Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 19

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 10 years ago by GabeMc
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25
Removed, 5-1 pbp 21:21, 21 October 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 Alexander Scriabin

Scriabin was a very interesting composer but there are more influential composers such as Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach who aren't on the list. Even within the 20th century, Scriabin was arguably a less influential figure than Richard Strauss.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Scriabin was unquestionably less important than Strauss. He stood out to me as possibly the most surprising inclusion in the composers section. Neljack (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Actually strongly disagree with reasoning of nom and Neljack (see below). Alfietucker (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Scriabin laid the foundations for Stravinsky, Prokofiev and even Shostakovich, though the last mentioned vilified him in his maturity: and a lot of contemporary composers have cited him as an influence compared to Strauss. Alfietucker (talk) 17:01, 20 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.


User:V3n0M93 notified of consensus Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 19 October 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.

Create "Historic Cities" section

There are quite a few articles about different historical cities across the sections in the History list (there are also some on the other lists). I suggest creating a section in the History list for all of the historical cities. Considering the fact that they span across few periods, I don't think they can be categorized in the current sections of the list.

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - I assume you mean that we would put this sub-list somewhere in History. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support although the name of the category should be Historical cities. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
Discussion

Yes. It's just a reorganisation of the History list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:16, 5 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.
Kept 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Arctic

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
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 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 22 September 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 Darfur

Supports
  1. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose. Not vital. Only known because of the War in Darfur. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We should add War in Darfur instead. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per User:V3n0M93 and User:Cobblet. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 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.
Withdrawn; proposed in a swap under Biomes Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 21 August 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 Pantanal

Supports
  1. Support Largest wetland in the world. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose, not a region. --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)
Discussion

It should be added under parks, not here. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll propose adding it to Biomes in Earth Science. Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 11 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 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 22 September 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 São Paulo (state)

Supports
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:45, 6 August 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 john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. oppose we have the city and the state is not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

This state is much larger than the city itself; it includes Campinas too, for one. It's also singlehandedly responsible for 33.9% of Brazil's GDP and it has a bigger economy than Bavaria or Ontario, for example. Cobblet (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We have Campinas on the list too. As for the economy, I don't think GDP alone can make a region vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
GDP is a proxy for economy. And of course economic importance matters - for historical states, why do we include Republic of Venice and Republic of Genoa but not, say, the Duchy of Savoy? And if it matters as a criterion for choosing historical states, why not modern ones as well? Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 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.
Kept 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Guam

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
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.
Kept 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Puerto Rico

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Note that it's a fairly autonomous region that is neither geographically connected to the USA, nor has that much in common with it 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.

Keep Nova Scotia

Removed pbp 15:19, 19 October 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.

Supports
  1. Support important historical maritime province. 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. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

If Atlantic Canada is being kept there's definitely no reason to include this. Cobblet (talk) 09:36, 10 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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Yukon

Supports
  1. Support historical region. 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. Oppose pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 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.
All kept 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Alaska

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
Discussion

Keep California

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
Discussion

Keep Florida

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Horologium (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
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.
Kept 5-0, moved to Earth Science under Biomes Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Great Plains

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
Discussion

We should move this into Biomes under Earth Science. Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 11 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.
Kept 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Texas

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support I don't see how this is possibly in dispute. Texas is the second most populous state, and, along with Hawaii, the only one to have been an independent country. It's also got a kind of unique cultural mix, and is vital to the larger culture of the country as a whole. If we could only include one U.S. state, I think Texas would be competitive with California as the one to include. john k (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Don't forget the independent Vermont Republic. Horologium (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Horologium (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose. - Texas is included in Southern United States, which is already on the list. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Texas straddles several different geographic regions, and is somewhat different from each of the other states in those. It's a former Confederate state where the most common ethnic group is Mexican (this dividing White Americans among English, Irish, Italian, &c). There are also 25 million people in Texas pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As noted by pbp89 and John k, Texas has a great deal of history and cultural richness, as well as substantial current impact. Two of the five most populous metropolitan areas in the United States are in Texas. If Texas were an independent nation, it would have one of the 15 largest economies in the world. Horologium (talk) 15:37, 11 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.
Withdrawn Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 22 September 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 Languedoc

Supports
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)
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.
Kept 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Moldavia

Supports
  1. Support, important historic region. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
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.

Keep Komi Republic

Removed pbp 16:19, 19 October 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.

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose Not vital. Why not Karelia too then? 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 BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I wanted to include all the Russian republics, because they are the historic home of many different ethnic groups that are not represented anywhere on the list, but it met with resistance. I think we should at least keep the ones that were currently on the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But Republic of Karelia is probably more significant in every respect. I don't see why this is more significant than Karakalpakstan either. The fact the latter's in Uzbekistan instead of Russia makes it more significant, not less, I opine. Cobblet (talk) 20:35, 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.

Keep Udmurtia

Removed pbp 16:19, 19 October 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.

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose Not vital. 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 BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 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.

