Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 21

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Purplebackpack89 in topic Categories for vital articles
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25
Both added pbp 17:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn

Key figures in nuclear chemistry. Especially notable as joint discoverers of nuclear fission.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Hard to dispute the significance of their discovery. Note that Meitner was overlooked for the Nobel when Hahn won it, apparently a case of gender and personal bias. Einstein called her the "German Marie Curie". Neljack (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. -per nominator.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support - for Otto Hahn, not sure about Meitner. --Zayeem (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. 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; 3–4 after 50+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Roman Britain

Support !votes
  1. Support as nom pbp 22:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support, I would include Roman Britain, which lasted over 350 years before most of our twenty-something British/English leaders which lasted less time and had less impact. It's is a genuine topic of study much more than say Margaret Thatcher. Carlwev (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose !votes
  1. Oppose the inclusion of any articles on the history of specific Roman provinces. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose You could make at least as strong a case for the inclusion of other Roman provinces. Neljack (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - Per Cobblet and Neljack. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:57, 5 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; 2–4 after 30+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Arab–Israeli conflict

This is on the level-3 list. One of the most important conflicts of the past 100 years, still constantly in the news. We already have Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Support !votes
  1. Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose !votes
  1. Oppose. - Would support a swap with Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but I don't see why we need both. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose As our article on it says, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is the core of this conflict, so I think it is more important. Neljack (talk) 02:02, 10 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; 2–4 after 50+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Lilongwe

Doesn't meet my criterion of 1 million population for a national capital. No particular historical significance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I suppose we'll be removing Washington, DC too, since it also has a population of less than 1 million? Neljack (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - Per Neljack. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - per Neljack. Jusdafax 23:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Washington is the core of a metro area comprising over five million people. The same can't be said of Lilongwe. Canberra is another sub-million-pop capital not on the list, and we haven't had consensus to add it in the past (even though personally I think we should); this is partly the motivation for my criterion. Cobblet (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Mexicali

Mid-sized for a Mexican city and not particularly historically significant.

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 Carlwev (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Relatively small population, not a capital, lacks major historical significance. Neljack (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Yinchuan

Capital of Ningxia but otherwise not notable.

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. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Not particularly significant, historically or otherwise. Neljack (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. 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 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Hohhot

Capital of Inner Mongolia but pretty small for a Chinese city. Not totally insignificant in terms of history, but it pales in comparison to 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. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Doesn't have a particularly long or significant history. Neljack (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED; 3–3 after 50+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Nanning

Capital of Guangxi but otherwise not notable.

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 Again I'm bemused by the claim that it is "otherwise not notable." Nanning has a significant history as an important trading centre and strategic border city. It has long played a key role in China's interactions with Indo-China, including being the main support base in China for the North Vietnamese forces in the Vietnam war.[1] [2] Neljack (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Thanks for doing the outside research—you are certainly in the minority for doing so. However, I think you'll find that the historically and culturally most important city in Guangxi is Guilin, which probably has a better case to be on the list. There are also Chinese border cities of more notable historical significance that we don't include, such as Kashgar or Ji'an, Jilin. Cobblet (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Guilin does seem pretty significant. I wouldn't object to a swap. Neljack (talk) 23:23, 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.
Removed pbp 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Guiyang

Capital of Guizhou but otherwise not notable.

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. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Not that historically significant. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Khulna

Not a particularly large city, with no significant history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Doesn't have a very long or important history. Neljack (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support GizzaT/C 08:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The city has a population of more than a million, isn't it enough as there are many cities in the list with a smaller population? --Zayeem (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Muslim

Unless I missed them, we don't include adherents of other religions either, like Christian or Jew.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Good find. Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added, 5-2 pbp 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Sabbath

Support
  1. Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support The concept of a weekly rest day features in many cultures and deserves inclusion. Cobblet (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 15:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Zayeem (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:05, 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 45+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Forgiveness

