Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 24

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 10 years ago by GabeMc
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 → Archive 30
Failed 3-4 Cobblet (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2014 (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 Eleanor Roosevelt

We recently debated removing some civil rights activists. I think Eleanor Roosevelt is more vital than many of the people we discussed. By becoming a highly active and visible champion of women's rights and minority rights (she opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII despite facing harsh criticism for doing so; her support for African-American rights swung that group's political affiliation away from the Republicans toward the Democrats, where it remains today), she transformed the role of the First Lady in American politics. Later she became the first chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and oversaw the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She was ranked #42 in The Atlantic's list of the 100 most influential Americans, the fifth highest-ranked female. We have no other female American politicians on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose No, just not vital on a world scale. Well take Hillary when she is president if we need a female American politician.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Dagko (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I think we have different definitions of vital. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not vital on a global scale. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 03:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Manuas, since you bring up Hillary...

  1. The "when she's President" thing is total CRYSTALBALL-ism
  2. And if she is elected, due to recentism concerns, it may be a decade before she makes the list
  3. And even if she does become President, Eleanor is a pretty significant figure. We're talking one of the five people most responsible for the founding of the U.N. and the Declaration of Human Rights. I think it's wrong to say she's not vital on a world scale. pbp 05:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
How is one of the most significant figures in the history of the UN "not vital on a world scale"? How would Hillary Clinton be any more so? Cobblet (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Where are the other four guys and gals who were most responsible for the founding of the UN? She is mentioned exactly once in the article on the UN. She headed the commission. There is no suggestion I know of that she made any particular intellectual to its contents. She was just the widow of the president who first introduced the concept of four freedoms, and who was a leading figure in the institution of the UN.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Eleanor Roosevelt's role at the UN has been examined in detail in at least two books. According to the UN, she "played an instrumental role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At a time of increasing East-West tensions, Mrs. Roosevelt used her enormous prestige and credibility with both superpowers to steer the drafting process towards its successful completion." She has been credited as "the UN's most noted ambassador. She traveled throughout Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific investigating conditions and urging both support for the UN and UN humanitarian and diplomatic aid. Within the United States, she championed the UN tirelessly in "My Day," the articles and books she wrote for adults and young people, and on her lecture tour." Cobblet (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2014 (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 Hu Jintao, Add Emperor Wen of Sui

No Chinese government official since Deng Xiaoping has done anything significant enough to warrant inclusion on this list. Emperor Wen of Sui reunited China under the Sui Dynasty after 300 years of instability and war; reformed both the central bureaucracy and the militia; codified Chinese laws in the Kaihuang Code; introduced imperial examinations to find qualified candidates for public service; reinstituted the equal-field system which provided economic stability for the peasantry; and began construction of the Grand Canal. His reign is recognized as one of the golden ages in Chinese history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2014 (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 Jābir ibn Hayyān

Better known as Geber. One of the most well known Arab polymaths during the Islamic Golden Age.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC) he's in the smaller 1000 list already?
  3. Support -- llywrch (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I don't know if you noticed but he is already on the smaller vital 1000 list Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Inventors_and_scientists, is he 1000 list material? I never noticed he was absent from here, obviously he can't be in level 3 but not level 4, and he's a pretty good add none the less.  Carlwev  16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't! Thanks for pointing it out. Cobblet (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
So does that make this an automatic add? -- llywrch (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You'd think so, but this seems to be how we do things here. Then again there's nothing wrong with taking a second look anyway – if multiple people start opposing, perhaps we should consider removing it from the higher-level list. But that's never happened so far. Cobblet (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2014 (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 History of the European Union

History? What history? The EU is younger than I am. Even if you include the EEC, that's still only 60 years. Plus, we already include the history of many of the EU's member states in the 10,000 pbp 14:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 14:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support One article on the topic (the EU itself) is enough. Gizza (t)(c) 01:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2014 (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 subcontinent

Again, South Asia is the broader term that can refer to both the cultural area and the physical region. That article already includes discussion of the area's geologic history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support The Indian Subcontinent is in many languages but South Asia in more, and it's a much better article too, both articles mention the other term and explain they can be used interchangeably, so they are not both needed.  Carlwev  19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Scandinavian Peninsula is also something we may want to remove, but at least it's not entirely contiguous with Scandinavia (which also includes Denmark). Cobblet (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2014 (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 Arts/Literature 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2014 (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 Legend

If mythology appears in the vital 100, I think legend should appear in the 10'000. We also have fairy tale and fantasy in literature plus several individual cultures mythologies under religion. We also include some topics considered legends or legendary characters, like Robin Hood, King Arthur, Merlin, Lancelot, Faust and Don Juan, so I think the general overarching topic deserves to be in too. Carlwev (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom wrt adding to literature. Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  • I am slightly unsure where it's correct place to be is. We have similar topics that may belong together but are in different places at the moment. As in Mythology and Folklore are under religion, but fantasy and fairy tale is under literature, then oral tradition is under anthropology. Legend wouldn't look out of place next to any of these, but based on the article and it's categories literature maybe the best fit at the moment as the legendary characters I mentioned above are all under arts with literature and literature characters. Carlwev (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2014 (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 Blackboard, Add Slate to Petrology

Blackboards aren't vital, but the material they're made from is a common construction material and an important type of rock.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:35, 24 March 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2014 (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 Palette (painting)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Quite a limited tool in the scheme of things. No more vital than easel which isn't listed. Gizza (t)(c) 02:08, 7 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2014 (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 Cinderella

Myself and a few other users have shown interest in Cinderella. Fairy tales are less presented than other arts/fiction, but they've had impact on later fiction and been retold many times in many mediums. Considering they've been around for centuries, and are known almost universally, maybe they need slightly more representation. Cinderella is perhaps one of the most well known fairy tale characters. Carlwev (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Has certainly had a big cultural impact across many nations, as illustrated by the long list of adaptations in various forms. Neljack (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Wolbo (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd like to support this but I have to note that of the 33 fictional characters listed, just two are not of Western origin: Aladdin and Godzilla. Can we remove some of the less vital Western characters like Hansel and Gretel or Ossian or Uncle Sam? Replace Scrooge with A Christmas Carol? (We have no Dickens novels on the list, if I'm not mistaken.) Get rid of Lancelot and Merlin? (Shouldn't King Arthur be enough to represent the Arthurian legends?) And then add some figures from other cultures? (Hua Mulan was nominated a few months ago and seems to me a reasonable choice – we also have a dearth of legendary female characters. Or how about Doraemon or Sinbad the Sailor?) Cobblet (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not bad ideas, I agree with most of them, more non western characters, Don't need Merlin, Lancelot if we have King Arthur, the King Arthur article is about the whole legend not just the one character, we are not listing Maid Marian and Friar Tuck for example, Hansel and Gretel, Ossian, Uncle Sam and a few more are border line, Sinbad is a possibility. Replace Scrooge with the novel seems pretty sensible. I would probably support most of those ideas. We also have AstroBoy and Mario, the Japanese character who's an Italian American the from Japan as well as Godzilla, but the number is still low on non western characters. Are there any good characters from Asian, African of Native American legend?  Carlwev  09:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about non-Western characters but the Panchatantra is a great example of a collection of non-Western legends (but which later influenced folk tales in Europe, the Middle East and much of Asia). To quote a referenced part of the Wikipedia entry on Panchatantra, its range extends "from Java to Iceland". I think it will be a great addition to the VA Level 4 list. I doubt if any particular characters within the legend are notable enough though. Gizza (t)(c) 12:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2014 (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 Cup