Keep Karakalpakstan

Removed pbp 16:19, 19 October 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.

Supports
  1. Support The only autonomous region in Central Asia, homeland of the Karakalpak people. Historically significant as Khwarezm. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 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. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I don't think the modern region is that vital. Plus we have the Khwarazmian dynasty on the History list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:16, 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.
Withdrawn Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 22 September 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 Northeast China

Supports
Opposes
  1. Oppose, we have Manchuria. --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. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 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.
Not kept 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 26 August 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 Sikkim

Supports
Opposes
  1. Oppose, too many Indian regions. --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. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 24 August 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.
Withdrawn Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 21 August 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 South India

Supports
Opposes
  1. Oppose, we have Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. --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. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

When I nominated this there were hardly any Indian regions. As Cobblet made several additions, I'm no longer supporting this. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:41, 8 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.
Withdrawn; already listed under Land relief Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 26 August 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 Najd

Supports
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· 00:52, 24 August 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 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 22 September 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 Australasia

Supports
  1. Support One of the names for the Australian continent, still in common use I think. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 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. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

We have Australia (continent), Australia and New Zealand. We don't need this one too. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

and frankly we don't need Australia (continent) either.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree Australia (continent) can go. I'll put it this way: Oceania can be subdivided into Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. Since we have the other three terms, keeping this one seems logical to me. Cobblet (talk) 10:11, 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.
Kept 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 21 August 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 Hawaii

Supports
  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
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.
Both withdrawn Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 22 September 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 Queensland

Supports
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. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Keep Queen Maud Land

Supports
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. Oppose john k (talk) 14:11, 7 August 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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 22 September 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 Minas Gerais, Brazil

Support
  1. Support pbp 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. If we're keeping a whole bunch of US states, I see no good reason to exclude this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I think this is a better Brazilian state to keep than Sao Paolo. pbp

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. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 29 October 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 Dinka people

Supports
  1. As nom. Now that we've created some breathing room I think that some glaring omissions should be addressed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support A single ethnic group from the Nilotic peoples is more relatable, and as the major South Sudanese group and most well known, the Dinka are the best choice. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
Opposes
Discussion

Before we start adding every sub-Saharan African ethnic group to the list, can we establish some criteria for which ones to include? I see the value of adding umbrella groups like Bantu peoples, but why the Dinka and not, say, the Hausa and Igbo peoples of Nigeria? (The Yoruba have been proposed.) Or the Oromo and Amhara peoples of Ethiopia? Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the point on representing Nilotic peoples, Maasai people has just been added, and I suspect they're more well-known internationally. Cobblet (talk) 18:00, 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.
Not added 3-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:35, 23 October 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 Quantum computer

Technology is still below quota, so I see no problem.

Support !votes

  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.
Not happenin' pbp 22:44, 19 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 Mary Cassatt

Important American Impressionist painter. Her works include The Child's Bath.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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.
No consensus, 3-2 pbp 16:14, 4 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 Arturo Toscanini

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support One of the most important conductors of all time. Conductors are currently under-represented, with only two on the list. Neljack (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Classical music topic area overrepresented already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Comment on adds: I'm not entirely sure that when we get to 9,990 or whatnot, conductors, or music personalities of any kind, is the place to add. pbp 03:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I've tried to suggest some removals as well. I'd also like to remove some opera singers, but I don't know much about them. I feel they're overrepresented relative to other classical musicians like conductors. Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I am all for removals, but I do not currently support additions of any articles that do not contribute to countering the systemic bias in favor of Western-centric topics, such as European/American male biographies. I don't buy the "this is the English wikipedia" argument at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 26 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.
Swapped pbp 16:14, 4 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 Erik Satie, Add Richard Strauss

Satie's another composer that's interesting but not vital, comparable in significance to Albert Roussel and Francis Poulenc, neither of whom are on the list. Strauss on the other hand was a giant of late Romanticism: he becomes obviously vital when Anton Bruckner is also on the list. On a side note, he was also a notable conductor.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 21:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Strauss was one of the greatest composers of both opera and lieder. Also made some important contributions in orchestral music, particularly in the symphonic poem form. I agree that Satie is interesting but not vital. Neljack (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:51, 3 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.
FAILED; 2–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:41, 21 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 Helena Rubinstein

Pioneer of the cosmetics industry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 17:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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.
FAILED; 2–3 after 60+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:51, 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 Strabo

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Opppose
  1. Oppose I'm not convinced he's sufficiently influential. I would suggest Livy as a better addition among ancient historians. Neljack (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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.
Added, 6-1 pbp 21:43, 13 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 Margaret Mead

One of the most well-known anthropologists.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 21:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support--V3n0M93 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support A very important and controversial figure in anthropology. Neljack (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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.
FAILED; 2–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:43, 21 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 Maria Montessori

Developer of Montessori education.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Highly influential, and we are rather lacking in educationalists. Neljack (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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.
Swapped pbp 21:47, 13 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 Menes, Add Khufu

Support
  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 23:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Sensible, although I agree we could do with pruning some of the Ancient Egyptian rulers. Neljack (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We have both Menes and Narmer, who historians believe is the same person. A suggest we replace Menes with Khufu who built the Great Pyramid of Giza. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I would support removing Menes, but since Great Pyramid of Giza is already vital, I don't see why Khufu adds much - almost nothing is known about him besides what would be in the article on the Great Pyramid. john k (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
We have 13 rulers of Ancient Egypt. I'd support a swap for a non-Egyptian. Cobblet (talk) 00:50, 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.
FAILED; 7–4 after 60+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:53, 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.