Not a significant psychological concept. This is not supposed to be just a list of terms for different feelings in the English language.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose unless arguments for removing specifically this but keeping the other 40-ish topics on emotions and interpersonal relations are presented. This is a central teaching of many religions. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Opposeimportant religious concept. I wouldn't mind moving it to religion. Melody Lavender (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED; 3–4 after 40+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Bullying

Not a significant psychological concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose unless arguments for removing specifically this but keeping the other 40-ish topics on emotions and interpersonal relations are presented. This is a major cause of teen suicide. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think the concept is pretty important, even if Freud and others never wrote about it. Maybe many of the topics presently under psychology that involve interacting with others should be moved to sociology, perhaps forgiveness too. Carlwev (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removing it outright but support it being moved to sociology. Gizza (t)(c) 00:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Psychopathy

A culturally important mental condition.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Gizza (t)(c) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 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 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Memory

Central psychological concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support GizzaTC 05:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support - Zayeem (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I haven't searched all pages but memory is not under biology where I found intelligence, nor philosophy or social science. If memory is not currently listed anywhere I think it should be. Carlwev (talk) 00:18, 31 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 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Cognition

Central psychological concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Perception

Central psychological concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Gizza (t)(c) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 18:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Introspection

Central psychological concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Zayeem (talk) 18:43, 10 December 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.
Addiction is currently listed within Medical science

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 Addiction

Central psychological concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Addiction is currently listed within Medical science Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Biology_and_health_sciences#Health_and_fitness.2C_25, one of things, looks like it could belong in more than one place, we have to pick one, the nutrition and drugs there are also questionable to where their place is, between medicine, food or plants, been touched on before too, worth discussion at some point. Carlwev (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted, and nomination stricken. I searched for the term and didnt find it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 31 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 5-2 support >50days Carlwev (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Non-governmental organization

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support - important non-state actor. --Zayeem (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 17:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - Why? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Because they are a significant force in international relations. Within the political issue they specialize in, the largest and most notable examples (the Red Cross (which we've already listed), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the World Wide Fund for Nature, Greenpeace, etc.) exert an influence that equals or surpasses most national governments. Cobblet (talk) 06:17, 28 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.
PASSED; 5–0 after 180+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Cartridge (firearms)

Support !votes

  1. This is subsumed by Ammunition, which is already included. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:23, 21 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.
Added, 7-1

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 Cicero

I find it surprising Cicero isn't included in this list of vital articles. He is a significant historical figure as a politician and a (very prolific) writer (notable as a prose stylist, a historical source and a scholar of philosophy). I'd certainly rate his as a more significant historical figure than, say, Domitian, or Boudica, who are on the list.

Coverage of ancient Romans does seem to skew towards the Empire rather than the Republic, which is probably inevitable given the preeminent position of the emperors. Republican Romans on the list so far are Scipio Africanus, Tiberius Gracchus, Sulla, Pompey and Julius Caesar - I think Cicero deserves a place among them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 16:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Thanks, this is a very good suggestion. Quite an oversight that we don't already have him. Cicero also had great influence on oratory and rhetoric, not only in Roman times, but throughout the subsequent history of the Western world. He's in the top 10 most translated authors ever. Neljack (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support - Obvious choice and like others am surprised he's not here already. Jusdafax 02:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose enough romans already. Would support swap for either Pompey, Sulla or Scipio.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails, 1-4 pbp 18:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Pompey

Too many Romans already. Though and important figure in Roman history, in the general public he is most known for giving his name to Pompeii. Not vital to an account of world history.

Support
  1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. --Dagko (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Giving his name to Pompeii? You'll be saying Julius Caesar's claim to fame is inventing the Caesarian section next. This user's apparent personal antipathy to Roman history doesn't seem to be based on any significant knowledge of it, so I don't think we should let his proposals detain us long. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose No, he's known for his military victories, the First Triumvirate and the civil war with Caesar. That constitutes sufficient importance in my book. Neljack (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
moved from Political writers to Activists pbp 18:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Rosa Luxemburg

An important European revolutionary. Only two Europeans in the section.

