Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 25

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Purplebackpack89
Archive 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 → Archive 30
Passed and added 5-0 Gizza (t)(c) 10:03, 29 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 Mahavira

The most famous teacher of Jainism.--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Support
  1. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support If folks like Arius are worth listing in Christianity than Mahavira is a must-have. Cobblet (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support You can arguably see his influence in modern figures like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mandela. Gizza (t)(c)
  4. Support: pbp 18:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support He does seem alot like Buddha too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 21 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.
George Washington is already on this list pbp 18:56, 23 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 George Washington

Why isn't George Washington a level-4 vital article? He is the founder of the United States of America. I was surprised to find George Washington as a level 3 vital article. If other presidents are on the level-4 vital article list, shouldn't George Washington be on it too? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:PointsofNoReturn, he is. Washington (and Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton) are in early modern because they were primarily active politically before 1815. Other American politicians (Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, JFK) were active primarily after 1815 so they are listed in a different section pbp 21:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the talk page of George Washington, his article is only a level 3 vital article. SHouldn't he be a level four vital article? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
User:PointsofNoReturn, the lists nest. The thousand articles listed on level 3 also appear within the ten thousand articles on level 4. The talk page tag only lists the highest level the article appears on (which is level 3 in this case – yes, lower level number means higher level. Sorry for the confusion!). Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 20 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 pbp 13:04, 30 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 Galen

Western medicine begins with him and Hippocrates. His writings account for nearly half of all extant literature from ancient Greece.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support good find. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:55, 28 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 removed 1-4 Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 30 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 Sabaeans

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The Sabaeans were the first dominant political entity in ancient Yemen; apart from this article we have no coverage of the history of that region, where civilization on the Arabian peninsula first developed. We need this much more than we need another article on the history of the Levant. Cobblet (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Many of their customs and practices were influential on later Arabian/Islamic civilisation which have now spread throughout the world. Gizza (t)(c) 02:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:18, 29 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.
Five articles moved from other sections to history pbp 17:37, 26 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.

Move all "history of" articles to the History subpage

We now have 16 articles under History of science and technology, and 14 under History of other topics. However, many other history articles are scattered throughout the other pages. For example, History of aviation is under Technology, and History of radio is under Society. I propose moving all such articles to the History subpage for consistency.

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support This will help us see which topics need specific history articles. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support There are few other areas where the articles are dispersed throughout many pages too like professions and companies. It is hard to compare them and think of suggestions when articles are so far apart. Gizza (t)(c) 04:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Which topics exactly do you propose moving? Just any topic that has the word "history" in the title, or any topics of primarily historical interest as well? Would you move alchemy for example? Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Only those articles about the history of a specific field. I'm not proposing moving articles like alchemy, galley, or Old English, which are about historical topics, not about the history itself. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that the history of science and technology should simply be a timeline and have the smaller articles be linked to the timeline. I just feel that the main article is simply too broad. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:45, 23 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.
  • Comment: I have moved five articles that are "History of" something to history. If there is a history article that doesn't have "history of" in its title, I might have missed it. pbp 17:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Passed 6-0 Gizza (t)(c) 13:29, 1 May 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 Jabalpur and Aurangabad, Add Bihar

I've previously mentioned that the geography section is distorted in particular areas. This distortion seems to have happened when there was an urgent need to reduce the size of the section. But some vital articles were hastily removed while non-vital articles managed to survive.

Bihar is the third most populous state in India and was the place of origin of Buddhism, the Maurya Empire and Gupta Empire. In modern times it is unfortunately notable for being the poorest major state in India, always hovering around the bottom in GDP per capita and HDI rankings.

Jabalpur and Aurangabad are the third and fifth most populous cities in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra respectively. There is nothing that makes Jabalpur significant or vital enough to be on a list when you compare it with the other Indian cities. Aurangabad's main point of significance is as a transit point for the Ajanta Caves and Ellora Caves. These World Heritage archeological sites are more vital than the city you need to reach to see them as a tourist. Gizza (t)(c) 04:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support In addition to forming part of India's cultural heartland, Bihar remains the fourth largest subnational entity of any kind in the world, even after part of it was split off as Jharkhand in 2000. Only eleven countries surpass it in population. Cobblet (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I framed this as a "Remove 2, Add 1" swap so nobody can argue bloat and excess as a reason to oppose. IMO, considering that India is a predominantly rural country, 38 cities/metro areas is too much while 8 regions is too little. Cutting down the list of cities to 30 and increasing the regions to at 12 or 13 will capture more of what is vital in the country. Gizza (t)(c) 04:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I've wanted to add this and Madhya Pradesh back into the list for some time now. While we're also talking about removing Indian cities, do we really need to include New Delhi? It hasn't been a separate city for a long time now – it's just a district of Delhi nowadays, which as a whole has been called the "National Capital Territory" since 1991. To draw analogies with other countries, we don't put Kotte or Putrajaya on the list even though the legislatures and government offices of Sri Lanka and Malaysia are no longer located in Colombo or Kuala Lumpur anymore. Cobblet (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no need to have New Delhi. It's redundant if we already include Delhi. If anything National Capital Region (India) would be better to have than New Delhi but I doubt that even the NCR is vital at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 11:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
With regard to states, Karnataka is the other big omission. I'm strongly in favor of a wholistic approach when it comes to VA. So for example believe that Kerala shouldn't be added when their main ethnic group Malayali is on the list. Similarly I would prefer to keep cities which aren't represented by a region ahead of cities that are represented if each city is roughly equal in importance (not just for India but for all countries). Gizza (t)(c) 11:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Is Andhra Pradesh still going to be vital once Telangana is created? And would adding South India be a reasonable alternative to listing states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka individually? Cobblet (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Replacing all of them with South India may well be a better option as "South India" is well defined unlike the North, East and West. But then I would replace Malayali with Tamil people since Tamils are a multinational ethinc group. Gizza (t)(c) 04:48, 20 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 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:37, 30 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 Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus

Performing arts contains 46 articles, we have circus already, plus clown, I can't imagine why an individual circus company would make the say top 50 most vital performing arts articles, over another performing art, circus type or other, we don't have other circus things like juggling, trapeze, tightrope, fire eating, sword swallowing, freak show, lion taming, most or all of these probably don't deserve to be in, but are probably higher importance than this circus company. We don't have any other circus company, if we list one why only one is it head and shoulders above all others? if several, it will be too many. More important topics might be older ones like Circus Maximus or gladiator. There must also be more performing arts things missing not related to circuses too. I've been thinking about Bull fighting for a while, a performing art/blood sport, historical and traditional but still around and controversial too,  Carlwev  16:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Rwessel (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd support a swap for P. T. Barnum, who is singularly responsible for creating the modern entertainment industry. I'd support adding juggling, probably the most ancient and notable circus skill, but trapeze and tightrope ought to be covered by acrobatics] and the other skills are not vital. I'd support gladiator as well, but cockfighting is probably of wider global significance than bullfighting. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 9 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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:40, 30 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 Movie theater

We have 100's of actors, more directors and about 40 movies, some film awards. Movies are on shown on TV which we have, not sure if we have anything of home entertainment like VHS and DVD? Film's primary venue is movie theaters, and has been for over 100 years. We list other venues like swimming pool in addition to swimming sport, stadium for sport, gambling and casino. I think movie theater belongs in the top 100 articles for film, and we have well over 100 articles in the film area. The only thing that covers the movie theater at all really is "film" itself, but that is a very wide topic and appears in the vital 100 list, we can't miss off all things covered slightly by a vital 100 article.  Carlwev  13:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support since we already have things like museum, music venue and opera house. Cobblet (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:57, 28 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.
Lancelot removed 6-1; Merlin not removed Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 30 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 Lancelot and Merlin

I think we only need one article on Arthurian legend. Since that redirects to King Arthur, we'll keep that. Even Le Morte d'Arthur, which we also have, doesn't seem so vital to me (it seems less vital than Panchatantra, Grimms' Fairy Tales or Aesop's Fables, anyway).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Lancelot long commment below pbp 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support removing Lancelot. Neutral on Merlin for the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 05:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Lancelot, undecided on Merlin but thinking about it.  Carlwev  10:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Lancelot --Rsm77 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Merlin long commment below pbp 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Merlin --Rsm77 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Both PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

To continue the discussion from above, I agree the Panchatantra is an excellent addition, and that it obviously belongs under Literature, not here. I'm having a hard time thinking of Asian characters that are non-historical, non-mythological, and not already covered by a work of literature on the list. From China I can't think of a better example than Mulan that fits that narrow category, but there are several mythological and semi-historical figures that would be more noteworthy. Cobblet (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Lancelot is a good removal, I was thinking of proposing it myself awhile back. But I think Arthurian legend is important enough to have two characters on this list. It's been retold countless times; probably the only works more influential than it on English-language literature are the Bible and the works of William Shakespeare. Merlin has served as the archetype for various wizard figures since then: Gandalf and Dumbledore being the two I can think of off the top of my head, but there's undoubtably more. When I voted for the removal of Gandalf, it was with the understand that Merlin would be kept to represent the wizard archetype. If we have seven comic-book characters and two Disney characters, two Arthurian legend characters seems fair. pbp 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
We already have Magician (fantasy) on the list. And I think Tolkien actually pointed to Odin as the inspiration for Gandalf. I'm not convinced we need to single out things from the Matter of Britain (we list Camelot as well) over other strands of medieval literature: in particular, Roland undoubtedly had a greater influence across European literature as a whole than Merlin did, and neither he nor any of the works about his legend are on the list. Nor am I sure we need an archetypal magician (and you could say the magic-wand-wielding magician stereotype owes something to Circe as well as Merlin) any more than we need The Dragon (Beowulf) to represent the fire-breathing dragon archetype. Cobblet (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny you brought up the Beowulf dragon, as we have Grendel in addition to Beowulf, (Beowulf is under arts, poems, and Grendel is in religion and mythology with deities and biblical characters, not character's were he could feasibly go with Robin Hood and Arthur) if King Arthur covers the story enough to leave out Lancelot and Merlin, isn't Beowulf enough to leave out Grendel. I would have thought Merlin more notable than Grendel probably. We also have magician as pointed out about, but we do not have anything of Monster, and Giant (mythology), which seem significant or Troll, and Ogre a bit less significant. I might suggest removing Grendel and adding Giant and/or Monster, maybe? thoughts? ..... Also if we are to remove the King Arthur characters, do we need Geoffrey of Monmouth under historians, half his fame is due to King Arthur. Although he is a real person, probably less well known and wrote about than Merlin. He is less vital than Bede and kind of considered not a very reliable historian.  Carlwev  10:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Carlwev, I'm not familiar with Geoffrey, and Historia Regum Britanniae seems significant regardless of whether it's history or pseudohistory. On the other hand, perhaps there are people like Livy (suggested by User:Neljack some time ago) who might be more important. I agree Monster and Giant seem more vital than Grendel. I don't think we need Camelot either. What do you think of replacing Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster with Cryptid? Seems to me the general concept might be vital, but we may not need specific examples (and I'd argue Yeti is actually the most notable example). Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I could've sworn I removed Camelot before the voting began, either I was mistaken, it was added back or listed twice. I think it should definitely go, King Arthur covers it, removed, Narnia, Metropolis, Middle Earth and more already for the same reasons. I think Nessie is borderline but the article quite good, wouldn't hate it removed, Bigfoot slightly higher, Yeti about the same. I contemplated swapping Nessie for Cryptozoology which I think is slightly better than cryptid but they're both OK.  Carlwev  16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I suggested cryptid since that covers both cryptozoology and cryptobotany. Cobblet (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Le Morte d'Arthur would be fine to remove as just one example of many Arthurian texts. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:55, 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 6-0 Gizza (t)(c) 10:09, 29 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 Western esotericism

