suggest. University College was the first university in England that was open to all regardless of their religion (Oxford and Cambridge were strictly Church of England). The LSE has had a big influence in economics (five Nobel laureates, including Hayek), as well as being a pioneer in sociology, international relations and politics. Neljack (talk) 10:45, 26 November 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.
NO CONSENSUS; 3–2 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (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 Vocational education

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 19 November 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (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 Academia

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm going list a few terms related to academia here - see if you agree that we need them.

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; 2–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (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 Academic degree

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 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.
FAILED; 2–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (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 Doctorate

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 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.
FAILED; 2–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (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 Professor

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Do we have any other job titles? -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ones I remember are soldier, officer, teacher, lawyer, judge, mathematician, physician, farmer, priest, peasant, clown, mime artist, I imagine there's a few more, I don't know if they are all needed, agriculture, farm and farmer? who knows. (Most are professional academic kind of jobs, and those jobs which don't have industry/artform articles. As in we have dance the artform but not dancer. but clown, there is no "clownhood" article to have, mime redirects to mime artist so we cannot have mime etc.) Carlwev (talk) 18:15, 6 November 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (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 Academic journal

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. support - Ypnypn (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (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 Peer review

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose academic institution of minor global importance. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:09, 30 November 2013 (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 Natural History Museum, London

With 5 million visitors, this was the fourth most visited museum in the UK in 2012; among natural history museums it's about as popular as the American Museum of Natural History and trails only the most popular Smithsonian museums in number of visitors.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - Why is the 4th most visited museum in the UK vital? What about the other three? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not necessary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

The first is on the list, the second is proposed below, and Rsm has suggested proposing the third (to which I have no objection). But the list is currently dominated by art museums so I think it's more necessary to add this than to add the National Gallery. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 25 October 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:09, 30 November 2013 (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: Remove Philadelphia Museum of Art, Add National Palace Museum

The list of museums is dominated by art museums in Europe and the USA. Let's at least take a stab at fixing the imbalance. Of the six American art museums on the list I suggest removing the one with the fewest number of visitors (let me know if there's a better way to assess their significance) and replacing it with the most visited museum in Asia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)\
  2. Support pbp 21:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 60+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:29, 10 December 2013 (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 Model organism

Obviously vital, but I could not find it on list. Maybe it is listed elsewhere?

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - not obvious to me. What is vital abot this technical concept of no consequence to most people?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:43, 13 November 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.
FAILED; 1–3 after 60+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:29, 10 December 2013 (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 Green fluorescent protein

Obviously vital, but I could not find it on list. Maybe it is listed elsewhere?

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - Per Cobblet. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Unfortunately, we are in no position to consider adding this to the list when far more fundamental topics like fluorescence aren't listed (see below for a proposal to add it); nor are other more basic techniques in molecular biology, such as Gel electrophoresis, Western blot, Polymerase chain reaction or assay currently listed. Cobblet (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

PCR and advances in microscopy developed from GFP define biology today, yet we have three types of telescope and all twelve signs of the zodiac plus the zodiac article. It seems en.Wikipedia missed the dominant paradigm in biology. The biology list is stunning, "dicots?" It needs to move into the twenty-first century. I don't really see how "molecular biology" is fourth level, but PCR and GFP are far more important to modern biology than all twelve signs of the zodiac, individually, to astronomy. A high level of ignorance displayed by the omission of the late twentieth century revolution in technologies that led to all the discoveries in cell biology and genetics that give the current state of biology and evolution and taxonomy today is sad. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:04, 24 September 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.
FAILED; 1–4 after 60+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:29, 10 December 2013 (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 Laboratory rat

Obviously vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - We just got rid of all the rats. Lets not add new ones.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I would support adding brown rat—the discussion of its laboratory use in that article is a bit pithy atm, but could be expanded to an extent that including this article on this list would not be necessary, particularly if model organism is also included on the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be unnecessary to inflate the content of the brown rat article with information about the lab rat simply to make it a vital article. However, mammal wise, the brown rat is hard to beat, and I would agree with its inclusion as a vital article, pretty much needs to be, and a good paragraph about why it was suitable to develop it as a lab organism would be good. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:13, 24 September 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.
FAILED; 2–3 after 60+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:29, 10 December 2013 (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 Domain (biology)

Not as significant as the other ranks.