Support
  1. support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support She has proved an ensuring inspiration. Her writings have remained influential. Neljack (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support -Zayeem (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - Per PbP, Luxemborg is already in the list. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Rosa Luxembourg is currently listed under political writers. Do we want to move her to activists? pbp 17:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
D'oh. I need to be better at checking the entire list instead of just the section where I find some topic to be missing. I think we should move her, but it isn't exactly urgent.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added, 5-2 pbp 18:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Grace Hopper

Developed the first compiler and helped develop COBOL.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support The compiler was very important. Neljack (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support, immensely important to computer science. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Part of Bangladesh Liberation War which is already in the list.

Support
  1. Support - as nom. --Zayeem (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - Nice catch! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Indeed. Neljack (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Vitória, Espírito Santo

Another mid-sized Brazilian city that doesn't seem vital.

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--Rsm77 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Not that large and not that historically significant. Neljack (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 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 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove C. Auguste Dupin

The fictional characters has 4 detectives already (out of 12 entries). Poe is not mostly known for his detective character.

Support
  1. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Weak support On the one hand, he's the first detective. On the other, he's too obscure to be on this list pbp 16:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support I think Maunus has this right - the character needs to have a cultural impact beyond just the work of literature or the author (otherwise one them is the better candidate for inclusion, and indeed here we already have Poe). In other words, the character needs to be iconic. This one isn't. Neljack (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Agree that Sherlock Holmes should be the sole detective representative on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - As Pbp notes, Dupin was the first detective. Poe invented the detective story. I'd call that pretty darn vital, and this character's inclusion on this list acknowledges that major fact. Jusdafax 23:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Poe invented the detective story, and he is already on the list. His actual detective is fairly unknown (murder in the Rue Morgue is remembered for the plot and the orangutan, not for the detective). And the list has 4 detectives out of 12 entries. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Philip Marlowe

Important as a genre founder, but shouldn't we rather include Film Noir. And limit the detectives to Sherlock Holmes.

Support
  1. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Agreed, per my comments above on the extraordinary overrepresentation of detective in the section on literary characters. Surely nobody thinks that a third of the dozen most notable literary characters are detectives? Neljack (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Tooth fairy

Not important relative to Santa, Easter bunny etc.

Support
  1. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - I think it's beyond ridiculous that we include these nonsensical entries when we exclude so many actual people who changed the world. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. support per Maunus. Sepsis II (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Yeah, we should probably have giants, trolls, gnomes and elves etc before the tooth fairy.......Also we have listed "fairy" itself already too. Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Quite true. Neljack (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - important fictional figure, present in folklores of various languages. --Zayeem (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
So are gnomes, elves, trolls, witches, pixies, giants, etc. and in contrast to the Tooth fairy they have actual bodies of narratives attached about them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Daffy Duck

Not in a class with the other Hollywood characters on this list. Mickey, Bugs, and Donald have stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Daffy does not pbp 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support I thought I had already nominated this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - I think it's beyond ridiculous that we include these nonsensical entries when we exclude so many actual people who changed the world. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Carlwev (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Yeah, we really don't need two of the ducks. Neljack (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support Bugs Bunny is sufficient and the real icon of Looney Tunes. Gizza (t)(c) 10:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:Maunus, you did, and then for some reason, your nomination of this and Kermit went away when you nominated the detectives. pbp 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added pbp 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Shane

No current representative of the Western genre. Shane was impirtant influence for later "mysterious stranger" gunfighter figures.

Support
  1. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not seeing a burning need for the Western genre to be represented. I also don't think Shane (or any other Western character) is significant enough to be on this list pbp 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The link is to a disambiguation page; we don't even seem to have an article on the character. Neljack (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The cultural impact of Shane is surely greater than that of Pokemon or Kermit the frog.
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 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Kermit the Frog

Not one of the vital cartoon characters of the world.

Support
  1. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Well-known, but no great influence. Neljack (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. '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.
All 8 Moved pbp 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Move King Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, Robin Hood and Faust from Philosophy and religion to Arts

Support
  1. Support pbp 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Zayeem (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Move The Adventures of Tintin, Asterix, and Peanuts to Literature

The articles are comics, not characters, so this is the wrong section for them.