Another example of the Western bias I'm referring to. We already list three of the most notable examples of Western esotericism: Freemasonry, Gnosticism and Rosicrucianism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, agree trim the West bias, already have 3 top examples, also already have esotericism itself, article on the "western" type alone is biased and is not needed, listing several types if they exist would be too much.  Carlwev  15:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:17, 27 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) 17:16, 30 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 Scientology, Falun Gong, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Add New religious movement

I mentioned in another thread how arbitrary our selection of new religious movements seems to be. The collective phenomenon might be vital, but individually the movements don't look so vital to me. Even a non-organized movement like New Age would appear to be more important.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Perhaps some of the founders of these movements may be vital as biographies but we'll have to look at them on a case-by-case basis. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 13:18, 30 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) 08:46, 30 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 Ravidassia religion

The movement is a new religion movement founded in 2010 [1], before that they were a sect within Sikhism and Hinduism. The religious movement has not had coverage in encyclopedias. Britannica does not even have an entry for it. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support When I saw it there I also felt surprised. I thought that it should either go within the Sikhism topic of articles or be removed. Since it isn't probably in the top 5 of most important Sikh articles it is best to remove it. Maybe the Guru Ravidas biography is more vital and in the interests of diversity good to add (he is from a low caste background which have been discriminated against in India like non-white people and women more generally). Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Our selection of new religious movements seems pretty arbitrary – Ravidassia, Hare Krishna, Falun Gong and Scientology, but not Cao Đài, Yiguandao, Tenrikyo or Rastafarianism. Such movements have a tendency to come and go (see Christian Science and Spiritualism) and maybe it's better to have the parent article than specific examples. Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless we can think of a way to separate the more vital NRM's from the others (in terms of number of followers, age of movement or influence on the wider community) it may be best to replace all of them with just new religious movement. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 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.

31 from Greek and Roman?

Am the only one who thinks this is a little excessive? If they were in the "Fictional characters" list, they'd be 40-50% of the list. There are more people from Greek and Roman mythology on the list than there are from the Bible, a lot more. Any thoughts? pbp 20:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous. I tried to remove Cerberus and Siren a while back. I'd be happy to bring that up again and suggest non-Western replacements. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I ditto the above comments. 6 Roman deity article is okay but 13 Greek deity articles and 12 Greek/Roman heroes is far too many. Gizza (t)(c) 05:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to say I think I agree. Deities are important, but a Monotheistic belief having one deity, it's a single space each for God and Allah, os they don't take up much space, but for Polytheistic, beliefs, The many Greek and Roman Gods and Goddesses are kind of important, but there are so many of them, and many of them are on a kind of on an equal footing, which makes the whole who goes and stays idea a bit awkward, I thought Medusa had a chance at being in, but maybe not, it is more notable than some articles in there, but we should probably remove some before adding any.  Carlwev  10:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Carlwev, you make a fair point about polytheistic topics naturally taking up more space due to more gods and goddesses. But I think in most cases, some gods and goddesses are more important and therefore more notable and vital than others. For example, if we had to remove all Greek deities except for one from the list (I don't think we should cut it down to that extent in reality but just to illustrate the point) we would probably leave Zeus. In the case of Egyptian mythology, Ra and Horus are probably the most vital. So I believe it is possible to trim the list down. When I personally go through the list of Greek deities, the ones that stand out to me are Aphrodite, Apollo, Athena, Hermes, Poseidon and Zeus. The rest don't except for Hades to some extent.
But I agree with your sentiment and believe when we do propose particular removals, that we decide carefully and discuss thoroughly. When the Geography region articles were being removed, it seemed that certain users just selected regions randomly and illogically and justified the removals on the basis of general bloat instead of saying why those articles were less vital than the ones that stayed and survived the culling. The regions list now looks very distorted in places if you are somewhat familiar with the country and those regions (whether they be states, provinces, counties, etc). Gizza (t)(c) 11:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That was not one of our finest moments. But coming back on topic, I'm not so concerned about the deities of polytheistic religions taking up a lot of space: we have still more on the major monotheistic religions, because we list major sects and the like. It's the minor characters of Greek and Roman mythology we could really do away with: we don't do this for any other culture, and we shouldn't do it for any culture. Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:47, 30 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 Hestia

Of the 13 Greek deities, she seems of to be the least importance pbp 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per pbp. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 01:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:57, 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 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 30 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 Cassandra

We don't even have Helen of Troy, and we have Cassandra. We have plenty of other Iliad figures on the list already pbp 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per pbp. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support also not that it matters, but, whoever rated it within it's wikiprojects listed it as low importance in all of them.  Carlwev  18:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

pbp, any thoughts on adding Hector? Cobblet (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral to weak oppose. I'm somewhat concerned about the number of characters who appear mostly in the Iliad are on this list. pbp 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Do we need any Roman gods?

Each of the Roman gods on this list is a knock-off (and, yes, I mean knock-off) of a Greek god on the list. Aside of having stuff named after them, what's their significance? Particularly when Minerva was never on the list to begin with? pbp 00:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support the removal of almost all of them. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The Roman pantheon owes much to Etruscan mythology as well as that of Greece, so it doesn't make sense to remove Roman gods just because we have their Greek equivalents. But I'd agree that we need only the most significant Roman gods: if you think you can argue Minerva's more significant than someone else, propose a swap. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 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.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 30 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 Juno, Pluto and Vulcan, add Minerva

As stated above, I don't think there's a pressing need for a lot of Roman gods, but I was surprised Minerva (who appears on a lot of iconography) didn't make the cut. This would leave us with Minerva, Jupiter (dah boss), Mars and Venus (personifications of masculinity and femininity) pbp 15:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 15:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I thought Saturn might be worth listing too, since he's both well known and seems to be less Hellenized than most of the other Roman gods. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 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.
Swapped 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 30 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 Wōden, Add Freyja