Remove Sojourner Truth

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 03:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Too many Americans in this category at that moment, and I'm not convinced that Truth was sufficiently influential to warrant inclusion. Neljack (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support Carlwev (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Very important early civil rights activist, her speech remembered as "ain't I a woman" was groundbreaking and gave momentum both to women's and African American civil rights at a time when none of them had it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Maunus, also her methodology makes her intenationally more well known than other African slave civil rights activists of her time. A very unique, influential, singular character in history. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Who nominated this? Was it User:Purplebackpack89? Cobblet (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I put it up for discussion, but wanted to see how others felt before supporting it myself pbp 03:41, 23 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.
Not added, 1-4 pbp 16:30, 30 October 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 Liu Hui

An IP nominated this article a few days ago, but Cobblet deleted it. I think it'd be a good idea. I mean, the guy came up with the first decimal estimate of Pi and was integral to it's history.

Support
  1. Support as nom Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 22:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet, essentially. He did do other stuff, but I'm not sure it is sufficient to justify his inclusion. Neljack (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - as per Cobblet. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

A good estimate of pi is not enough to justify including a mathematician on this list: see Chronology of computation of π for the full list of mathematicians who have worked on this problem. Even among just Chinese mathematicians, Zu Chongzhi's discovery of 355/113 was the more significant result. I can't support this proposal unless somebody would like to explain why Zu shouldn't be on the list instead. Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 25 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 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:47, 21 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 Charles K. Kao

A pioneer in the development of fiber optics, for which he won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics. American AsianWeek and CNN named him one of five Asians of the Century (we've got the other four).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Has had a huge impact in revolutionising communications. Neljack (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:50, 21 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 Emmy Noether

One of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century. Noether's theorem is a fundamental concept in theoretical physics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support I completely agree with Cobblet. I suggest people take a look at the section of her (excellent) article dealing with her reputation etc.[1] Even Einstein thought she was a genius. Neljack (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Let me also point out that on a list of 218 scientists, mathematicians, and inventors, I could only find three women: Marie Curie, Barbara McClintock and Ada Lovelace. All the women I'm suggesting to add are at least as significant as McClintock and Lovelace, and Noether and Hodgkin's contributions are comparable in significance with Curie's. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I found two others, but one (Florence Nightengale) was not a scientist, mathematician or inventor (I certainly think she should be on the list, but not in this category), while the other (Hypatia) is at least as notable as a philosopher as she is as a scientist.
More importantly, I agree that this is unacceptable. It is a clear case of systemic bias. There are a number of other female scientists etc who would warrant inclusion. I am quite busy at the moment, but when I have some time I intend to find some more female scientists etc to propose. Neljack (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I missed Rachel Carson. Neljack (talk) 04:52, 4 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.
Added pbp 16:23, 8 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.

Support !votes

  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.
Not added pbp 22:48, 19 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 Jewish–Roman wars

These were the only rebellions ever against Roman rule, and ended up destroying most of the Jews' political power for nearly two millennia.

Support !votes
  1. Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose !votes
  1. Oppose Then what do you call Spartacus or the Crisis of the Third Century? And wouldn't the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest be of comparable historical significance? Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose And who was Boadicea fighting against then? Neljack (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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.
FAILED; 1–4 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:56, 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 First Great Awakening

Support !votes
  1. Support as nom pbp 17:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose !votes
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Too American-centric; would prefer more international articles on religious history. Neljack (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Gabe, what's your rationale here? pbp 23:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I confess I'm not too familiar with the topic; can you explain why it's significant? Cobblet (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The First Great Awakening was the first of a series of worldwide religious revivals (though they were biggest in America) that drastically changed the landscape of religion, reshaping most Protestant denominations. The First Great Awakening strengthened the role of Africans in Christianity. It presaged the Second Great Awakening a century later, and some say it presaged the American Revolution. Perhaps the Second Great Awakening (which would be under modern and brought about the great reform movements in 19th century America) has a better case than the First Great Awakening, but I feel that one of them should be on there. pbp 02:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
If the history of specific religions requires more representation, I would prefer adding overviews such as History of Christianity and History of Islam instead. Cobblet (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
We've got those. We also have numerous articles on specific religious events, such as the Protestant Reformation pbp 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that. What about including Great Awakening instead to cover the phenomenon of American revivalism, or even Christian revival for a more global perspective? Cobblet (talk) 12:24, 17 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.
Added pbp 16:25, 4 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 American Indian Wars