Support
  1. Support as nom -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support - Zayeem (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Yes, I'd noticed the Tintin one. Neljack (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 19:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Neopaganism/Modern paganism

We have paganism, which has a section on its modern revival, as well as syncretism and wicca.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:03, 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.
Added pbp 19:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Four Noble Truths

If we have the Ten Commandments and Five Pillars of Islam, I think it's worth including the central doctrine of Buddhism to maintain NPOV.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 23:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Zayeem (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support Yes, this is pretty vital. Neljack (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped pbp 19:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Halakha, remove Kashrut

Halakha is the entire body of Jewish law. Kashrut is just the part of Halakha involving food.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Ypnypn (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Makes sense. Neljack (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Zayeem (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to do anything (no votes in over a month) pbp 22:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Move Cannibalism

Presently listed as a vital article at Cooking, food and drink, the topic isn't particularly aligned with the Cooking, food and drink category, and I question how vital this article is compared to other Wikipedia content. At the very least, it should be moved out of the Cooking, food and drink category. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose 5 people voted to add this in July, 1 good faith user closed thread and added it to food and drink. I would move it, not remove it. Carlwev (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Move either to Society and social sciences/Society/Issues or Anthropology, psychology and everyday life/Culture. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, and move to wherever, but move, by all means, move it out of cooking, food and drink. Melody Lavender (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Probably doesn't belong in cooking, food and drink. Probably move it to culture. Was added in July this year Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_12#Add_Cannibalism 5-1 vote. I had mentioned it in a post, then someone else opened vote in my name, I left it up as I do think it belongs somewhere. The only oppose, DirtLawyer1 commented he thought it belonged someone but was concerned about the over count problem, which is now under anyway. I didn't think it should go in food, that's not where I would've placed it, but that's kind of where it appeared in discussion, and then ultimately in the actual list when someone added it. Carlwev (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the !voting and commentary above, I've changed the name of this thread to "Move Cannibalism". Northamerica1000(talk) 00:37, 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.
Not added pbp 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Tic-tac-toe

Support
  1. Support pbp 19:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support - Zayeem (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Recreational games are not comparably vital with much other stuff that we have been removing or have not yet added.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I don't see that it's had any great impact on human culture or society. Neljack (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 19:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Confirmation bias

An important finding in cognitive psychology.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support GizzaT/C 09:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Very important. Neljack (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 19:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Amnesia

Important psychological condition.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Gizza (t)(c) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 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.
Removed pbp 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove National Central Library (Florence)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 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 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove National Library of Korea

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm surprised we have this but we are still not including "Korea" itself. I'd suggest swapping it for this library... or perhaps the Korean peninsula.

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 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove National Library of India

Hesitated with this one, but its collection is a full order of magnitude smaller (2.2 million items vs. 20+ million) than the libraries that remain on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 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 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove National Library of Australia

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:18, 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 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Support
  1. Support A fundamental document in the history of human rights. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 03:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Absolutely - a pioneering document. Neljack (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support - Zayeem (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  8. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove One Man's Family

Support
  1. Support This kind of largely forgotten popular culture should not be on the vital list. The soap opera article has some discussion of radio soap opera. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support If we want a soap, Coronation Street would be the best choice. Neljack (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove The Price Is Right

Support
  1. Support. - As nom; not vital. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support If we need a specific example I think Jeopardy! deserves the nod. Cobblet (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Game show is on the list - I don't think we need a specific example. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Do we have Game show, even? pbp 17:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support what the heck?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support The TV programmes have an extraordinary American bias - 13 out of 17 are from the US (the other four are British). Neljack (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove The War of the Worlds (radio drama)

Support
  1. Support As we now have this included as a novel, I don't think we need the radio adaptation. In general, I think these kinds of works should be represented in their original format, unless an adaptation is clearly much more famous than the original (eg Gone with the Wind). --Rsm77 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support I dont think the book belongs either.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support GizzaTC 22:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support We don't need both. Neljack (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove California Academy of Sciences