Woden is the Continental/Anglo-Saxon equivalent of the Norse Odin and doesn't seem to have much independent significance. We could do better by listing another notable Norse god. Odin and Thor are both from the Æsir, while Freya is the most notable deity from the Vanir. In Norse mythology, half of the dead go to Odin's Valhalla, while the other half goes to Freya's Fólkvangr.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm not 100% sure on the add, I like the remove, definitely an improvement though.  Carlwev  10:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Loki might also be a good add. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Fionn mac Cumhaill might be a good add to Celtic mythology (to represent other non-Greco-Roman traditions). --Rsm77 (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Oh, and how about Anansi for African traditions? --Rsm77 (talk) 01:09, 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.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 30 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 Aten, Add Amaterasu

One sun deity for another. Aten's significance is entirely tied up with Akhenaten's legacy. Amaterasu is the most notable Shinto deity.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support If Akhenaten is on the list then Aten does not need to be. Amaterasu is a good add. Gizza (t)(c) 02:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Should probably be under Shinto, as that is classified as a religion (on the page and generally), rather than mythology. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 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.
Swapped 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 30 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 Cerberus, Add Yellow Emperor

There's no way Cerberus is more vital than Persephone, Theseus, the Titans, Dionysus/Bacchus, Pan, Asclepius and Eros/Cupid, none of whom are on the list. Surely the figure that all Han Chinese claim as their ancestor is more significant.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I have to agree with these points  Carlwev  09:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Yellow Emperor. The collective Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, which includes Yellow Emperor, is already listed as a vital article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

But according to that logic, User:Redtigerxyz, we could remove all the Greek gods if we just list Twelve Olympians, and all the Hindu gods if we list Hindu deities. Clearly that's not reasonable. The Yellow Emperor is the most significant of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors; I'd argue Shennong is vital as well. Cobblet (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Chang'e might also be a good add for Chinese mythology.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:08, 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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 30 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 Anansi

I like this suggestion of User:Rsm77's. We could use more representation of sub-Saharan African culture: all we've got right now is Traditional African religion and Yoruba religion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Good add. pbp 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 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 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 06:33, 1 May 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 Boyfriend and Girlfriend

There isn't anything meaningful to say about these concepts that couldn't also be covered by courtship, romance and dating, all of which are on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support —Cliftonian (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I'm aware that these suggestions aren't like-for-like and some of them are on the opposite end of the spectrum, but possible replacements IMO include flirting, matchmaking, anal sex, affair and celibacy. I don't think you can write much about boyfriend and girlfriend compared to other topics on romance, love and sexuality. Gizza (t)(c) 01:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: pbp 15:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Romance is a pretty important topic, and think about how few articles there are about it on this list. Same with familial relationships. BTW, 'cuse me while I make a half-serious comment here: my next girlfriend is going to have a helluvalot more influence on me than even Barack Obama ;-) pbp 15:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps you would agree that matchmaking or online dating service could be meaningful additions? Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to keep them if boyfriend and girlfriend were merged into one article like nephew and niece. Similarly we have two articles on uncle and aunt when one should be enough. Merging the articles is beyond of the scope of the Vital Articles WikiProject though. Gizza (t)(c) 04:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
We used to list significant other, but that was removed some time ago. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 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) 09:14, 30 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 Transgender

A glaring omission.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:48, 27 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) 09:16, 30 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 Gender

Gender is in the 1000 list but not the 10,000. Biology has sex, male, female. Sexuality has in the 1000 list Gender, Man, Woman. In the 10,000 list under sexuality, whoever compiled it added man and woman but forgot to add gender. It is a different article to sex as it covers the social and psychological aspects as well as biological, and as it's in the 1000 although not set in stone, it's logical it should really be here too.  Carlwev  19:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:10, 27 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 Cobblet (talk) 07:41, 29 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 Wig

Similar rationale to mustache above 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) 14:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Per Maunus; this is not vital. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

User:Maunus, what's your rationale for this and other quotidian items not being on this list? pbp 20:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This: quotidian != vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
See, I don't believe that. We have some articles on some rather arcane scientific, mathematical and historical concepts. If we have those, we should balance that out with 100 or so articles that are more quotidian. A toothbrush or wig is more vital to the man on the street than Gödel's incompleteness theorems pbp 13:47, 23 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 6-3 Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 29 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 Necktie

Too specific – we don't even have suit (clothing). Also it's essentially just a type of scarf, which we do have on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. Evolved from the cravat which has only been around for 300 years or so. Gizza (t)(c) 23:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. support - I dont think any individual clothes items are really vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We have a lot of other items of clothing (and more additions are being proposed); ties aren't that unimportant. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose pbp 14:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  10:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Once considered an essential piece of menswear in Europe & the Americas, now struggling for recognition on Wikipedia. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 23:17, 18 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.

Vital articles on leagues and championships

At present, the list of vital articles on sports leagues and championships consists of:

There seems to be a distinct American bias to this list of leagues and championships. What, if anything, should be done about this? Should we drop some of the American leagues and championships? Add a non-American soccer league like the UEFA Champions League? pbp 16:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • It's worth thinking about, US sports leagues are famous but not the only ones, but the same issue exists within sportsman too. While we do have people from fairly international sports, f1, football, Athletics, Tennis. We have several lists of mostly American sports, filled with mostly American sportsman. 5 of 7 golfers are American as are 7 of 8 boxers, (no other combat sports competitors or martial artists other than Bruce Lee under actors). Our team sportsman, are half American half International sports, the stars of US sports are obviously mostly American, 9 of 11 baseball players, all 9 basketball players and all 5 American Football players. US sports and sportsman are popular in much of the world, but not sure what percentage we should allocate it. Not sure what the answer is but just thought I'd mention what I'd noticed. Carlwev (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The UEFA Euro 2012 Final was watched by 299 million people. That's almost equal to the entire US population. Cobblet (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, but I'm not opposed to adding UEFA Euro 2012 Final. Why would we remove the most popular sporting event in North America while adding one of the most popular in Europe? If we are to have any sporting event for North America it should be the Super Bowl. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why we need any American sporting event in addition to the big four leagues: having the Super Bowl is excessive when we already have the NFL. To me it would be like listing UEFA Champions League in addition to La Liga, Premier League, Serie A and Bundesliga. Given the lack of representation of sporting events outside America, it seems logical to swap an American event for one with a larger global audience. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, the Super Bowl is the most-watched sporting event every year; four of the last five are additionally the most watched broadcasts in American television. Gabe, would you, for example, keep the Super Bowl but drop the NFL? pbp 21:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
PbP, I would support dropping all four of the US leagues. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
My preference (if it isn't already obvious) would be to keep the leagues and drop the league championships, because the former can cover the latter. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Far more people watch the Super Bowl than any given NFL game. I would strongly oppose removing Super Bowl. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, it seems there is one competition nobody is supporting keeping. So I'm proposing something below. I'm proposing a league removal as well. pbp 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
All four leagues are worth keeping. However, European soccer leagues should be added. MLS should not be listed as vital. Only the big four and their championships should be listed. Nascar could be removed. A new European league that could be added is the English Premier League. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Not removed 4-3 Cobblet (talk) 06:36, 1 May 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 National Hockey League

By far the least-watched of the "big four" pro sports leagues pbp 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per pbp. Neljack (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not true—the NBA and NHL are very close. Total attendance figures from the last two years are a bit misleading because of lockouts in both sports, but average attendance for NHL games has been consistently (if barely) higher than NBA games for the last few years. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC) I still think all four leagues are worth keeping. Cobblet (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Hockey is the national sport of Canada and it is important to the US. It is also important to European players who flock to the NHL. In fact, many Olympic hockey players come from the NHL. Hockey is important worldwide, and therefore it makes sense to have the top league be a vital article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

The NBA may be slightly lower than the NHL in terms of butts in seats, but it's way ahead of the NHL in terms of average television audience. Per Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada#Television exposure, the 15 network-televised (ABC) NBA games have a share of 3.3, the 12 NHL games on NBC only average 1.0. Or, to put it another way, the second- and third-tier games of the NBA are watched by almost half a million more households than the top-tier games of the NHL. BTW, the same Wikipedia page lists the CFL and MLS as having higher average attendance than the NHL, but they are not on this list (and probably would never be added) pbp 23:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)]]

The NHL has players from around the world. It is not a purely American sport. Same goes for the NBA and MLB. Also, soccer is not a vital sport to Americans, and thus it should not be added. Soccer games only have higher attendance because they have bigger stadiums. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
MLS shouldn't be added. Only foreign soccer leagues should be added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:07, 28 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) 10:14, 30 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 Hiking

Important physical activity-related topic. Exists in most culturals, though with different names pbp 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We don't have camping either. Cobblet (talk) 19:25, 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.
Moved 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 10:20, 30 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.

Move Walking from Technology to Sports/Recreation

Yes, walking is a form of transportation, but it's also a form of physical activity. Should be in the section with Running rather than the section with vehicular transport pbp 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support - walking fits well in both sections. Gizza (t)(c) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:14, 28 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 Gizza (t)(c) 13:31, 30 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 Fur trade, Add Textile industry

When you compare it to the other industries on the list, the fur trade is a very specific industry and a declining one at that. The textile industry is a much larger and broader industry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Textile manufacturing is listed under Textiles in Technology. The fur trade is vital for historical reasons. Cobblet (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Plantdrew (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Fur trade is vital enough for this list pbp 13:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Sorry, I didn't notice that textile manufacturing is already listed. I will withdraw this nomination. Still not sure if fur trade is vital. Ivory trade, another trade with animal welfare concerns isn't listed. If fur trade stays then other important historical trades such as spice trade have a strong case in being added. Right now we have none of international trade, import and export. Gizza (t)(c) 03:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly we are missing some vital trade-related articles. I'd support adding the spice trade. I think I prefer adding wildlife trade over specifically the ivory trade, but I see the other point of view and would support either. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 22 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) 06:41, 1 May 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 E-commerce

E-commerce is a growing form of trade and a growing part of the global economy. We currently have eBay and Amazon.com on the vital list but not the general phenomenon. I think even online shopping is more important than the most dominant websites. Not to mention the WP:POV, WP:COI and WP:SPAM issues involved with having all of these companies on the vital list. I was hesitant to propose this as a swap since I'm not sure what consensus will be.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Since Gizza brought up eBay and Amazon, I'll point out that Alibaba Group generates more sales than those two combined. Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The websites currently on VA/E are as follows: Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Wikipedia, eBay and Amazon.com. Then there are the seven companies: Apple, AT&T, IBM, General Electric, Microsoft, Standard Oil and Walmart. And finally to my knowledge there's Coca Cola and the car manufacturers: Toyota, GM, Ford, Nissan, Volkswagen and Honda. These seem to be all of the commercial entities on VA/E (excluding historical ones like British East India Company and Hanseatic League which are clearly vital and don't suffer from recentism).

How many of these should be kept? I think nearly all of the websites are too recentist and vulnerable to the next big thing. Six years ago we would have listed Myspace but now Myspace wouldn't even be in the vital 100,000. The automotive manufacturing companies seem balanced but do we really need that many from one industry? And the list of other companies as I said is 100% American which is obviously not balanced enough. I saw a "Remove Coca Cola" proposal in the archives fail and I agree that it should probably stay. It is one of the few brands and companies listed that has existed for more than 100 years.