Cups have existed since the beginning of civilization, and their use extends beyond drinking to ceremonial purposes. The only specific type of tableware we list besides the parent article is Plate.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 21:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Perhaps the same arguments could be applied to bowl as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If we put our mind to it we could write a lot about cup, probably used in most places for most of history if we have tableware, and plate, cutlery and knife, fork, spoon and chopsticks, cup should have a shot too.  Carlwev  11:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2014 (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 United States National Library of Medicine, Boston Public Library, German National Library, and Biblioteca Nacional de España

Since there was no consensus to add the Danish Royal Library, I suggest we remove the remaining libraries that have a smaller collection than it (except the Library of Alexandria and Vatican Library, which are of significant historical interest). This leaves us with a list of ten libraries in all: two in the US, three in Western Europe, two in Russia, one in Africa, and two in Asia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Dagko (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:24, 7 April 2014 (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 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2014 (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 Openness

The way the article is written, this isn't a psychological concept at all. There are other things this word could mean, but I'm not sure open-mindedness is significant enough to warrant inclusion, and extraversion is already covered under Extraversion and introversion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Ypnypn (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It came in with this thread Add the big five personality traits...., I suggested the overarching topic may be better Big Five personality traits itself,  Carlwev  13:51, 21 March 2014 (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.
Medical technologies section created under Technology Cobblet (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2014 (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.

Where should medical technologies go?

While we're talking about medicine, it's struck me as odd that we list medical technology under Technology on the Level 3 list, but under Medicine on the Level 4 list. I think things like electrocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging and artificial organ could use their own new section, to which about a dozen things could be added, like medical imaging, medical radiography (X-rays), medical ultrasonography, artificial cardiac pacemaker, dialysis and prosthesis; and such a section should go under Technology (which is almost 40 entries below quota). What do people think? Cobblet (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be consistent, and it seems to me that listing them under technology would be the most obvious choice. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Lists should be consistent, probably. I would probably put them in tech but not completely sure. A few other things crossed my mind that aren't consistent. Rice, Fruit, veg, potato, corn, wheat, soybean are in food at 1000, but plants at the 10'000. Should artists tools be in art, where they are now, or with all other tools in tech? country is in geography at 1000 but social science at 10'000, hospital is in medicine in the 10,000 but not in the 1000. City, town, village are under geography but other human geography terms are in social sci. Tv shows should probably not be in social sci but be near movies, they are both works of fiction or non-fiction in recorded format, some like StarTrek, Star Wars, Simpsons although have main format are spread over Film and TV. How about magazines, near books? We could improve with a bit of discussion and reorganization. Carlwev (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have made a medical technologies section and moved hospital in there as well, to bring it in line with Level 3. I have also grouped all the articles on cities and urban planning under Cities in Geography. I haven't touched the other things you mentioned. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2014 (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 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (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 Hundredweight

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Grain (unit) is probably more fundamental to the Imperial system, and stone (unit) of more general interest. On the metric side, the unprefixed gram might be worth adding alongside the already vital listed kilogram. There are articles on units of mass more vital than hundredweight. Plantdrew (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Rwessel (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Anyone think dimensional analysis is worth adding? I'd argue it's an essential technique in physics and engineering. Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

agree with plantdrew's comments, also there might be non-weight units more vital, and we didn't even want karat either. Not sure on dimensional analysis but it's better than hundred weight. It looks like a fairly important topic, but maybe one that's hard to define, and gets easily forgotten. It's a maybe in my head, I'd probably support a swap for something lower, or default swap for this.  Carlwev  17:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2014 (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 Morphine

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support It was the first alkaloid in history to be isolated, which was a landmark event in the then-nascent field of organic chemistry. Two centuries later, it's still the gold standard for painkillers despite its addictive properties. Many other painkillers such as codeine are made from morphine; heroin is also a morphine derivative. If we can list both tobacco and nicotine, we can certainly list this alongside opium. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:14, 31 March 2014 (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.
It appears there is a consensus for the proposal as written. I have left the moving of additional sections open, but there is not a consensus for that at this time pbp 15:04, 30 March 2014 (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.

I propose the following:

I feel this needs to be done because the A, P and EL page covers two much ground, and since Anthro and psych are social sciences anyway, they should just be in the social sciences page pbp 00:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 00:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - Per nom; brilliant idea. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support much better regrouping. I would also take sexuality and family along with them. Carlwev (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support It is particularly odd to have some social sciences not on the social sciences page. I also agree with Carlwev - sexuality and family seem to be classic examples of topics that come under the rubric of "society". Neljack (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

That's a move of 308 articles. How should the quotas be modified to account for that? By the way, I think ethnology is a section that could see major expansion at some point (e.g. if User:Maunus gets around to it). Cobblet (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I say move them if it makes sense and there is consensus; deal with the arbitrary quotas later, but if we add 100 to one quota it won't be any more difficult to decrease the other by the same. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Could someone close this, please? It's 5-0 and no votes in a month pbp 18:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It's your proposal, and there are differing opinions on exactly which sections to move; I think the call is yours to make. Cobblet (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn by nom Cobblet (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2014 (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 Abraham and Moses to Philosophy and religion/Religious characters

Moses and Abraham are not actual historical figures. It also makes no sense to put Abraham here and his sons on the other page.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. USpport Lets start with these ones and then move the rest of the biographies that are primarily known through religious scriptures too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Who says that they are not historical figures? Are they less historical than Jesus? Why, or why not? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

We do. Yes. Please read Abraham#Historicity and origins, Moses#Historicity, and The Exodus#Historicity, and compare with what is written in Historicity of Jesus. If you insist these are real people, then what do you propose to do about Abraham's sons, or people like Noah or Jacob, who are also currently listed as religious characters? Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that all religious characters/figures should be listed in the same list so that we do not favour one to the other. There is no mention of Jesus outside the Bible, so he is not more historical than Moses. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Your last sentence contradicts what is written in Historicity of Jesus#Evidence and Josephus on Jesus. You are entitled to your personal belief, but it conflicts with the consensus of modern scholarship. Cobblet (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, Jesus is notable as a religious figure and not as a person briefly mentioned by Josephus. That of course doesnt have anything to do with the proposal here of course, which is about two completely different persons.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) ::: 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and 2) the neutrality of Historicity of Jesus is disputed. 3) Josephus mentions Jesus twice, and in texts that were written 60+ years after his death, so like the gospels, they are not contemporaneous with the life of Christ, which I should have made clear. No historical documents from the time of Christ mention him. 60+ years was two generations, so to say that Josephus proves the existence of a historical Christ is not accurate. Yes, modern scholars assume that he was a real man, but tell a Rabbi that Moses did not exist. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2014 (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 History of the Americas