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 21:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 23 October 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.
Swapped pbp 22:07, 13 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 Soviet war in Afghanistan and War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Add Conflict in Afghanistan (1978–present)

Support !votes

  1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. Neljack (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Conflict in Afghanistan (1978–present) covers the two wars as well as the civil war that took place between the two wars. The proposed article gives a broader look of the conflict, than the two articles which don't cover its entirety. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Does anybody think the Taliban might be a good add? pbp 20:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
If we add the Taliban we would have to add a lot of other organisations like Al-Qaeda, PKK, IRA and others. I'm not sure we need them. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
We could include a few of these; they'd provide a counterpoint to the World Health Organization etc. Ypnypn (talk) 23:21, 4 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.
Added, 5-0 pbp 16:46, 30 October 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 The Troubles

Support !votes

  1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.
Slum added, nothing removed, 6-1 sup, 26 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: Add Slum, Remove Cleveland

Supports
  1. Support as nom. --ELEKHHT 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Unfortunately still very important. Neljack (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Opposes
  1. Oppose. - To specific; subsumed by poverty. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

There are 1 billion people living in slums, so it should be included along with the other forms of human settlement already on the list (village, town, city, suburb). It can replace any of the smaller cities currently on the list. Nominated Cleveland as the city proper is only 45th in the US by population (0.5 mil), while the metro is 28th (2mil), but can be other. --ELEKHHT 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with the add, but there are far better cities to remove. Suggest nominating slum as a straight-up addition—since we are below 10,000 articles, there's no reason to propose a swap unless a clear-cut comparison can be made between the two topics. Cobblet (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Amended per your suggestion. --ELEKHHT 00:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
On a side note ghetto is somewhere else not with town village etc, may need to be addressed at some point. Carlwev (talk) 09:29, 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.

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 Asyut

This was once the capital of Upper Egypt, but appears not to be an important archaeological site if our article is to be trusted, so I'm not sure if it's significant enough to be on our list as a historic site. (Compare the significance of Anyang in China; also we have Thebes and Memphis under History.) Otherwise nowadays it's just one of many mid-sized Egyptian cities.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Yes, doesn't seem vital. Neljack (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 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.
Both removed pbp 16:22, 15 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 Port Sudan and Dire Dawa

Two cities of only regional importance and no significant history; comparable in population to several African national capitals (Bujumbura, Bissau, Juba, Windhoek, Libreville, Gaborone) not on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Compared to many missing cities these are below average for population, history and other factors. Look like some of our weakest city inclusions. Carlwev (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Some of those capitals could go on instead. Neljack (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. 'Support john k (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 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 16:22, 15 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 Zaria

Nine cities for Nigeria seems a tad generous. This is the smallest in population, and its historical significance ought to be covered by Hausa Kingdoms, which was recently saved from deletion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 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.
FAILED; 3–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:17, 21 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 Bangui

Capital and economic centre of the Central African Republic with a metropolitan population of one million. The surrounding area appears to be archaeologically significant, according to the article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support More important that some of the other African cities we have - e.g. Beira, Mozambique, which has a population of a little over 500,000 and isn't a capital city. Neljack (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - There are at least 300 cities in the world with a population of more than 1 million. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose pbp 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Yes, and on a list of 400 cities, one would expect that we'd have many of them. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's just it; there are way too many cites already listed, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
So what would you like to see in a list of 1300 geography articles? Cobblet (talk) 22:30, 29 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; 3–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:20, 21 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 Nouakchott

Capital and economic centre of Mauritania with a metropolitan population of 1.05 million; this and Bangui are comparable in population to Kigali, N'Djamena, Freetown, Cotonou, Monrovia and Niamey, all of which are on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Yes, but most of them aren't capitals. Neljack (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - There are at least 300 cities in the world with a population of more than 1 million. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose pbp 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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 pbp 16:22, 15 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 Natal, Rio Grande do Norte

Ditto.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Even smaller than the others. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 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.
FAILED; 2–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:24, 21 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 Arequipa

Not particularly large and historically less significant when compared to Lima, Cusco and other South American cities on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Has considerable historical, economic and cultural significance. Its historic centre is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, it is the seat of the Constitutional Court, it was closely involved in many rebellions and revolutions, it has been a major economic centre both in the colonial period and in recent times, and it has been a important intellectual and cultural centre, with several significant archaeological museums and art galleries. Neljack (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

There must be hundreds of cities on the UNESCO list. And Sucre and Bloemfontein are two other judicial capitals that are also not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 00:38, 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:32, 21 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 Dongguan

Essentially a suburb of Guangzhou and Shenzhen, with no significance whatsoever apart from its size (unremarkable by Chinese standards). Compare the cities I'm proposing to add below.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is a city of more than 8 million people. I have no idea where the idea that it has no other significance comes from - it is one of the largest manufacturing centres in the world.[2] Neljack (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