Interestingly we don't have McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut or Burger King. They would fit seamlessly well with the other companies on VA/E as it currently stands. Gizza (t)(c) 13:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We've also got the airplane manufacturers Boeing, Airbus and Lockheed Martin, as well as the BBC. Should we move all of these into the Companies section? I think we could cut some of the car and airplane manufacturers as well as Twitter and add McDonald's. Adding topics like Zaibatsu, Hong (business) and maybe even Japan Post would improve the diversity of the business section. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thats a good idea. There should be a company section. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:40, 28 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 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 06:43, 1 May 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 taboo

Since User:Maunus likes this more, I'll propose this too.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I think this topic should be in, I'd prefer the other article, but having this one is better than none at all, and I can understand the POV  Carlwev  17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per Carlwev. Gizza (t)(c) 00:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Incest wasn't always a taboo, some cultures encouraged cousin, or even sibling coupling, like Ancient Egypt for example. Incest article is longer, contains information on different definitions of the term, animal inbreeding and on where human incest is/was encouraged, permitted, disallowed, and tabood by law religion and cultural norms, it's a wider article that covers the topic from neutral POV, not just the taboo POV. the incest article is in 64 languages, but incest taboo is in only 7. I think information on where it was encouraged is just as interesting as the taboo aspect, we already have "taboo" anyway, and the incest article covers all aspects of incest, taboo and allowed. Cobblet you, yourself only just said you thought the incest taboo article was redundant, while I don't think it's redundant as an article, I think it's subsumed big time by incest in a 10'000 list.

I understand why you shifted but I'd prefer to keep the incest thread open, it's only been 2 days. I don't mind if a thread stays open for 15-60 days then closed, and I learn my POV is against consensus by a long shot shown by votes opposite to mine, but I'd prefer this not closed, as it's been 2 days and only one person, has opposed. I don't want my single opinion to be the decider, I think we should ask others opinions on which is better and go with consensus, and leave it for minimum 15 days not 2. Maybe we should have a thread for adding the topic, yes or no, then another for which should we have A or B or both, then if we decide the topic should be included, we pick the highest vote out of A or B. I don't know just an idea. This isn't meant as bickering or anything, I just prefer the previous thread not closed.  Carlwev  17:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reopened. I'll support either one. Cobblet (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Incest has always been a taboo, but what shifts is what kind of relations are considered incest. There is no objective definition of incest, it depends upon the way the culture in which one lifts has institutionalized the incest taboo. That is why the incest taboo is prior to incest, because the latter is a result of the former.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:57, 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) 06:46, 1 May 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 Fingerspelling

Fingerspelling is a way of representing alphabetic writing with handshapes. As with punctuation it is a simple set of conventions that are epiphenomenal to the orthography. As Cobblet mentions above orthography is not currently on the list.

Support
  1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:55, 28 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.
Moved 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:49, 1 May 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 Suicide from Law/Crime to Society/Issues

Suicide is a crime in some countries but in many countries it isn't. Even if suicide is illegal it is not necessarily a crime. Putting suicide in the list of crimes is like putting prostitution in the list of crimes. No matter where you are suicide is always a social issue. It fits in nicely with euthanasia, abortion etc.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I thought it looked miss placed a while back. Funny you mention prostitution, I added that myself a long time ago, the crime/non-crime thought was in my head then, in some places and at certain times in history it is a crime, and others it is not, I placed it in sexuality, as it's always in that area, it could've been an industry too perhaps. Suicide too, not always a crime but always an "issue" and it does fit with euthanasia and abortion, deliberate causes of death, that are sometimes illegal sometimes not.  Carlwev  18:52, 22 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 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:47, 1 May 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 Phobia

This topic I think should defiantly be in, and two others have shown interest too, I actually thought we already had it but we don't. Can't really do it justice in one paragraph, but there are loads of phobias, and the topic is well known and studied, and of interest to experts and general readers, I believe it's generally regarded as an important topic, and quite wide spread. According to the article different studies suggest any where between 4% and 26.5% of people have or did have at least one phobia. Could just as easily go in medicine, mental illness, as psychology, but article appears to use words and phrases fitting psychology more, but only slightly so I suggest putting in psychology, I wouldn't oppose it going in medicine though if everyone else preferred that. There are probably more reasons to include it that I've forgotten to mention too.  Carlwev  14:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 30 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) 06:58, 1 May 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 Spelt, Triticale

Wheat covers the whole genus Triticum (and hybrids between Triticum species and species in other genera). I don't think we need particular hybrids/species of wheat. Even if subtypes of wheat are included, spelt and triticale are poor choices. The most widely grown wheats in recent times are common wheat (by far) and durum. For historic importance, I'd go with emmer over spelt, but there are others (einkorn wheat, Khorasan wheat, etc). I suspect spelt and triticale were listed because they are often minor ingredients in multi-grain breads and baked products (that are predominantly common wheat). They're not really very important, but a little bit of spelt and triticale lets bakers advertise an 11-grain bread. Plantdrew (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Agree that even among wheat varieties alone there are better articles to choose from than these. Cobblet (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I think some varieties of the three big grains (wheat, rice, maize) have a case in being added but not spelt or triticale. Gizza (t)(c) 03:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:07, 21 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.
Moved 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:54, 1 May 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 Ayurveda from Religion

Classify Ayurveda as "Fields of medicine" under alternative medicine. It is currently listed in Religion under Hinduism.