While I'm not against every article that has overlap with another one, I think this article is now redundant with the histories of the two continents. We do have articles that describe topics common to both (Settlement of the Americas, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, European colonization of the Americas).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support The above mentioned topics are the most important topics to discuss about the Americas as a whole. With regard to the other part of continental American history (i.e. the modern history of the Americas) it is better discussed the continent split into North and South. Gizza (t)(c) 05:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Although removing this at the 1000 level makes sense I'm not too sure on this one, it kind of makes sense and I understand the argument but, I think I'd prefer to keep it. The fact we have Settlement of the Americas, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and European colonization of the Americas, instead of the same but split into two (eg Settlement of North America, European colonization of South America etc) shows that we treat the landmass and it's history, culture and people, as a single entity more than we split it in two. But I'll think about it a bit longer. Carlwev (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2014 (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 Palace of Westminster 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Palace of Westminster or Big Ben

In October last year I suggested Palace of Westminster. see here it resulted in 6-3 support, which today would have been passed as 66.666% minimum vote, If I were to just add it quoting that thread, it may be seen as rude so I'll open the thread again. One user remarked Big Ben is more well known, the terms can overlap in meaning, but wiki has separate articles on them. The whole building is called the Palace of Westminster, or Houses of Parliament or Big Ben. Big Ben is the bell but can also mean the tower or the whole building. I would support either but prefer Palace of Westminster. The original comment I put with the last thread was, "Possibly the best known building in the whole UK, more vital than other buildings, bridges, libraries and museums we have included from within London. A UNESCO World heritage site notable for architecture, role in government, and history such as the Gunpowder Plot." Which sums up my thoughts.  Carlwev  20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support either but prefer Palace of Westminster.  Carlwev  20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Palace of Westminster but not Big Ben. Gizza (t)(c) 05:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Palace of Westminster. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - --Rsm77 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose

:# Oppose - This really should be two threads, versus a multiple choice. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with you, I hate multiple choice in general, but the last thread, which failed with 6-3 and one user said they would prefer Big Ben not the palace, which frustrates me as not only is 6-3 a pass now anyway, but in my eyes big ben and the palace are the same thing, one user appeared to oppose, not because they didn't want the topic in but because they preferred the other term/article for it, but the vote was enough to tip it under 70% to 66.666%. Had they not voted or supported it may have passed, if it were not for that small issue.  Carlwev  20:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, why not just make it for Palace of Westminster, since Big Ben is part of that palace? If it got 6 supports before then it will probably pass this time around. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. Frankly I don't think Big Ben is notable enough on its own to be on this list. Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
OK OK not Big Ben I only added it as one user opposed the last time saying he would prefer Big Ben, and that tipped the thread to 6-3 fail, even though Big Ben is part of the Palace?. Scored out Big Ben now.  Carlwev  10:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2014 (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 Notre Dame de Paris

Seems more vital than many buildings, libraries and meseums we have. On par or more important than the other French cathedral Chartres Cathedral.  Carlwev  12:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 15:08, 9 April 2014 (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 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2014 (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 Beijing Subway, Add Forbidden City

If we need one landmark in Beijing the choice should be obvious. Besides, the Seoul Metropolitan Subway is more notable than Beijing's in most aspects and we don't list that.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:52, 6 April 2014 (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 support, 2 months+,  Carlwev  18:58, 11 April 2014 (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 Moustache

Clothing and fashion articles are underrepresented on this list, taking up <0.5% of the list. Also we have Beard and Shaving pbp 18:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 18:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Carlwev (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose. Facial hair would be a better choice because that is a biological phenomenon and not just a style.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

How about adding facial hair? It's not a very well developed article (beard is far better, and moustache is somewhat better), but it seems to me like the broader topic should be included before the subtopics. Plantdrew (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I second this idea. Cobblet (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Although this is English Wikipedia, other language lists are appearing and some seem to be a copy of this one, either indefinitely or as a starting point. Do all other languages have a term for "facial hair" like we do in English, and if they do is it used frequently, Facial hair isn't even linked to the French Wikipedia. Rightly or wrongly I take things like that into account. I think beard and moustache may be better just because they are used more, possibly even more so historically and in other languages; they are probably going to be the term that people look up to read, and looking at the articles they appear to be the article people go to when they want to write about the topic. Moustache is a medium length C-class with 20 refs, beard a long C-class article with 66 refs, Facial hair a short C-class with 8 refs. Number of hits per month, 29K for beard, 23K for Moustache and 18K for facial hair. Other laguauge Wikis, Beard is in 74 other languages, moustache in 60 and facial hair only in 9. None of that really matters the argument that facial hair is overarching is still valid, and makes sense, there's no rason why we couldn't make facial hair an a long and good article taking lots of content from the other two articles. I think specific is better than general in this case, but I could change my mind, I vote for moustache, although I agree it's towards the less vital of our articles, I accept and understand it may never get in. I think beard is the better one if we can only have one. Sorry for the long paragraph  Carlwev  20:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I see your point and feel there's merit to it, which is why I don't oppose the proposal. Cobblet (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2014 (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 Can opener

We have canning and could conceivably include tin can, although the technological breakthroughs underpinning its invention are explained in the canning article. I don't think we need can openers any more than we need corkscrews or bottle openers.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support less vital than cup, mug or bowl (which aren't listed)Plantdrew (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 2-4 Cobblet (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2014 (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 Sweater

Seems odd to have gloves, bra, burqa, button but miss out sweater. basic item of clothing we have the others like trousers, shirt and skirt

Support
  1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Definitely less vital than trousers, shirt and skirt. Cloak and Coat, probably the most general forms of outerwear across all cultures, are already on the list. Among the other items you mentioned, I'd support removing burqa—I don't think the recent politicization of its use justifies its inclusion. Cobblet (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The big problem with Sweater is the third and fourth words in that article - "American English". Keep it global. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
discussion

I think burqa is of similar importance to turban, we don't have that. Burqa has some notability aside from the recent publicity, maybe not enough though. It seems odd to have exclusively only one religious clothing, and none other. You could argue we should have a couple or none. Perhaps none would be preferred? On the topic of clothing, do people like Suit (clothing)?  Carlwev  11:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer none. No to suit either, unless you'd also support thawb, dhoti/sari and hanfu. Cobblet (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No action taken Cobblet (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2014 (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.

Lepidoptera, Butterflies and Moths

I always thought beetles were the largest insect group, and one of the most important. But we removed in bulk most beetle articles, including some I may have kept like Lady bird, no matter, all we kept were beetle, firefly and dung beetle. So, do we really need 20 articles for Lepidoptera? are all 20 of them vital? (There are currently 88 insect articles in total) (see whole list). I imagine the 3 articles in thread title should be kept, but which of the other 17 would users want to save? I am looking one by one to see if any stand out more important. I am thinking of a bulk removal soon of some of these like we did with the beetles. Am I being too bold? should I pick some off one at a time? I do think the removed Lady bird article is more vital than say the moth family "Tineidae". In the time being I might nominate the odd few for removal singularly. This is the full list