There are about 20 Special Economic Zones of the People's Republic of China, all of which are of comparable economic importance to Dongguan (which isn't one of them), and many have been so for a considerably longer time (compare Lianyungang, Nantong or Yantai for example, none of which are on the list). The significance of the Pearl River Delta is already amply represented by Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Macau. We do include some suburban cities on the list, but mainly because they are of outstanding significance to the country they're in: Incheon and Yokohama are the most important ports of South Korea and Japan and Giza is of outstanding historical importance to Egypt. Dongguan doesn't have the same significance to China—compare the role of New Taipei City or the Inland Empire (neither are on the list) in their respective countries. Cobblet (talk) 00:13, 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.
FAILED; 6–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 26 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 Benghazi

Second-largest city in Libya and capital of Cyrenaica, with a history just as notable as Tripoli's.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support A long and significant history. Neljack (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 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 pbp 16:22, 15 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 Portland, Oregon

There are lots of American cities of around the same size, and this seems less significant than most (unless indie music and microbreweries are suddenly things that need representation).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support We could do with trimming some US cities, and Portland's not particularly historically significant. Neljack (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:01, 13 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 16:24, 15 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 Goiânia

Ranks 13th in population among cities of Brazil but is otherwise not really notable in other aspects.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Significance is a function of more than population, and there doesn't seem to be much apart from population that makes this city particularly significant. Neljack (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:35, 21 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 Shijiazhuang

Capital of Hebei but a really late bloomer from the perspective of Chinese history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Large and economically important. Neljack (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:48, 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) 17:38, 21 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 Macau

Unique for its colonial history and current administrative status, and nowadays the Las Vegas of Asia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Surprised this was missing. Carlwev (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Yes, historically and economically important. Neljack (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:45, 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; 5-3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:44, 21 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 Suzhou

One of China's most important cultural centres, and figures prominently in the country's history. Comparable in significance with Florence in Europe. Nowadays still important as a technology hub and a tourist destination.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Suzhou definitely should be on the list--Rsm77 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Yes, large and historically significant. Neljack (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:48, 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; 3-3 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:44, 21 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 Luoyang

One of China's most historically significant cities, capital of several dynasties. And still a fairly large city nowadays.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Major historical importance. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:48, 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) 17:44, 21 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 Kaifeng

One of China's most historically significant cities: capital of several dynasties, and was the world's largest city in the 11th century.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Historically vital. Neljack (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:48, 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) 17:44, 21 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 Daejeon

Not a particularly large city, with no significant history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose A very important technological and educational centre, often known as "Asia's Silicon Valley." Neljack (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Really? I thought Bangalore was the city that fitted that description best. Cobblet (talk) 00:34, 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.
ADDED 5-1 sup, 19 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.

Add Riga

Capital of Latvia and also the most populous city in the whole Baltic region with 700,000 we have smaller cities, but Riga is possibly the most significant city in the Baltic, important culture, commerce, industry and over 800 years history, city centre is a UNESCO world heritage site. Equal or greater importance to Vilnius which we have; Vilnius is also slightly less populous and shorter history than Riga. Carlwev (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support on grounds of historical significance. Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Historically very important. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 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.
Gaza City added, 6-2 sup, 20 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.

Add Gaza and/or Gaza Strip

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support adding Gaza. Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Gaza --Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support As Carlwev and Cobblet have said, it has a long and significant history. Importance is a function of more than just population. Neljack (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I would have thought one of these at least should be in surely. Gaza Strip may be better. I just can't decide which one to propose, both would probably not be liked, and maybe too much/not necessary. Gaza city has half million pop, small but we have similar sized cities, population not the main reason of importance anyway, Gaza has interesting and long ancient history, and very significant modern history. Gaza Strip, though 1.7 million pop, very significant region with active recent history, significant politics, legal status, actual and potential conflicts. Gaza Strip is larger and appears to be the title of interest/topic of conversation more than Gaza City. My only hesitation to that is that Gaza city's history goes back to 15 century BC, but Gaza Strip entity although very active area has only existed since the 1940s. What are peoples views? Carlwev (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I support adding Gaza on the grounds that it's one of the largest cities in the Levant and one of the oldest cities in the world. I don't like the idea of adding Gaza Strip since I don't think it would make sense to include it without also including West Bank, and we already have State of Palestine to cover both political entities. Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Need to pick one of the two, and users' comments point toward the city as the more popular suggestion of the two, scored out accordingly. Carlwev (talk) 14:10, 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; 3–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 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.