Support
  1. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Listing it under traditional medicine would be even more accurate. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:58, 1 May 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) 07:24, 1 May 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 Makemake (dwarf planet) and Haumea (dwarf planet)

Sure, they're dwarf planets, but there are many more vital and interesting astronomical objects than them that are not listed currently (e.g. Whirlpool Galaxy, Barnard's Star, SN 1987A, 3C 273, Crab Nebula) that are of more fundamental importance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:StringTheory11, what do you think of adding minor planet or even subtypes of minor planets? Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think minor planet itself is worth adding, but I don't see a reason to add subtypes of it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 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) 07:24, 1 May 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 3C 273

We currently have no quasars on the list. 3C 273 is the brightest known quasar and one of the most studied of all astronomical objects.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:54, 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 per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 21 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.
No action taken – suggested swaps are redirects Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 1 May 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 Mira and Delta Cephei, add pulsating variable and rotating variable

Remove a specific variable star, add an overarching type of variable star.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:StringTheory11, the two adds you suggested both redirect to sections of variable star. Are there stand-alone articles we should add instead? Also I excluded RR Lyrae from your proposal since Carlwev already proposed its removal. Cobblet (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it's hard to choose between the different specific types, since most of them are on rather equal footing. Cepheid variable should obviously be there (and is already on the list), but other than that, which of the types do we include? We have RR Lyrae variable, Delta Scuti variable, Beta Cephei variable, Mira variable, semiregular variable, slow irregular variable, RV Tauri variable, Alpha Cygni variable, Herbig Ae/Be star, Orion variable, flare star, luminous blue variable, shell star, R Coronae Borealis variable, RS Canum Venaticorum variable, Cataclysmic variable star, Alpha2 Canum Venaticorum variable, rotating ellipsoidal variable, Algol variable, Beta Lyrae variable, W Ursae Majoris variable, and dwarf nova, all of which are roughly on equal ground for inclusion. Should we have all of them, or just cherry-pick? StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If any of these are particularly useful as standard candles (I thought this was the main reason why we're interested in variable stars?), they could be worth adding. So maybe add RR Lyrae variable? Otherwise I think we're probably better off looking for other topics to add. How about red dwarf? Also see my question re minor planet above. Cobblet (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Some types are of interest due to standard candles, but others are of interest for some other reasons (e.g. LBVs and Orion variable because they help give insights into stellar evolution, and flare stars because they give insight into the structure and behavior of low-mass stars). Overall, I think the very most important types are probably Cepheid Variable, RR Lyrae variable, shell star, luminous blue variable, and the broad categories long-period variable and cataclysmic variable (removing nova, as it is a subtopic). I think pre-main-sequence star could also be a nice add, encompassing FU Orionis variables, T Tauri stars, and Herbig Ae/Be star.
In short, here would be my variable star list, in no particular order:
On the topic of red dwarf, I think main sequence covers the topic of all main-sequence stars adequately; there's no real reason that we'd have red dwarf over something like blue dwarf, especially when there's more important topics like subdwarf. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Shows what I know :) I'm happy to support any reasonable proposals, as long as we stay around the 225-article quota for Astronomy. Personally I think our most important task right now is to fill in the biggest gaps we can find on the list – if it isn't obvious which variable star classes are most important, for example, odds are we'll eventually realize there's something else not in the Astronomy list that's more important than any of them. Astrophysics? Planetary ring? Heliocentrism? Solar cycle? Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Astrophysics is certainly worth adding, I think. The others are cool, but since we only have 225 spaces, I simply don't think there's enough room to list a cool concept that doesn't really have fundamental importance (rings), and a widely-agreed-upon theory with no debate (heliocentrism). Solar cycle I might be able to be persuaded on, but as of right now, I don't think it's worth adding on a list of only 225 articles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I only mentioned heliocentrism because it was clearly an important development in the history of astronomy. Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Swap: remove Algol, add eclipsing binary

Remove a specific variable star, add the type it represents.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Eclipsing binary redirects to a section of binary star which is already on the list. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

See my reply in above section. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 1 May 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 Wolf–Rayet star

A stage of evolution in the most massive stars; these stars have incredibly unique properties and are of fundamental importance in understanding stellar evolution.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:01, 21 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) 07:24, 1 May 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 stellar black hole

We already have black hole; I don't see a reason to include this subtopic

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:06, 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 per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:46, 21 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) 07:24, 1 May 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 H II region and dark nebula

The birthplaces of stars; certainly vital, especially when we include topics such as circumstellar disk

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 21 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) 07:24, 1 May 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 orbital elements and orbital eccentricity

We already have orbit; I don't see a reason to include these as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Too specific. Cobblet (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 21 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.
No action taken Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 1 May 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.

Astronomy measurement?

Should units of measurement used in astronomy, and similar articles, be in astronomy or measurement, or somewhere else? and others look slightly displaced. Bare in mind, light year and parsec are in measurement. Ones I've noticed Astronomy that I'm unsure of are, Magnitude (astronomy), which is a unit of measurement. Schwarzschild radius, not sure on that one. Parallax, not only used in astronomy, can be used by humans and animals to judge nearby objects distance. Cosmic distance ladder, is to do with measurement. Angular resolution can be to do with several optics areas including microscopes, satellite images of Earth, resolution of any photography/optics not just astronomy. Photometry (astronomy) and Astrometry both to do with measurement.

Some are only to do with measurement, some several areas not only astronomy, I point out everything to do with measurement seems to be in measurement not in what it's measuring. Eg, units measuring temperature and mass are in measurement not with mass, heat and temperature in physics; angle, length, distance, volume is in maths but degrees, litre, metre etc is in measurement. Wouldn't it make sense therefore to have astronomy measurement in measurement too, to follow suit?  Carlwev  11:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The two things I'd agree with are moving magnitude to units and angular resolution to optics. The only things we include in the measurement section are measuring devices we can't fit anywhere else, and units of measurement. Techniques specific to a scientific field should stay in that field. I think most people would expect to find astrometry under Astronomy and analytical chemistry under Chemistry, rather than being listed next to each other in Measurement. Cobblet (talk) 16:21, 26 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) 07:28, 1 May 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 Coffeemaker