Support
  1. Support Can't see why this is considered vital compared with many museums that are not included. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support I live in California and I haven't even heard of this pbp 03:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I didn't suggest removing this because the list is already strongly tilted toward art. Is there some other natural history museum, zoo or garden we should be including? Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Natural History Museum, London. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Victoria and Albert Museum

We have or are proposing the addition of London's four most visited museums, and I suggest removing the fifth. Among art museums it ranks 11th and I think a museum from a non-English-speaking country, such as the 12th-ranked National Museum of Korea, would be a better choice to broaden our coverage.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 03:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support Neljack (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Tate Modern

Support
  1. Support Most visited modern art gallery in the world--Rsm77 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 03:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support This for the Victoria and Albert seems like a fair swap. Neljack (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support --Dagko (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose if we're not having Palace of Westminster/Big Ben, from London we don't need this Carlwev (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

London is famous for its museums and is underrepresented on this list. The National Gallery and the Natural History Museum, London also have strong cases. Probably both should be added eventually, and maybe the Victoria and Albert Museum removed.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:45, 23 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.

Categories for vital articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago267 comments20 people in discussion

I think that vital articles should have categories, hidden categories, by level, then sorted within by subcategory as they are on the page. This could have an additional benefit of getting other editors interested in participating here. Also, there are some contests that some of Wikipedia's top and most prolific editors participate in, Wikicup for example; I would like to ask the organizers there to focus on vital articles, maybe extra points for improving one. This could call extra attention to the vital articles, and get some of the worst ones improved by some of the best editors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

Yeah, that could be a good idea, but it's probably not wise to start right now when the list remains in a state of flux. Cobblet (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I would really like to start attracting more editors; now would be a great time, imo. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
Attracting more editors might speed up the improvement of the list (not only the articles themselves).--Rsm77 (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that Template:Vital article on a vital article's talk page generates some sort of category. Unfortunately, most lv-4 articles haven't been tagged yet. We should probably tag more articles pbp 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
A good idea: even the Level-3 articles haven't all been tagged yet. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Added pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Translation (biology)

The process by which cells make proteins, shared by all life on Earth. At least as fundamental as transcription, which is already on the list. Transcription is the use of a DNA template to make RNA; translation is the second step in that process, where that same RNA template is used to make protein.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Sunrise (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Dagko (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support An excellent nomination, thanks! Neljack (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add DNA replication

The third fundamental cellular process, along with transcription and translation (see central dogma of molecular biology). As with the others, it is shared by all known life on Earth. TBH I'm very surprised to see that it isn't already on the list. :-)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Sunrise (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --Dagko (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Yeah, this is another big omission. Neljack (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
19 articles on beetles removed pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove articles on beetles

I don't see any reason that any articles about beetles are vital besides Beetle. Thus, I propose removing Anobiidae, Bark beetle, Buprestidae, Weevil, Coccinellidae, Dermestidae, Dystiscidae, Ground beetle, Bombardier beetle, Tiger beetle, Leaf beetle, Colorado potato beetle, Longhorn beetle, Scarabaeidae, Click beetle, Rove beetle, Silphidae, Soldier beetle, and Stag beetle. [ETA: originally, I proposed removing Dung beetle and Firefly as well, but removed them from the list at Cobblet's instance].

Support !votes
  1. As nominator. john k (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Suppoort - Ypnypn (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Suppoort --Dagko (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose !votes
Discussion

This kind of proposal brings up a lot of issues I'd like to discuss regarding the organisms. While I'm well aware of the bloat in this section, I still harbour reservations with some of these removals. Fireflies and scarabs are significant in some cultures, and I wasn't even aware that the former were beetles. And in my mind there's little doubt some crop pests are significant enough to be on the list, but are any individual species worth including for that reason alone, like Colorado potato beetle? If weevil goes, should we be including the boll weevil in its place? Or is Beetle#Beetles as pests sufficient to cover the topic? Cobblet (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that the Beetle article ought to cover the various kinds of beetles, and that the Beetles as pests material should cover it. I'm not sure one insect that caused one blight should be one of the top ten thousand articles, although I'd be open to an argument for Boll weevil being added. I'll remove Dung beetle and Firefly from the proposal for now (the former article, rather than Scarabeidae, has the discussion of scarabs in Egyptian culture; but it's certainly ridiculous to have both those articles listed as vital). john k (talk) 15:13, 8 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 pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Boll weevil