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. support Bedrieger (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Current system of classification is based on three domains of life. This will be a snow oppose. --(AfadsBad (talk))
  2. Oppose Highest level of classification used on Wikispecies, for example (synonymous with superregnum). Cobblet (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

@Cobblet: If we include superregnum, should we include the other 30 ranks as well? I think only the seven main ones are vital. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the seven main ranks should all be included. There really isn't much to say about most of them that isn't covered in biological classification. Species is worth listing, but the rest of them? It might be better to add cladistics and binomial nomenclature. Plantdrew (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Genus, species and domain. I might include kingdom, but would rather make it happen in the nomenclature article. Also, I wish we could combine two articles as one, genus and species, for example, but I suppose we could do species and cover genus as necessary in its article. Actally genus is a hell of a lot more vital than having Bach and four of his works. We are missing some major topics in biology, let's not diminish the entire taxonomic structure. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC))

@Ypnypn: Obviously not, of course. But the ongoing debate about how best to group the domains and kingdoms is noteworthy enough that if anything, domain (biology) and kingdom (biology) are likely more vital than the other ranks not involved in binomial nomenclature (which might be an alternative to including genus). I agree we need to examine the issue of whether all eight ranks are worth including, but AfadsBad is right in that apart from the organisms, the biology section needs to be expanded, not cut, and that this issue is better addressed once we have a stronger list of topics to compare the taxonomic ranks with. As a side note, elsewhere on the list, some similar sublists that have already been pared down (we're down to battalion and division (military) to represent military organization) but some have not. (I proposed adding all the SI units and many of the derived units, and was actually a little surprised to see them pass without much fanfare, but User:John K has been critical of their inclusion and he has a point.) Anyway, thank you for raising the issue. Cobblet (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC) (P.S. to AfadsBad: I heard you the first time about the Bach!)

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; 2–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:43, 28 November 2013 (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 Hydrothermal vent

An important and interesting ecosystem, the study of which is enriching our understanding of how life can survive in extreme conditions, with implications on the origin of life on this and other planets.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 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.

Add Ice age

FAILED; 3–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:22, 28 November 2013 (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 Inequality (mathematics)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support, quite an omission! --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Math is overrepresented aleady. Might support a swap, but no straight adds to this section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 19 November 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.
Proposal completed and closed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:57, 10 December 2013 (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.

Closing the #Regions discussion

Latest comment: 10 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

Looking back in the archives, we never really agreed on how to close these keep proposals when there was no clear consensus. Given that Geography is over 100 articles below its quota (which I'd propose cutting to 1200, since we're at 1192 articles; of course, even then we'd still be under quota), I propose that we take an inclusionist approach and keep all articles with more than one supporting !vote. If there are no objections to this, I will close all the keep proposals next weekend, and remove Nova Scotia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Komi Republic, Udmurtia and Karakalpakstan from the list. Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume that you don't intend to keep entries with more than one oppose. Is that an accurate statement? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I do though; sorry I wasn't clear. All of the articles currently still being voted on do have more than one oppose, and I am proposing to keep all of them with the exception of the six I listed above. Cobblet (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for being the only person to respond! I'll start an actual discussion later tonight. Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have closed a number of 1-4 votes as removed. I hope that's OK with e'erbud pbp 17:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Calling User:Purplebackpack89, User:V3n0M93, User:BluesFan38, User:ColonelHenry, User:GabeMc, User:Maunus, User:Jusdafax, User:Rsm77, User:Bedrieger, User:Lukobe, User:Rothorpe, User:Igrek, User:John K, User:Northamerica1000, User:Carlwev, User:Horologium, User:Melody Lavender. Here are the results of the discussions we haven't closed yet, sorted by support !vote vs. oppose !vote ratio:

Originally GabeMc suggested removing all of these, but nobody responded to this suggestion. How do you guys feel about it now? Cobblet (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I would be happy if we could retain at least some of these, especially those with more votes for than against.--Rsm77 (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I think that Nunavut and the other 2-4s should be deleted. On the other hand, Sub-Saharan Africa and North Rhine-Westphalia probably should be kept. I have no idea what to do with anything else. It all depends on how you read the consensus to open the discussion. I do believe that the long list, and any discussion that's already been closed, needs to be archived. pbp 03:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason why the usual rules shouldn't apply? I find it hard to see any relevant difference from other remove nominations where there is no consensus. Neljack (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
No, these were originally going to be handled the same was as any add thread, and those without consensus to keep were to be dropped. That is until Cobblet bull-dozed everyone and "took over" the proposal. All of these that have failed to earn 70% support for keeping should be dropped per the agreed upon consensus prior to the proposal going live. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Amusing that my good-faith proposal is characterized as "bulldozing", while something that Gabe proposed months ago when the list was still over 10,000 articles (if that hadn't been the case, there wouldn't have been a pressing need to remove articles), and which nobody else explicitly supported, either at the time or right now, is labelled "agreed upon consensus." I proposed keeping all of them because I suspect the votes would have turned out in exactly the same way whether we treated them as "add" or "delete" proposals. But frankly, the lack of informed discussion in many of the threads on this page has dulled my interest in the entire project for the time being, so I no longer have an opinion either way. Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I really didn't mean to offend you, Cobblet, but FTR, the original proposal was User:V3n0M93's idea; I merely added some thoughts and suggestions for it's execution. We fully intended to see the proposal through, until you came in a couple of days before we planned to go live and added 50+ more regions, which was fine in itself, but then you proceeded to marshall the entire proposal to the point that both V3n0M93 and I ended our administrative participation. While I cannot say that V3n0M93's participation was affected by you, I can say that I did not help with the execution because you "took it over". Which again, was fine in itself, but then you tried to change the whole direction and include ALL regions with even two supports. Question: why would we keep any region that did not earn 70% support? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Answer: Because there was neither a consensus for removal (<70% voted for removal) nor a consensus to start by removing everything, then only add back what got 70% support. Many people only wanted to remove a set number of regions, a number which has already been exceeded. There was a consensus to remove most regions, not all of them. If something that is already on the list is at 50/50, it defaults to being kept. If something that is off the list is at 50/50, it says off. pbp 04:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
PbP, that's not at all what we agreed upon; that's a completely new approach that I have never even seen proposed. On 26 July (5 days before Cobblet edited here) I wrote: "If an article fails to earn 5 supports and 70% it will not be kept." Nobody contested that poition, which was in perfect keeping with the way the proposal had been executed. If a keep thread did not earn 5 supports and 70% support, it should not be kept, per standard operating procedure. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"Standard operating procedure" is to keep something unless 70% want to delete it, though. Are you suggesting that we voted to ignore standard operating procedure for this particular discussion? Because though I voted to remove some regions, I didn't vote to ignore standard operating procedure in doing so. This is one of the reasons I thought 70% was too high a threshold, because you have this no-man's-land between 30 and 70. It appears I'm arguing to divide it at 50, while you're arguing that anything in the no-man's-land should be removed. pbp 18:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
My understanding was that we were re-making the entire list and that those entries which we were unsure about keeping would have to earn consensus to keep, which requires a minimum of 70% and 5 supports. Look at it this way, why should we treat a keep thread any different than a delete thread? A delete thread with 5 supports and 70% support passes, just as a swap, move, or add thread would. A delete thread with a 5-3 !vote does not pass. In fact, we don't pass any proposals that don't earn 70% support and 5 support !votes, so why would any keep threads pass if they did not get 70% support and 5 support !votes? Perhaps we should have instead done delete threads for all the regions (which would have been 277 threads), but Cobblet was the one who added the keep threads in the first place. It's not complicated; we were re-making the list with the consensus that any regions that did not earn support for keeping would be dropped. Where is the miscommunication here? The discussion about 70/30 is not relevant at this point; we aren't going to adjust that threshold mid-proposal. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The miscommunication is you're seeing the discussion beginning with a consensus to cut everything, and I'm seeing the discussion beginning with a consensus to cut a lot of things. pbp 00:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
No, you're misrepresenting my position. We decided that about 150 entries would not have to be !voted on. We only !voted on the borderline inclusions, which were only about 75 or so out of 277, which is exactly what you suggested in your support !vote. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Per your assertion that "nobody else explicitly supported, either at the time or right now, [what] is labelled 'agreed upon consensus.'" Is patently false and I suggest that you re-read all of the archived discussion. We had a clear consensus by 21 July, which was nine days before you made your first edit here, in fact it was !voted in 9-1, so I don't know what you mean. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:52, 24 November 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.
CLOSE; posted this at the wrong talk page. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 30 November 2013 (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 Middle East from Geography: Continents and regions

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

In Geography: Continents and regions, we include both Asia and Middle East, but since the Middle East is a region of Asia, and we do not include any other sub-regions of any other continents other than Arctic, I think this could be trimmed as excess double-coverage. I realize that the region is quite notable, but certainly others that we do not include are equally important. At any rate, per WP:UNDUE it seems odd to single out one specific region of Asia as being equally important as the continents. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support. - As nom; we don't include any other sub-regions within any other continents except Arctic, so why should not include this specific region that is just one small part of Asia, which is of course already included. GabeMc (talk|contribs)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, maybe move instead: Under regions, we include some regions that encompass more than one country. We also include many regions within a single country that are of much less historical and cultural significance than the Middle East. pbp 22:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
  • User:Purplebackpack89, I think that you are thinking about Level 4. Here at Level 3, we do not include any of the regions that you speak off except the Middle East. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
GabeMc, this is the level 4 page. Did you mean to post on the level 3 page instead? pbp 22:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89, yes. I messed up and posted this on the wrong talk page. Sorry and thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:28, 30 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_20&oldid=1086816739"