Remove Sierra Nevada

Smaller than other North American ranges not on the list such as the Coast Mountains, Sierra Madre Occidental, Sierra Madre Oriental, Sierra Madre del Sur, etc.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose pbp 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not all mountain ranges are alike. The American Cordillera is the great mountain range that should be on it. However, it is a unique boundary. But, it is not a subset of the Pacific Coast Ranges. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Yosemite National Park is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 3 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.
Swapped pbp 17:15, 30 October 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 Great Basin Desert Add Mojave Desert

Support !votes

  1. Support per nom below. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Size alone does not dictate what desert is the most important on a continent. The Mojave Desert contains the lowest point on the North American continent, and, if we pick just one desert from North America, which I think is fine, then it should be the Mojave, even the Sonoran would be better than the Great Basin. The Great Basin, while a desert, is more important for the diversity of its topography and the extensional regime which formed it than it is important for being a desert. The Mojave also does contain part of the Basin and Range province, the most outstanding subsection of the Great Basin. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:50, 26 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; 3–4 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 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.

Swap: Remove Mandolin, Add Texture (music)

Trying to add more basic musical terms. A mandolin is a type of lute, which is on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose a Mandolin is not a type of lute. Texture is hardly the most vital musical theoretical concept.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Mandolin has been a notable instrument, texture is not the most important music theory. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

The mandolin is part of the lute family. And a discussion of homophony and polyphony, two concepts that underpin Western music, is definitely vital at the 10,000-article level. Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 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.
FAILED; 4–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 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.

Swap: Remove Bass guitar, Add Scale (music)

Bass guitar seems even less notable than electric guitar, which has already been proposed for removal. Scales are a fundamental element in both Western and non-Western music.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 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.
NO CONSENUS; 4–1 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:18, 15 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 La mer (Debussy), Add Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune

Trading Debussy symphonic poems. The latter work is probably more recognizable and more historically significant, marking the birth of impressionism in music.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support A revolutionary work. Neljack (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Wish I'd noticed this earlier pbp 23:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:38, 12 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.
Discussion
NO CONSENSUS; 3–2 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:18, 15 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 Scheherazade (Rimsky-Korsakov), Add Symphonie fantastique

Both well-known examples of program music, but the latter was the first of its genre and also introduced the idée fixe technique.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:30, 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, 5-0 pbp 17:21, 30 October 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 Peter and the Wolf

Not really vital - I'd compare it to other popular but not musically significant works such as The Carnival of the Animals, the 1812 Overture or the The Blue Danube waltz, none of which are on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support As has been said, popular but not vital. Neljack (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 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 17:32, 30 October 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 Bedouin

Support !votes

  1. support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Ypnypn (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

oppose !votes

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 17:35, 30 October 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 Dari (Persian dialect)

Dari is the name for the modern Persian language in Afghanistan, and is covered in the latter article.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Well it's a dialect, and Farsi is covered in the Iran article, too, but Darim is as close to Farsi as British English to American English, and Dari was probably just included by mistake. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 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.
FAILED; 1–3 after 50+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 18 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 Xiang Chinese

Xiang Chinese is the most spoken language whose status as such is not disputed (compare Jin Chinese) and is not already on the list. With 35-40 million speakers, it is spoken by approximately as many people as Polish, Pashto, Kannada, Malayalam and Sundanese, all of which are on the list, and is more widely spoken than Hakka Chinese, also on the list. It's also interesting to historical linguists, because its phonology reveals insights into that of Middle Chinese.

Support
  1. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:30, 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.
Ain't happenin' pbp 19:45, 15 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 Snooker

We already have Cue sports, and we removed Pool and Billiards

Support

  1. as Nom pbp 21:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - Too many games for level 2, and the vast majority of people have never even played snooker. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Not considered an actual sport in most countries in the world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose It is the dominant professional cuesport, and probably has one of the biggest global audiences of all sports. For instance, this year's estimated audience for the world championship was 300 million viewers. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Very popular in the UK where snooker players are household names. And also popular in the rest of the commonwealth. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Athletes may be overrepresented but I don't think sports are. Are the people who support this proposal aware that we have things such as slot machine, sudoku, Cluedo and Reversi on the list? Cobblet (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd prefer keeping this and adding Nine-ball as well, so that we have both professional cue sports on the list. Cobblet (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer keeping this also. Snooker is fairly solid and well known and played. We include several sports and leagues which come under an included parent topic, horse sports, skiing, ice skating, rugby, hockey, baseball, track and field, Olympics and more. Considering the amount of individual sports people/athletes we still have including a horse and a pole vaulter etc, and the small number of leagues/events in addition to their sports we have, I think snooker deserves a place. Carlwev (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @Coblett:, yeah, I knew that. I think I put Cluedo and sudoku on the list myself, back when it was just me 'n @Carlwev: and @Igrek: editing the list. I'm fairly comfortable with the level of representation of games and recreation on this list, FWIW pbp 05:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd consider spectator games/sports played at a professional level like snooker, nine-ball and Texas hold 'em better topics to include than most casual board games (I don't really see a rationale for including Cluedo and Reversi over Snakes and Ladders or Mastermind (board game), for example.) Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Tic-tac-toe looks like a clear contender for the list. Maybe it's somewhere else, but I don't know where. I was also thinking Mahjong has a case. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I was never very keen on Cluedo, I removed it ages ago but was reverted, so I left it. Mahjong seems fairly reasonable, I never realised how old it was, better than Cluedo, I would support a swap. I wasn't very keen on Sudoku either, not the worst though. I thought of adding Jigsaw puzzle a long time ago but it's not that important so I didn't.
As for video games. Video game is in the 1000 and has been expanded to one game Pong, 2 characters, Mario and Pokemon, and video games console in Tech. Seems odd to have Pong and "only" Pong. I thought of other core games like Tetris, Pac-Man, Space Invaders etc. I get a feeling people won't like the idea of video games here. But when you consider we have several websites including Amazon? even more recent and probably less important. several TV shows and magazines, then 4 or 5 video games don't seem that bad. Carlwev (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
That seems about right. pbp 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
My own view: I think those three video games are certainly good choices, but we may not have room for all of them. Mahjong's an excellent choice; tic-tac-toe's a possibility, but I think Rock-paper-scissors has a higher priority. Cobblet (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I'd support adding Pac-Man and Tetris. Not sure about Space Invaders. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:01, 4 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; 5–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:49, 22 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 Criminology