Lepidoptera, 20
  1. Lepidoptera (save)
  2. Butterfly (save)
  3. Arctiidae
  4. Bombyx mori (domesticated silkmoth)
  5. Geometer moth
  6. Lycaenidae (Blues and Coppers)
  7. Lymantriidae
    1. Lymantria dispar dispar
  8. Moth (save)
  9. Noctuidae
  10. Notodontidae
  11. Nymphalidae
  12. Pieridae (Yellow-Whites)
    1. Pieris brassicae
  13. Pyralidae
  14. Skipper (butterfly)
  15. Sphingidae
  16. Swallowtail butterfly
  17. Tineidae
  18. Tortricidae
  1. Also, if you go by the Lepidoptera wikiproject as a guide, some of our vital Lepidoptera articles are only rated as mid or low importance on the project and are stub or start quality. The wikiproject lists 230 articles of high importance most we obviously don't have, although some seem more significant. such as Monarch butterfly, Heath Fritillary and others. Carlwev (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The insect list is kind of biased towards higher taxa; i.e., including most orders of insects even those that are practically never encountered by people who aren't actively searching for them (e.g. Psocoptera). With the Lepidoptera, this tendency to higher taxa manifests as listing a bunch of families with large number of species. I'd suggest Bombyx mori should be kept. Microlepidoptera covers Tineidae, Tortricidae and Pyralidae (among others), and could be swapped in for those 3 families. Monarch butterfly is pretty iconic and well known for its migration and might be good to add. Morpho and Actias luna are couple more that are probably more relevant to the average person than some of the families already listed. Plantdrew (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm no lepidopterist, but Arctiidae, Noctuidae and Skipper (butterfly) looked particularly non-vital to me when I last looked at the insect list. Cobblet (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to swap out Tineidae, Tortricidae and Pyralidae for Microlepidoptera. Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2014 (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 removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2014 (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 Kite (bird)

It's just a list article, naming species and genera, and no other content, would be better to have a common species of kite like Black Kite. Or have Accipitridae, the article about the family that has content in addition to a list of species or leave it off.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. [[225th most view bird article. Black Kite isn't too far behind (#319), and would be better than the list of birds called kites, but neither is worth including. Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Maybe include bird of prey , Falconiformes or Accipitriformes. Raptor birds redirects to bird of prey. The raptors/diurnal birds of prey (i.e., not owls) were formerly treated as Falconiformes but some species are now split into Accipitriformes. I think there should probably be an article on the broader group of raptors over some of the more specific articles on particular raptors. Plantdrew (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly bird of prey seems like a better choice than a taxonomically meaningless term like kite or eagle. Also we could probably use some specific examples like Peregrine Falcon since these are among the most recognizable birds around. Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
We have bird of prey already. I would definitely support adding Peregrine Falcon. There are probably some stand out adds, swaps and removes waiting to be found. What size do we want to end up with for a bird section?  Carlwev  19:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
There are about 10,000 species of non-avian reptiles and about 10,000 species of birds. Yet we list 48 reptiles but 150 birds; clearly there's an imbalance here. Accounting for the possibility that some notable reptiles (e.g. gecko) are missing, and that there seems more general interest in birds than reptiles (if you compare Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Popular pages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages, the articles on the latter page get significantly more hits), I'd imagine we could aim to trim the birds by about 30-50 articles as a starting point. Cobblet (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove Puffbird

We have 150 articles dedicated to birds. This may not be in the top 150 most vital bird articles.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. A family of less than 40 species, article doesn't even crack the the 500 most viewed bird articles. Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Screamer

We have 150 articles dedicated to birds. This may not be in the top 150 most vital bird articles.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Family of only 3 species, article doesn't even crack the 500 most viewed bird articles Plantdrew (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2014 (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 Common Raven

More important than half the birds we have. Certainly more important than puffbird.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. 40th most viewed bird article, and not far behind the list article at raven (#34).Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2014 (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 clear consensus reached Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2014 (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.

What to do about Old Testament religious figures?

OK, so perhaps I am wrong to lump Moses and Abraham together. I accept that people may sincerely believe that somebody is real even if there is no direct historical proof for their existence. Would a rabbi also insist that Abraham is real? What about his sons? How do you suggest I modify this proposal? Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, like I said above I think that we should put all of these characters/figures into one list, so we aren't taking the position that Jesus is real, but Moses is not real. If we put them all together we avoid making the value judgment that nearly all Old Testament figures are fictional, but most New Testament figures are historical. I suppose Jesus and Mohammed are the only two that are considered historical anyway. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, we list a good deal more than Jesus and Muhammad under People. There's Jesus's apostles, Muhammad's daughter, several prophets and Kings of Israel, etc. I'm not sure it's a good idea to put all of them on the same list as Adam and Eve. What if we set aside Moses and just move Abraham? The only reason I brought this up was because it clearly made no sense to have Abraham and his sons on different lists, especially when the implication of our current grouping is that Abraham is more "real" than his sons are. I didn't think moving Moses would be controversial, but clearly that just shows my ignorance. Cobblet (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
That's what I mean; all new testament figures are assumed to be real while Old testament ones are assumed to be fantasy, but this is largely due to a massive Christian bias amongst vocal scholars. I don't think that we should be drawing a line in the sand where some are judged to be real while others are judged to be mythical. There must be a good way to lump them all together without being offensive, but I'm not sure what that is at the moment. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The notability of religious figures is not determined by their historicity but by their religious relevance. Therefore it seems clear that we should have a section of on religious topics, including founders, deities, characters, myths, holidays and scripture. We could simply call that section religion, and move all persons who are primarily of religious importance to that list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Right. That sounds reasonable to me. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that that doesn't entirely solve the problem of line-drawing. What do you do with Saint Peter, for instance? Do you distinguish between Muhammad, Fatimah and Ali? Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If their notability is primarily in a religious function, then move them to a religion category. I would argue that popes should be there by default, but perhaps they and other borderlines cases like other heads of religious movements are notable for political functions too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
That ambiguity with respect to popes is quite evident from their current arrangement on the list – they're all over the place. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You're a lot of things, Cobblet, but ignorant is not one of them! I assumed that Maunus meant we would put them all together without the differentiation of historical vs. mythical. We could just call them all religious figures and not attempt to make any distinction. Is this accurate to your sentiment, Maunus? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is pretty much it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be facetious – I've already demonstrated a lack of understanding of how Jews view their own history! I get that you don't want to differentiate between "historical" and "mythical", but then the problem becomes one of differentiating "religious" from "non-religious". Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm, what do you mean by "non-religious"? Why would we have non-religious figures in the same sub-list as religious ones? What I mean to suggest is that we can have Adam and Eve in the same list as Moses and Jesus. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess I have two questions in mind. The first is what you would do with popes, for example, who I agree are mainly religious figures nowadays and during early Christianity, but also wielded a significant degree of political influence in the Middle Ages. Do you put all of them under religious figures? And the second: do you put this list under People or Philosophy and religion? Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I would include the Popes with the rest of them and I would put them all into Philosophy and religion regardless of whether they are assumed to be real or mythical. I suppose some may not like this approach, but we could leave the Popes in People if that causes an issue. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you starting this fight in the first place? Does it bother you that people you believe are fictional characters are listed as real people? Do you think this page is the venue to start this argument? Are you trying to be a troll or are you really that thoughtless? Leave the damn thing alone, would be my advice. Otherwise, start an RfC to determine which people consensus says are real versus those that are just literary. Chris Troutman 22:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Who are you calling a troll, Chris? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
1) Because whether you believe them to be real or not, it doesn't make sense to me to put Abraham on a different list from his sons. 2) Depends who you're talking about. In the present case, I don't care either way. But I would be bothered if we listed Santa Claus as a person. 3) Yes, except it's a discussion about how to organize this list, not an argument about whose beliefs are right. 4) Assuredly not, but clearly I am too naive. 5) Your advice is noted. Cobblet (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm Kind of late to this discussion, but it's obvious Abraham and his sons should be in the same section, I think we all agree on that. I was only wandering, Abraham and Moses, and Jesus appear in the 1000 list. Although that list is shorter with less sections, it still has a section for people (including religious figures), and a section for religion, with no people. Which ever we decide, in most cases the different level lists should probably be consistent with each other. There are several articles and lists of articles in different sections across the level divide, we may address this one day. There may be some cases where it's a good idea to not be consistent.  Carlwev  10:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Personally I feel the idea of putting modern-day popes on the same list as Adam and Eve a bit artificial, but I'll stay out of the rest of the debate – I'm probably one of the least qualified people to comment on this issue. (Honestly if it were up to me, I'd replace Adam and Eve with Genesis creation narrative – the overall story seems to me more significant than the two human characters.) Cobblet (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2014 (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 Henry Clay