A historically and presently significant pest. Articles on beetle families may not be vital, but if they aren't, the most prominent species probably are.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was actually already on the list, and consensus in the Remove beetles thread above was to remove it pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Colorado potato beetle

Historically and globally this is a more signficant pest than the Boll Weevil.

Support
  1. Support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Trilobite

Support
  1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Very vital. Gizza (t)(c) 11:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Sunrise (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We have given some space to extinct life which I think is good. As far as I can tell we have 13 articles about extinct lifeforms, and they are nearly all dinosaurs or other prehistoric reptiles. (Dinosaur + 8 examples, 3 other reptiles and one bird) I know the dinosaurs and other dead reptiles steal the lime light when it comes to fossils, and they probably always will have more than a fair share of attention, but I don't think they should have almost 100% monopoly on extinct lifeforms here. I think Trilobite to be quite significant too to the fossil record. It appears in more languages than half the dinosaurs we have too. They are well studied, according to the article over 17,000 known species and existed for over 270 million years. They are of greater importance than many birds insects and plants we still have.

On a side note, although hardly an issue yet as the only extinct animal I can see that isn't a reptile is the Archaeopteryx, should we list fossils all together in one list or keep as they are, Archaeopteryx with birds reptiles with reptiles, trilobite, if we have it, with arthropods? Carlwev (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Arabidopsis thaliana

A glaring omission.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support This and C. elegans are far more notable than most of the species currently listed. Cobblet (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support per Cobblet. Sunrise (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Anigozanthos

Pretty obscure. Banksia is more important as an iconic genus of native Australian plants and is more widely cultivated. Carnation is more important in the floral industry. I'm not proposing adding either of these at present, but there are certainly better candidates for the list than Anigozanthos

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support One of my favorite plants, I even raise them commercially, but surprised they would be on the list. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Bluebonnet (plant)

Vital to Texas, perhaps, but not globally. Far more vital plants are not represented in the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Actinidia

Kiwifruit is already listed, and covers the edible fruits produced by several species in this genus. While a few other species are cultivated as ornamentals, they are not very important.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Indian Paintbrush

Only of regional importance. There are many better candidates for inclusion. Wildflowers such as Buttercup and Clover are more widely distributed. Cultivated ornamentals are underrepresented as well. Petunia is more vital than Indian Paintbrush.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - as per nominator . BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry)

Primarily of regional importance. Cultivated, but not very common. Invasive in Europe, but there are more important invasive species.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Do we have any good invasive species on the list? --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

No plants that are primarily notable as an invasive. I'm inclined to distinguish weeds (growing in highly disturbed, anthropogenic habitats) from invasives (growing in less disturbed habitats), so I wouldn't count the listed Dandelion as invasive. But my weed/invasive distinction isn't very important for the purpose of this list. Some of the listed food plants are naturalized (weedy?/invasive?) outside their native ranges. Kudzu is an iconic invasive plant, but it is only invasive regionally. Japanese knotweed is invasive in a much larger area (Europe and North America), but less well known. The animals Lymantria dispar dispar, Africanized bee, and Starling are already listed as Vital and are largely notable for being naturalized outside their native range. Cane toad, Zebra mussel, and Caulerpa taxifolia are some other non-plant organisms I would consider notable as invasive species that aren't listed as Vital. I'm not sure these are worth listing though. Plantdrew (talk) 04:40, 29 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 pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Hornbeam

Minor importance as a source of timber. Not very important ecologically.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Swap. Remove Stachys affinis (Chinese artichoke). Add Eggplant.