Crime is the vital 100, we have several individual crimes listed in the vital 10'000. Perhaps we should include the study of crime too. Carlwev (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Certainly an significant area of study. Neljack (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - We already have Crime in Law. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

It looks to me like Crime answers the question "What constitutes a crime?", while Criminology answers the question "What motivates criminals?" Both look vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nah, criminology is the academic study of crime.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, do you think should we have two articles for each when there is both a topic and the study of the topic? E.g., mineral and mineralogy, rock and geology, map and cartography, economy and economics, politics and political science, music and musicology, alphabet and orthography? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
For some topics and disciplines yes, for others no. I dont think criminbology is particularly vital as a scientific discipline.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines, crime is in the vital 100, within the 10,000 to include the study of a vital 100 topic seems logical to me, and I think it an important topic in itself too. We have topics and study of them of things that appear only in the 10,000, I mean we have cave and speleology the study of caves for example. And to have 23 individual types of crime but not allow the study of crime seems a bit odd to me. Should I suggest a swap with speleology, as we already have cave (but not 23 cave types), is the study of crime more important than the study of caves, I would have thought so. But only my view. Carlwev (talk) 05:54, 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.
FAILED; 5–3 after 80+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:20, 18 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 Citation

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. [citation needed]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 01:24, 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.
NO CONSENSUS; 2–2 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:50, 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 Editing

An essential component of the publishing and mass media industries.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 01:20, 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.
FAILED; 4–4 after 80+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:24, 18 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 Activism

If we're not going to add Protest and Demonstration (people), how about just the article on the general phenomenon?

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 -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - The general phenomenon is een less ital than the specific ones.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. 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; 3–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:24, 18 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 Public policy and public interest

We have public but not these two terms.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 16:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. These are just terms. They are not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:41, 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 5-2 support, 3 months +

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 Diplomatic mission

Surely the concept of an embassy is vital?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - Nope, not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:43, 13 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; 2–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 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 Celebrity

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:33, 9 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 5-2 support 24 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.

Add Neuron

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - Are we to start adding the rest of the brain tissues? Nervous system organs? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:43, 13 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 80+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 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.

Swap: Remove Hundredweight, Add Tonne

Swapping a deprecated unit for the metric ton.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Weak support. Would prefer a straight remove. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support, but prefer just the remove. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Just remove Hundredweight. No need for tonne. john k (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
But we also have things like angstrom. I think the swap is definitely an improvement anyway. Cobblet (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No need for angstrom, either. john k (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think many of the non-SI units mentioned in the SI are worth including on the list, since this reflects their widespread usage. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 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.
FAILED; 3–3 after 80+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 18 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 Particle detector, Add Geiger counter

The former article is mainly just a list. The latter article is probably the most notable example of one, and would go under Nuclear physics rather than Measurement.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While a notable example and seen in popular culture, it is actually an instrument with limited use, compared to, for example, ionization chambers. A general article icludes the familiar and the most widly used. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Ionization chamber was the other replacement I considered—I'd support adding it. Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

While ionization chambers are much more common than Geiger counters, there is no practical benefit in a finite list of vital articles to have both or go into specifics. That the article is not developed is a fault of editing, not a reason to substitute Geiger counter and add ionization chamber. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
Sensor is on the list and could be expanded to cover particle detectors, so I'm not convinced the latter article is vital for this list. Which other items on the list of sensors do you think are also significant enough to be kept/added on the list? Cobblet (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
What a boring list. Only a quick glance. Microphone, Photomultiplier, Rain gauge. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:07, 26 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.
Swapped, 5-0 pbp 17:53, 30 October 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 Phoenix (constellation), Add Puppis

More important and interesting constellation.