Quite possibly the greatest US senator in history. To quote pbp from an earlier discussion: "Clay was behind nearly every important legislative effort between 1812 and 1850, most notably the American System, the Missouri Compromise, the Corrupt Bargain and the Compromise of 1850. Clay is #31 on the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Most Influential Americans." If we include Pyotr Stolypin and Zhou Enlai as notable examples of modern political leaders that weren't heads of state but were enormously influential in their country's domestic affairs, Clay surely deserves to be on the list as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 04:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I will assume good faith and expect that there will be future removals of various American biographies less vital than Clay. As I said below, there are too many Americans on the list overall but the list of politicians in modern history isn't in the worst shape so far as national bias is concerned. Gizza (t)(c) 02:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Perhaps important to the US. But this is not a US encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

The way I see it is if we can have dozens of American athletes and actors, we can have a couple dozen American politicians. The U.S. still wouldn't be the country with the most leaders even if Clay is added. And we're talking a very, very important leader here: there's an argument that he was the most important American politician in the "New Nation" era between 1815-1861. All those compromises that saved the Union? Clay. The American System? Clay. Who was the de facto leader of the National Republican and Whig Parties for most of their existence? Clay. Maunus, if you're concerned about the US-centrism of this list, why am I not seeing movement from you proposing removal in the most US-centric areas of the list? pbp 05:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't propose removing American biographies because that would be a waste of my time. MOst of the time they are treated as holy relics. Propose some and yuo can count on my vote.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Maunus, that's such a frivolous argument. I could say the same thing about the vast majority of the 472 political figures we have. You know what, let's remove all nine Southeastern Asian rulers from the Middle Ages, because while they might be important to Southeast Asia, this is not a Southeast Asian encyclopedia. Cobblet (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but contrary to the American figures, they are not form overrepresented regions. No one outside of the US have heard of Henry Clay. And it is quite possible to write a detailed and thorough account of US history that doesn't mention him. That is what I base my argument on. My view of wikipedia is that it should represent what is vital knowledge. US history is important to the world, yes. But not Henry Clays role in it. His role in US history is primarily important to Americans. If you want to remove all nine south east asian biographies, or both African ones. In my experience you are likely to get away with it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (that sometimes veers off-topic) about what constitutes a vital historical figure and Western bias
In my experience people have agreed to remove every American I've suggested removing with the exception of Sojourner Truth (how is she "vital on a world scale"?), which naturally you voted to keep. Quit trying to imply that you're the only person here who appreciates the necessity to include people from around the world. Your statement that "no one outside of the US have heard of Henry Clay" is again the same frivolous argument – by the same token, we could probably remove at least 20 of the 24 chemists because nobody who isn't a chemist has heard of them.
By "his role in US history is primarily important to Americans", are you trying to say that if someone is only notable for their contributions to their country's domestic affairs, they shouldn't be on the list? That's a more interesting point, but I again I think a substantial number of political figures on the list wouldn't survive based on that criterion. I wouldn't say that politicians must wield influence in international affairs in order to be of international interest. Cobblet (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Luckily this is not a !vote, but a vote so whether my arguments are frivolous is irrelevant, I am entitled to vote as I please fr what ever reason I like (or none at all) - that is one of the absurdly beautiful things about this process. And no I am saying if someone is considered wildly important to people within a particular country but people outside of that country dont consider that person important even to the history of that country then they shouldnt be on the list. The most significant American senator, may be entirely irrelevant to the rest of the world, which primarily see the relevant people in American political history to be its presidents. Sojourner Truth is not vital on a world scale, but she is vital to keep the coverage of the many man many US people balanced enough so that it isnt composed entirely of dead white men.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately !votes are not a substitute for consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia. (Or so I'd like to believe, anyway – please don't burst my bubble.) Secondly, the approach you outline is exactly what leads to a lack of balance on the list. (People outside East Asia don't care about East Asian music, so let's not have any Asian musicians! Or I take that back: they've all heard of Psy, so let's include him!) Finally, if the list accurately reflected the contributions of Americans of different backgrounds, it would obviously not consist entirely of dead white men. We don't have to keep obscure figures like Sojourner Truth in order to achieve that. If we do, then we're certainly not talking about "balance" anymore. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No what leads to imbalance on the list is that it is maintained mostly by American/Western editors who mostly know about American/Western topics and find them more important than most other kinds of topics, and the fact that there are no clear criteria of inclusion that can be used to contradict that subjective judgment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That may have been true in the past. I don't think it's an accurate way to describe the participants who are currently active here. Certainly it amuses me that you found it necessary to point this out to me. I would trust a country's own people to understand their history better than people not from that country. That holds true even if they are Americans. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it is an accurate description of the participants here and in the rest of wikipedia. I dont know anything about your gender or national background. You may be the exception, though that doesnt exactly show from your votes in that case. Why is the USs most important senator more significant than Russias or Chinas counterpart? No one would even think of proposin to include a Russian duma member regardless of how many of the foundational Russian laws he had participated in creating.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm obviously not the only exception to what you've described, and we're not talking about the rest of Wikipedia. You're the one who wanted to add Herodotus to the Level 3 list even though nobody outside the Western world gives a hoot about him, so please don't complain about my voting record being pro-Western. But let's talk specifics: who are the Russian or Chinese counterparts you had in mind? Cobblet (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
If you read wha I say I dont have any in mind. I quite clearly state that noone would even consider adding a Chinese or Russian "senator". That is because senators are not vital. Not even when they are Americans and propose some important legislation that Americans find important. You Herodotus comment is absurd. Herodotus is named as a founder of the field of History also in non-Western history books, and he is known by Historians across the globe. In comparison no non-western books on US history mention Clay, and Historians writing about all other places in the world are unlikely to have heard of him.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No Maunus, what is absurd is your implication that historiography is an exclusive invention of the West. You think Sima Qian knew about Herodotus? But I digress. If what bothers you is that Henry Clay was not an American head of state, then the same is true of Pyotr Stolypin and Zhou Enlai. Despite your ostensible objections, I think the latter two are totally appropriate entries to have on the list, and I see no reason why we can have them, and add even more people like them, but not include Clay. Cobblet (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That alleged "implication" is on your own account since I did not make it. But please do show me an introduction to historiography, Chinese or otherwise, that does not mention Herodotus among the fathers of the discipline of history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Show me an introduction to world historiography that does not mention Sima Qian. When two historiographical traditions emerge independently, both equally notable; and both traditions can point to equally influential founding figures; and we choose to include only the Western figure, that to me is Western bias at its most basic level. Cobblet (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, Maunus seems to be hung up on "Senator", believing that it's weird that only the U.S. should have legislative leaders. The U.S. has a different form of government than other countries: it was originally designed to have three branches of relatively equal import, one being the legislative. In the United States, the head of the legislative branch (Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, which Clay was) is not part of the executive branch and not the head of state or government. In Britain or other parliamentary democracies, the head of the legislative branch (the PM) is also the head of government, hence why we have both British monarchs and British PMs (and in the case of Vicky and QE2, monarchs and PMs who were serving at the same time). In monarchical or dictatorial countries, the legislative branch has no power, so there's no need to include them. It's a similar idea with the judicial branch: many other countries don't have one or have one with no power, but the U.S. has a powerful one, so John Marshall (and potentially also Earl Warren) is on the list. Saying being only a Senator or Congressmen somehow disqualifies Clay is absurd. pbp 13:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm coming late to the party but the discussion/!voting is still open. From what I've read, Henry Clay was very influential which makes me lean towards support. The fact that he was a senator is neither here nor there. As pbp says, the US separations of powers means the legislative branch of government can possess power not found in most other countries in the world. But I echo Maunus' concerns about bias' towards the US/West (although the modern era politicians and leaders isn't that bad relative to the rest of VA). I would be willing to support if one of the less vital modern US presidents was proposed to be removed so this would in effect become a de facto swap. I'm not familiar enough with the 17 leaders currently listed to decide who is the least vital myself though. Gizza (t)(c) 12:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I only decided to nominate Clay and Sarnoff after we removed some minor American journalists. The weakest American president on the list is Jimmy Carter, but at the same time we're missing John Quincy Adams who is arguably vital. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 3-3 Cobblet (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2014 (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 Harlem Renaissance