Am I missing Eggplant being listed elsewhere? I can't believe this vegetable isn't listed. Stachys affinis is a crop of minor importance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  8. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Eggplant's a vegetable (OK! OK! it's a fruit) used in many cuisines. Even within Chinese cuisine alone it's used more frequently and in a greater variety of regional cuisines than Stachys affinis, which seems to be limited to Huaiyang cuisine. Yuxiang qiezi is a classic Sichuan dish, for example, and fried eggplant stuffed with fish (traditionally mud carp) is a standard dim sum. If edible non-Western plants need representation, one obvious candidate is ginseng. Cobblet (talk) 11:10, 30 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 pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Potamogetonaceae

No significant human uses. Minor importance ecologically. Relatively few species, not important taxonomically.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped pbp 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Swap. Remove Phormium. Add Flax to Technology/Crafting/Materials list

Phormium, ("New Zealand Flax") is of minor historic importance as a fiber plant. It is cultivated as an ornamental, but not very important in this regard. Flax is perhaps the most important fiber plant after Cotton. Technology/Crafting/Materials includes the important natural and artificial textile fibers (except cotton, which is already listed as vital, and for which I've made a separate proposal to move to the Materials list).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC))
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support GizzaT/C 09:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  9. Support I agree that the more general article is more vital, but as a New Zealander I must take issue with the non's comment on the lack of importance of New Zealand flax. It has played a big role in New Zealand culture and history, especially Māori culture and history. Neljack (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  10. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  11. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Metrology

I think we need this article as well as measurement. Measurement is about things like magnitude, units and uncertainty. Metrology is about things like calibration, accuracy and precision. (Of the wikilinked terms, measurement's the only one we've got.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Yard

Support
  1. Support as nom. There are too many imperial units of measurement on the list. This would still leave inch, foot (unit), and mile.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I thought about nominating "foot" for removal at the same time, but let's see how this goes first. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably better to remove inch than foot, since foot is the somewhat more fundamental unit, e.g. it's a base unit for the foot–pound–second system. Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed pbp 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Alcoholic proof, already removed once

We successfully suggested and voted to remove alcoholic proof from food and drink in July with 5-0 votes Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_16#Remove_Alcohol_proof. It must have been listed in 2 places, I've just noticed it's still in Physical science, measurement Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences#Other.2C_3. I could just remove it now before discussion, as I presume no one wants it in having booted it once, but might be perceived as unpolite, people can change their mind and there's always a slim chance people may want it. So, I'll open the vote for it instead, remove alcoholic proof again?

Support
  1. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Alcoholic beverage already covers the concept. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:29, 27 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.
Added pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Sedimentary basin

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

A rather glaring omission; without sedimentary basins we have no stratigraphy, no strata, no oil and gas, no aqueous reservoirs. Another F for geology. There are also no sedimentary basins on the list; not a single basin. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:22, 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.
Both removed pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Formation (stratigraphy), Stratum

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Both topics should be well-developed in the stratigraphy article. Again, this is 10,000 vital articles, not everything we ever heard of. Geological Unit could then be developed with a solid purpose: make it the vital article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:30, 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.
Not removed pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Marble

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Maybe move to a section about building, but keep. Important building material pbp 01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Oppose but move to building materials. Gizza (t)(c) 04:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Metamorphic rocks are odd, because they are individually important, depending upon what you are trying to learn about an area; but, I would leave the specific metamorphic rocks to gneiss, schist and quartzite. Marble is not in the same ballpark. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Its cultural and economic importance amply justifies including it on this list. If so much can be written on one particular variety of marble, I have no doubt that the rock itself is vital. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Then put it under materials, so the article is developed for that aspect. This way it makes it seem like it's important as a metamorphic rock, as important as gneiss. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
If consensus does not develop in favour of removing the article, I'll move it to Technology/Construction/Building materials. Cobblet (talk) 07:27, 29 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 pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Flint

Support
  1. Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Don't feel very strong about this one but I would prefer to keep this, although the argument half makes sense to me, we wouldn't remove iron and steel because we have metallurgy or metal working. Carlwev (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

While important to Stone Age tool making cultures, stone tool making is the vital topic, not the particular material. If we wind up with a 100,000 articles list, I would put flint and chert on it, but not on a 10,000 article list under geology. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:40, 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.
Removed pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Topaz