Support
  1. Proposed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I wonder, though, if we've got all 118 chemical elements, why we can't have all 88 constellations. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because the universe isn't geocentric? --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
Could someone explain why Puppis is more significant than Phoenix? --Rsm77 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose User:StringTheory11 would be the best person to answer this. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Puppis is a subdivision of one of Ptolemy's original 48 constellations, and is physically larger than Phoenix
  2. The Milky Way runs through Puppis, giving it many objects of interest, especially compared to Phoenix
  3. Even without the Milky Way, there are many more objects of interest in Puppis (PSR J0737-3039 among others comes to mind right off the bat), while I can't really think of any interesting objects in Phoenix.
StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:16, 20 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; 3–4 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:09, 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.

Swap: Remove Temperate broadleaf and mixed forest, Add Pantanal

There are many different ways to classify biomes so we should only include the ones that are most commonly accepted. Besides, forest gives descriptions of several different types, including the one above. The Pantanal is the world's largest wetland.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One of the most widespread and commonly occurring biomes should be removed for a single region? It's fruit for oranges. -AfadsBad (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 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.
FAILED; 2–6 after 50+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:15, 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.

Remove Peninsula

It's mainly a list of peninsulas.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose -- Landform fundamental to human culture, settlement, wars, exploration. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Oppose Sounds like the article needs fixing, rather than removal from this list pbp 16:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, I don't think it's a good argument for removal that the articles is currently very bad. In my understanding it is part of the purpose of this list to identify articles that should be raised to a high standard because the topic is important, not the other way around.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Based only on the present article quality I would support removing peninsula. But this list is kind of supposed to show topics that we 'should have' high quality articles for, not necessarily topics that we already have high quality articles for. The Peninsula article is terrible and mostly a list, but it's an important topic, It shouldn't be removed only because it's forgotten or neglected it should be kept and hopefully improved, that's the whole point of the list. Carlwev (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What would you expect the article to cover that promontory wouldn't? Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 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.
Added 10-0. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 22:56, 20 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.

Surprised this is missing, Can't really do this justice in one sentence; very vital topic in Geology/natural history of the Earth and Top importance geology Wikiproject article, as well as a very decent and long article, 75 references and appears in nearly 70 languages. More vital than many individual rock types and formations we are including and discussing. Carlwev (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support. CourtlyHades296 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  9. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  10. support Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 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.

Remove Functions of state

Removed pbp 18:06, 30 October 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.

This is just a footnote/definition in most thermodynamics textbooks. It's not an article likely to be expanded. The dual notion of Process function is not included.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. "Just a footnote" is not right. It's an important and central concept. There is no sound reason against mention of and expansion of the article on Process function.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:11, 8 August 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, 5-2, 1 month +

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 Fluorescence

Obviously vital phenomenon with both household and research applications.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 00:01, 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 26 days 7-0 support

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 Rømer's determination of the speed of light

Any reason this is needed when we already have the Speed of light? pbp 18:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. pbp 18:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 02:57, 25 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.
FAILED; 3–2 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:33, 18 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 Animal trapping

We have fur trade, but that article doesn't actually talk about how trapping is done. Also animals are trapped for reasons besides their fur, e.g. food, pest control, and conservation purposes.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

There are a number of articles currently listed under Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Business and economics, 92 that I'd like to move into Technology. I'm referring to the ones listed under Industry that involve technology in some way, i.e. Agriculture, Construction, Factory, Fishing, Forestry, Fur trade, Hunting, Manufacturing, Mining, Quarry, Refining and Whaling. A lot of these industries already have their own category under Technology. What do you guys think? Cobblet (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, I've thought for a long time some sub-lists, including this very one should be placed in a different page. Many list moves I proposed before were opposed so I let it be. I support this suggestion, moving this list to tech, as well as the inclusion of Animal trapping too. I also thought that movies and TV/radio shows and video games, books and comics should be together in art/entertainment/media kind of page but the idea never caught on. Thought it strange Tv shows were on a whole separate page to movies, and books separate to comics and magazines, but that's just me. Carlwev (talk) 01:27, 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.
NO CONSENSUS; 4–2 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:33, 18 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 Ferrous metallurgy

We have metallurgy but iron working deserves its own article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 00:04, 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; 3–3 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:27, 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 Electrical telegraph

Telegraphy talks about the transmission of written messages in general; the actual device is vital as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 15:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


Oppose
  1. Oppose Not strongly, but I think the one article should cover the human revolution. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, should be covered by the telegraphy article. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm on the fence on this one. i think that the telegraphy article can be developed well enough to deal with the revolution that includes the physical device which made it possible. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:16, 26 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.
NO CONSENSUS; 1–1 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 18 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 Rapier, Add Rifling

I don't think specific types of swords are vital. Rifle mainly focuses on types of rifles, which is all well and good, but I think a discussion of the technology behind rifling merits inclusion as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 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.
NO CONSENSUS; 2-1 after 90+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 18 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 Katana, Add Ballistics

I don't think specific types of swords are vital. We have lots of articles on weapons but few on the physics behind weaponry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_19&oldid=1137397899"