Gabe often talks about how poorly African-American culture is represented on this list. This would be an opportunity to fix that. Also an opportunity to fix the fact that so much of the history articles are about war, and so little about cultural/intellectual history pbp 15:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 15:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Too specific a detail of the history of a US minority. And African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–68) is already on the list. Peter Isotalo 20:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree with Peter that this seems too specific. While it's true that the list doesn't include much in the way of cultural history, I'm not convinced this belongs on the list at the expense of something more general like the Roaring Twenties. With respect to increasing representation of African American history, I'd be more inclined to support things like Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954), Great Migration (African American) (of which the Harlem Renaissance was a result), or even simply African-American history. Cobblet (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. There are other more vital articles related to African-American history. I would support adding some of those articles listed above. Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Pete, I find it wrong to deny the Harlem Renaissance a place because the Civil Rights movement is on here. The two are hardly analogous: they were a generation apart, they were championed by different people, and only one of them is a political movement. pbp 18:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2014 (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 Ebenezer Scrooge, Add A Christmas Carol

It's surely better to include the novel on the list rather than the character (just compare the two articles and how many Wikipedias they're in). Also we have ten works by Shakespeare and none by Dickens – the Bard is the Bard but this is ridiculous. I think we could easily make room for two or three Dickens novels on the list if we swapped out a couple of Shakespeare's plays, for example.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support the novel itself is in nearly all cases more vital than one character from the novel. Gizza (t)(c) 01:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Another thing I presumed was in but apparently isn't, sensible swap, one is more vital than the other, unlike Tarzan, Bond and Sherlock which are series, this is a one book character not a series, a series is where having the character instead of one of it's books would make sense, not with Scrooge.  Carlwev  15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that Great Expectations on the list is a Dickens novel. Nothing wrong with him having two, though. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2014 (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 Uncle Sam

I don't see any particular reason to include this national personification over others listed in that article like John Bull or Mother Russia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, we have removed several US presidents and cities, which are more likely to appear in a print encyclopedia before Uncle Sam. Also, in Social Sciences we have Patriotism and Nationalism which cover the broad topic of being proud of one's nations or homeland, which is the same vein as Uncle Sam  Carlwev  10:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2014 (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 Rigveda

The collective Vedas is already a vital article.

Support
  1. Redtigerxyz Talk 10:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We need this kind of overlap only in the most exceptional cases, e.g. Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata. We have no individual books from the Bible, for example. Cobblet (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Redtigerxyz, what do you think about replacing this with Puranas which is covered by anything in the list? If some people feel that there are too many articles under Hinduism, other articles which could be removed include Ayurveda (which is no more important than topics like Vedanga and Jyotisha) or to a lesser extent Avatar (which is covered by Krishna and Ramayana). Gizza (t)(c) 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Gizza, I have proposed that Ayurveda be shifted to Medicine, it is not central to Hinduism per se; but important for Indian medicine. Also, I am unsure why Ramayana is in religion and Mahabharata in Ancient Literature. Avatar is central to the Hindu doctrine IMO. Puranas are also important texts, which may be added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree that it's strange to separate the two epics. Since the Bhagavad Gita is also listed under Religion, should we move the Mahabharata over as well? Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Cobblet, I suggest listing Mahabharata here. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2014 (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 Kali

The vital articles lack representation of Hindu goddesses. She is one of the most popular goddesses of Hinduism and is central to Tantra as well as other traditions like Wicca.--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Redtigerxyz Talk 10:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Per nom. Kali was only recently removed from the Vital 1000 list. Should definitely be in at the 10K level. Gizza (t)(c) 06:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

If someone thought it was 1000 material, it's probably 10000 material. We recently said we have many western, characters, from fiction, myth, legend and religion, so a well known eastern deity helps spread it out a bit more. By the way I put Redtigerxyz down as support as this is his thread.  Carlwev  13:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Yellow Emperor and Amaterasu would also make good additions. Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2014 (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 Seasoning

We already have condiment. Do we need a separate entry on the application of condiments?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Yeah I think we only need one, condiment vs seasoning. The condiment article needs a lot of love though. Carlwev (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

From the Condiment article "The term condiment comes from the Latin condimentum, meaning "spice, seasoning, sauce"". Spice and sauce are on the list. From the etymology, I could see reversing the proposal; i.e. keeping seasoning, which is slightly better developed article, and removing condiment. And that logic contradicts what I suggested a few minutes ago for moustache vs. facial hair. So, umm...if vital listed subtopics cover a broader topic, don't list the broad topic as vital? And other times list the broad topic and not subtopics? OK. I'm not sure if seasoning or condiment is the broader topic (aside from the etymology), but we don't need both.Plantdrew (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove Pesto

Basically associated with a single cuisine. There are unlisted condiments with more global culinary use.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We already have an example of a European sauce in mayonnaise. I would swap this with soy sauce. Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:56, 18 April 2014 (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.
Not added 2-2 Cobblet (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2014 (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 Tunic

Not very many people wear tunics anymore, but they were all the rage for most of human history pbp 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom; also, many cultures had them. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose I dont think individual clothes items are vital. With the possible exceptions of pants and skirts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