I don't it's necessary for the list to include semi-precious stones, not even those of arguably greater historical and cultural significance than topaz, such as lapis lazuli.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Wait, are you opposing the removal even though you want to remove it, because you also want to remove other gems at the same time? You're welcome to propose those too... Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

lol. No, I am opposing it because I am on my iPad on a mountain and the wind is blowing really really hard and my fingers are stiff from the cold. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
Also precious is an economic indicator, it does not define a gem through time. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:35, 30 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.
Both removed pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove: Crystal structure and Crystal system

That would leave Crystallography, Crystal, and Crystallization

Support
  1. Support, as nom. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support I don't see why we need more than one article relating to crystals, really. john k (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. support Bedrieger (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think crystal structure is worth keeping. I'd support a swap of crystal system for X-ray crystallography. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Most inorganic solids are naturally crystalline, and crystals are the most studied form of solid matter. Numerous Nobel Prizes have been awarded for crystallography work—the structure of DNA and the ribosome was solved using such means, for example. Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 9 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.
All six removed pbp 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Up quark, Down quark, Top quark, Bottom quark, Strange quark, Charm quark

I fail to see how these are vital. The articles are fairly stubby at present, and there doesn't seem to be that much special about each flavor that all six need to be on this list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - A fine suggestion; this is the type of excess that we ought to be trimming; surely quark is enough without including every known flavor. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support All necessary information in the main article. --Dagko (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Remove the 15 transactinide elements, add Transactinide element and Island of stability

Namely Rutherfordium, Dubnium, Seaborgium, Bohrium, Hassium, Meitnerium, Darmstadtium, Roentgenium, Copernicium, Ununtrium, Flerovium, Ununpentium, Livermorium, Ununseptium, Ununoctium. With the exception of two isotopes of dubnium (which have half-lives of about a day), none of these elements have half-lives lasting longer than seconds. They're all man-made and in extremely small amounts, and none of them are expected to be of any practical use. The reason why we're churning them out anyway is because calculations predict that as we make larger and larger nuclei, there's a chance we'll find elements that are actually relatively stable: these would be the ones located in the so-called "island of stability". So I suggest replacing the articles on the elements themselves with the category that contains them, plus the article that describes why we're trying to make new elements in the first place.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose a group nom; would support removal of some of the elements after Fermium, but not all. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 00:03, 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.
Removed pbp 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Chesapeake Bay Bridge

How does this belong on a list of ten notable bridges?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Carlwev (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 03:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. Support Agree with what Cobblet says about the US and modern biases. Neljack (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  8. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  9. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  10. Support --Dagko (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The bridges sublist is severely biased towards the US as well as modern engineering. We have three bridges in New York City alone: I think the Verrazano–Narrows Bridge should go. Surely bridges like the Pont du Gard, Stari Most or Anji Bridge are more significant. Cobblet (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look around the internet at different articles about notable bridges, Ponte Vecchio and Millau Viaduct were frequently mentioned. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:49, 2 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 to construction, because that's where Concrete and brick were pbp 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Wrought iron

This was the major type of iron alloy in use before the invention of steel.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 14:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support addition to history section or maybe technology. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Currently a number of alloys such as brass, bronze, cast iron, duralumin, steel and stainless steel are listed under Chemistry. I think they might be more appropriately placed here. Does anyone else have an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 06:23, 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.
Swapped pbp 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Swap:Add Parallel computing, Remove Search engine (computing)

Already have Web search engine. Parallel computing is an important computing article.

Support !votes

  1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  6. support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 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.
Added, 5-2 pbp 22:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Arithmetic mean

A very important part of statistics; more specific than average

Support
  1. Support as nom -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support --Dagko (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose Bedrieger (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. 'oppose Math is already bloated. Will only support swaps or removes in that section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion

Why would math be considered bloating if it has only 259 articles out of a goal of 300? That isn't bloated at all, unless the goal should be reduced. --Dagko (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_21&oldid=1086816731"