User:Maunus, why? People wear clothes everyday, yet we only have 20 or so specific articles of clothing. That's way less than one percent. Each of the articles of clothing on the list is or was worn by millions of people. pbp 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There 10,000 items that people use everyday. For me something being common, even extremely common, does not translate into it being vital for an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn pbp 16:56, 18 April 2014 (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 Desk

Support
  1. Support pbp 21:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 17#Remove Desk Cobblet (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED; 2–3 after 60+ days. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:32, 22 April 2014 (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 Super Bowl

The Super Bowl may be the most watched annual sporting event in the US, but it's not in the world - the Champions League final has overtaken it. But does anyone seriously suggest that we should have articles on both the Champions League and its final on the list - or for that matter the FIFA World Cup and its final? One article on the list is quite enough for any sports league or competition. I think the article on the league is more important that the one on the Super Bowl, which is after all a part of that league and discussed in the article on it. Neljack (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. - Why remove the most popular US sporting event while leaving several less popular ones? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I have lived in many parts of the world and I can say with certainty that the Super Bowl is a very big deal wherever you are, even in places where the NFL isn't so prominent—I would go so far as to say that internationally the Super Bowl is at least as notable as the NFL itself. So I'd say keep it. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 3-2 Cobblet (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2014 (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 Incest

The most notable social taboo (we even have an article called incest taboo, although that seems redundant to me). If cannibalism's vital (I moved out of food and drink into this category – please revert if you disagree), this should be as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Incest taboo is the correct article to have because it is culturally variable what is considered incest, and the standard way of referring to it in anthropology is as the incest taboo. The incest taboo is one of very few well established cultural universals, and has also prompted important biological/evolutionary research into the origins of this universal. The article incest is the redundant one I think, at leats on this list. I would support inclusion of Incest taboo.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Yeah I support moving cannibalism like you did, I think a few other people mentioned the same too.  Carlwev  11:49, 16 March 2014 (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 swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2014 (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 Pronunciation, Add Phonetics

Phonetics is the branch of linguistics that studies sound production: that's the article we need.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

At first glance, I thought pronunciation was more important, but after reading through them, phonetics seems better; both articles could be greatly improved. I'm leaning to agreeing with you on this, but I always wonder, what's better to include, the article on a topic, or the article on the study of the topic, or both? I like phonetics, just wondering if I wanna lose pronunciation, it is kind of week and overlapping.  Carlwev  17:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Here the situation isn't simply one of whether we need X or the study of X. Pronunciation is a word that has two meanings:
  1. If by "pronunciation" you mean "sounds of a spoken language" in general, two separate branches of linguistics study this: phonetics (how sounds are produced) and phonology (how sounds encode meaning).
  2. If by "pronunciation" you mean "the standard way in which words are spoken", this concept is studied in sociolinguistics (that's another article we should add) and is covered by dialect and accent (sociolinguistics).
In other words, pronunciation is an imprecise term that linguists break down into discrete concepts with specific meanings. Those discrete concepts are what we should have on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Toponomy, Add Historical linguistics

Some may find the etymology of toponyms interesting, but they aren't any more vital than demonyms or ethnonyms. Historical linguistics is the branch of linguistics that encompasses etymologies of all kinds as well as the historical evolution of languages as a whole.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I think maybe it would be worthwhile to include etymology as well as historical linguistics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2014 (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 Cyperus papyrus

Minor importance as an ornamental plant. Some ecological importance in its native range (but really no more ecological importance than any other species of in the Cyperaceae family). Most notable for its historic importance as the source of papyrus, which is also on the vital list (although I am about to propose removing papyrus as well).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Dagko (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:Plantdrew, one thing bugs me about this removal: is this the only plant native to Africa on the list? Cobblet (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are various listed families and genera with a worldwide distribution (or a broad tropical distribution) that occur in Africa, and some genera and species with a Mediterranean distribution (Europe and N. Africa). Amaryllis and Gladiolus are native to the Cape Floristic region (and Proteaceae is Cape/Australian). Aloe is native to Africa and occurs throughout the continent. Diospyros (ebony) has a wide tropical distribution, but there are a lot of African species. Adansonia (baobab) is pretty African. Some of the Sorghum and Millet species are native to Africa (and inclusion on the list is probably merited by their agricultural importance in Africa). There's certainly a temperate Northern Hemisphere bias to the list at present, but C. papyrus isn't the only African plant listed. Plantdrew (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2014 (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 13:35, 16 April 2014 (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 Zosteraceae

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  07:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. I've had my eye on removing this one. Plantdrew (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Seagrass (covers 4 families, including Zosteraceae) is the more vital article here. I'm not quite sure seagrass is worth adding, but they are pretty significant. Seagrasses have high ecological importance (estimated to account for 10% of all carbon storage in marine habitats), and the dominant organism in habitats that are important to many species. Evolutionarily significant; one of two groups of plants (not algae) that live in the ocean (mangroves are the other, also have major ecological significance and are already vital listed). Minor direct importance to humans, but seagrass habitats do support other species more directly important to humanns. Plantdrew (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

How about kelp as a replacement, even though it's not a plant? Cobblet (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
All we've got now for algae is the top level groups (brow/green/red algae, diatoms, etc.). Kelp seems like a top candidate if any more specific types of algae are added. Plantdrew (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2014 (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 13:35, 16 April 2014 (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 Paprika

Chili pepper and Bell pepper are listed. I don't individual pepper varieties are vital, nor necessarily specific condiments prepared from peppers (if retained, paprika ought to be on the condiment list, not the plant list). Plantdrew (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Would suggest turmeric, nutmeg or cloves as replacements. Cobblet (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I echo Cobblet's suggestions. Gizza (t)(c) 02:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:40, 7 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2014 (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 RR Lyrae

A variable star, we only have 219 articles for astronomy, I think this may not be in the top 219 most important astronomy articles. I can think of a few astronomy topics that are missing and seem more vital to me like Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9, or Impact event, and probably quite a few more. I may suggest to add them soon. Also we have the constellation this star is in, Lyra.  Carlwev  11:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I don't know anything about astronomy, so I have two questions about this proposal and the astronomy section in general: maybe User:StringTheory11 can help me out here.

  1. Why do we list specific variable stars rather than the types they represent (with the exception of listing both Delta Cephei and Cepheid variable)? And how many of these do we really need?
  2. More generally, it seems to me that we have a lot more on stars and galaxies than on other aspects of astronomy like cosmology (where's inflation?) and the search for extraterrestrial life (which we don't even have, nor do we have astrobiology). Is this an imbalance that needs to be corrected?

Cobblet (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would confidently vote to include astrobiology, inflation (cosmology), extraterrestrial life, and probably SETI. I am sure we had extraterrestrial life in the 10'000 list before but I can't seem to find it, and I don't remember it getting voted off. I would include UFO or Ufology seems more significant than Loch Ness Monster, but Ufology was voted off within 10 days last July. Basically it looks like I agree with you about astronomy, we should have some wider better represented important astronomy topics, and less long lists of fairly unknown stars; same way I think we could have wider bird articles and remove some of the 150 birds.  Carlwev  08:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
The only specific variable star that should be listed rather than the type in my opinion is Eta Carinae due to its fundamental importance to astronomy rather than just being a prototype of a class. I'd support he removal of all the other variable stars on the list and replacing them with the variable types such as Cepheid variable, RR Lyrae variable, Wolf–Rayet star, pulsating variable, and rotating variable. The real bloat though is in the "Celestial mechanics and astrometry" section, I think; I'd support removing at least 1/3 of those articles. And yeah, the "physical cosmology" section is severely underrepresented. I don't support the addition of extraterrestrial life stuff at the moment since it is purely hypothetical. I'll try to propose a few (well, probably will be more than few) swaps/additions/removals in the astronomy section in the net few days. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I also had wormhole on my mind, kind of important but another thing that is mostly hypothetical, so I was never confident enough to open it up for that reason, what are your thoughts on that?  Carlwev  09:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a distinction to be made between things that are hypothetical but are nevertheless an active area of experimental research (e.g. abiogenesis, the Higgs boson until its recent discovery, or astrobiology (e.g. the several space probes we've sent to investigate the habitability of Mars)), versus things that remain totally in the realm of theoretical speculation right now, like wormhole or tachyon. The former ought to be vital, the latter not so much. Cobblet (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove Zenith and Nadir

The points/direction directly above and below. We removed north south east and west, because although well known, what can we actually write about them, they could be stubs/start class for ever? I am feeling the same way about Zenith and Nadir, not only are they less known and less used than the cardinal directions, what can we write about them really?  Carlwev  11:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Things that are entirely suitable for a glossary don't necessarily make vital encyclopedic topics. Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:01, 6 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2014 (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 Regulus, add Alpha Crucis

Alpha Crucis is a much brighter star. Acrux also has a few interesting properties, while Regulus is very run-of-the-mill.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Thirteen of the fifteen brightest stars are represented on the list; adding Acrux and Beta Centauri fills in the gaps. Cobblet (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: remove Spica, add Beta Centauri

Beta Centauri is a much brighter star. Although Pollux (star), Deneb, and Fomalhaut are dimmer stars than Spica, they have some more interesting properties (Pollux and Fomalhaut are relatively nearby, and Deneb is extremely distant and luminous).

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 12:28, 8 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2014 (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 Luyten 726-8

Remove a specific variable star that is in no way more vital than other excluded topics, such as Barnard's Star.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support yeah, Barnard's Star seems more vital  Carlwev  20:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:02, 6 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2014 (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 supergiant

How on earth was this not on the list?

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Was wondering the same. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Definitely. Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2014 (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 red giant, add giant star

Remove a subtype, add the overarching classification.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:51, 8 April 2014 (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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2014 (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 Angular resolution

Not necessary on a list of only 10,000 vital articles.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Could add optical resolution to replace this. Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2014 (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.
Withdrawn by nominator Cobblet (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2014 (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 Crux

Smallest constellation, but not really one of the 10,000 vital articles, when we don't (and shouldn't) have other more important constellations such as Lupus (constellation) and Scutum.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose But it's culturally significant and was once used as a navigational aid (still is, for all I know). Polaris is only the 46th-brightest star but I would agree that its noteworthiness far exceeds that ranking for similar reasons. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Crux may not be vital as a constellation, but the asterism it contains and which redirects there, Southern cross, is. Plantdrew (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose because it's an asterism pbp 02:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Crux is prominent for an asterism. Would Big Dipper be worth adding? Historically and cross-culturally, it's probably more vital than some of the official constellations. Plantdrew (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's also on several flags of nations in the southern hemisphere (Flags depicting the Southern Cross) like Australia, NZ, Brazil, and a load more states, islands and dependencies, not many constellations/asterisms can say that. Dig dipper seems half decent too. Also should we have Asterism itself too, a slightly wider article, although not a terrific one?  Carlwev  13:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You're probably right on Crux now that I think about it; I withdraw the nomination. On the subject of the Big Dipper, I think the already vital Ursa Major is enough for the concept; we don't need a separate article on here for the asterism itself. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2014 (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 Polaris

One of the closest Cepheid variables, and also being the north pole star gives it a lot of notability; it has served as an essential component of navigation for a long time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support if we are having a handful of stars this one is probably in.  Carlwev  15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (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.
Not added 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2014 (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 Heroin

We include a number of drugs, but some of the most significant ones are missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Would prefer adding morphine first. Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Recreational drugs are nice, but I don't think we list any examples of pharmaceutical drugs besides penicillin. No aspirin, no paracetamol, no insulin, etc. How many recreational drugs do you think we should have on this list, and should they outnumber the pharmaceutical drugs? I personally believe the latter are of much greater significance. Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We should probably have the most important recreational drugs and pharmaceutical drugs. We should probably have more pharmaceutical drugs than recreational yes. I think there is room for more of both at the moment, I think a small number of slots should be allocated to drugs, I think an encyclopedia of 10'000 would have a number of drugs before 100s of actors sportsman and journalists, but that's just me. I was also thinking of MDMA (recreational), Opioid and Morphine. I would be happy to listen to any other ideas or proposals you or anyone else can think of. I would also like to see all drugs together or at least closer, at the moment they are split between many places like chemicals, medicine, plants and health, or something like that, it's hard to navigate, I would look for drugs all in one place, probably under health/medicine. Carlwev (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we have too many of the types of people you mentioned but I don't think including 2000 entries on people in a 10,000-entry encyclopedia is terribly unreasonable. I think I'd support adding morphine because of its clinical significance in addition to its recreational use, but not your other suggestions. I would draw a distinction in significance between modern recreational drugs like heroin and ecstasy (why stop there? how about meth, LSD and shrooms?), and something like opium that's been used for millennia. Cobblet (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You make some good points, shows why this voting process prunes out everyone's good and bad ideas, I agree drugs that have been used for centuries are more notable, and most pharmaceutical drugs are more notable than most recreational drugs (except tobacco and alcohol). I still think we will differ in opinions slightly on which drugs to include. It looks like I would include a few more than you. But that's OK we are both working to improve the list, and we've come a long way, and we will get a better list with the consensus of more people of different opinions. Although I will give it more thought now before opening more drugs, as maybe they're not quite as vital as I originally thought. Maybe some wider topics would be better, things popping into my mind include Recreational drug use, stimulant, and/or Psychoactive drug maybe worth thinking about instead, what do you think of them. I see we have illegal drug trade under crimes as well, which I think is important article. I would probably support insulin, paracetamol and aspirin, but I would read them first to make sure. I will open Morphine for now as you mention it. Thank you for your opinion. Carlwev (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the wider topics you mentioned a lot more. There are many chemical compounds that are more historically significant than most modern recreational drugs – quinine and vitamin C would be two more examples. Cobblet (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2014 (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.

Ideas for additions

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While away and busy I had many ideas, I imagine some may be liked, and others not, but I don't wish to flood this already long page with over 60 threads in one go, if half are going to sink quickly as they say. I wrote a list of over 60 articles on my own talk page, I may open some of my favourite ones soon, but if other users were to say which ones they like or dislike it would give me an idea of which ones are worth opening and which are not, and not over clutter this page. I would obviously support if someone else opened any of them too. (see list here), I have opened corrosion already. Carlwev (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_24&oldid=1137397859"