We've already got the general cooking appliances: oven, microwave oven, stove and electric stove. Coffeemaker is no more important than other specific cooking appliances like toaster, kettle, rice cooker, waffle iron, etc. Barbeque is more significant than coffeemaker but I'm not sure if it is vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support No reason to list this if we're not listing kettles or teapots. Cobblet (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Does anyone think that we should still keep electric stove? I think we could replace it with fundamental cooking methods such as frying and roasting since we already have baking and boiling. Gizza (t)(c) 14:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The introduction of gas and electric stoves eliminated the need to tend open fires for cooking in people's homes, which was both dangerous and extremely time-consuming. Modern society would be unrecognizable without such technological advances – for instance, emancipation of women from domesticity would not have been possible. I don't mind adding more cooking techniques, but it's not so obvious to me how we should choose between the many options (steaming? braising?). Cobblet (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Gas stove is a separate article. There's also kitchen stove but I can see your point on keeping a modern type of stove. Gizza (t)(c) 22:57, 18 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) 07:32, 1 May 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 Dreadnought

State of the art warships for less than 20 years in the early 20th century, and of minor strategic importance in the major conflict of that time.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support A noteworthy development in warships, but it doesn't seem any more noteworthy than earlier innovations like the ironclad. We don't need so many types of warships when we don't have much in the way of general ship types, e.g. galleon, clipper and steamboat/steamship aren't on the list, and neither is RMS Titanic. Would second the idea of adding warship. Cobblet (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support to make room for more worthy articles, possibly.  Carlwev  09:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I would definitely support warship. I might support some of the general ship types. Gizza (t)(c) 05:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

you're probably right, do you think it would be good to replace with destroyer? ships classified as destroyer have been in use from the late 19th century to present day, and probably continue for longer into future.  Carlwev  18:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going for a removal to complement the proposed addition of naval mine. Destroyer would be better on the list than dreadnought though. However, I'd rather see warship listed, as the broad concept article, before adding more individual types of warships. Plantdrew (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Although it appears I may want more weapons and/or ships than most, the articles Cobblet mentions all seem better than dreadnought, as does naval mine, I too would support warship and probably more, I'll support as Dreadnought is less deserving, and to potentially make room for naval mine and other more worthy weapons/boats. I particularly like steamship obviously would be in transport. For transport we also list several car manufactures and several car body types, like sedan etc, I'm not picking them off right now, although I may later, but to me they surely seem less vital than some ship types. I would need to think about RMS titanic, I think I would support it though. I did before on a swap thread with titanic movie that failed a while back  Carlwev  09:23, 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.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 1 May 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 Fibonacci number

Fibonacci numbers are one of the most well known sequences in mathematics. It is the 8th most viewed mathematics article. Also note that many of the entries above it are either biographies or have an inflated view count due to pop cultural events such as Pi Day.

Fibonacci has applications beyond mathematics in nature/biology, computing/information technology as well as finance (see for example, phyllotaxis, Fibonacci coding and Fibonacci retracement respectively).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The math section needs more attention. Cobblet (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, yeah math is low, this is important topic, again I presumed this must already be in and never checked.  Carlwev  11:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We're currently 40 articles under the target number of 300 which is why I proposed this as a straight add. I went through the list quickly and there aren't any topics that clearly stand out as non-vital anyway. I believe 300 (3% of total) is a reasonable number to aspire to as mathematics is slightly more important than say chemistry or physics individually. And unlike many articles in History, Arts, Society, Philosophy and Religion, Geography and Organisms which only have regional or local significance, nearly every article in Mathematics is universal in importance and application. 300 is if anything quite low when you consider the amount of time all educated people have spent studying mathematics compared to other areas of knowledge during their time in school. Gizza (t)(c) 03:57, 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.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 1 May 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 Median

Median is the The 67th most viewed mathematics article. The distinction between median and mean is crucial in understanding various probability distributions, skewness and data analysis. The median is often is better tool than mean/average to represent the middle point or average of a data set when the data set contains outliers.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support but I don't know how many more measures of central tendency we should list before we list the parent article. We could use other topics within descriptive statistics as well. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  11:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:51, 1 May 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, all four computer science entries under Mathematics moved to Technology

The following discussion is closed. 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 Computational chemistry, Add Computer simulation

Computer science intersects many fields besides chemistry – let's not list all the permutations. Adding topics on how computer science is applied to other fields might be the better way to go.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Computer science is often considered a branch of applied mathematics, and indeed we've got theoretical computer science and some subtopics listed under Mathematics. But we've also got a bunch of computer science articles under Technology/Computing and Information Technology. I suggest we move all the computer science articles into a new Computer science section under Mathematics – any objections? Cobblet (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I think there is a mix-up between Computational science and Computer Science. Computational science aka Scientific computing deals with computer simulations of experiments, for example. Computer science is a much more general concept which is more or less synonymous to computing and information technology. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think what I originally said was inaccurate, although maybe it wasn't worded clearly. Are you saying you would prefer adding computational science instead of computer simulation? I felt the actual technique in question might be a better choice than the nebulous, catch-all term for the discipline. Cobblet (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually I was thinking about suggesting Scientific computing as an alternative to computer simulation, but your argument is quite convincing, and computer simulation also gets a lot more page views. But I don't think we can move computer science into mathematics. Even though I agree that theoretical computer science could be considered a branch of applied mathematics, I'd prefer to move it to the computer science section. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:28, 21 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 pbp 16:06, 6 May 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 Indian classical music

Out of 31 music genres and forms, there is one Eastern genre Gamelan. There are some genres with influences from African traditional music (Reggae, Soul, Jazz). But by and large nearly every genre listed is a Western genre. Interestingly we have the most famous export of one type of Indian classical music (Hindustani) to the West in Ravi Shankar on the 1000 but not don't have the style of music on the expanded list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

To be honest, I think the two distinct traditions of ICM (Hindustani classical music and Carnatic music) along with Filmi will adequately cover the area but I doubt there will be support for 3 additions. Other Eastern forms we can add include Guoyue and Chinese opera (which would be added in the performing arts section, not here obviously). Also we have Bossa nova, a fusion of Jazz and Samba, but don't have Samba which has a much longer history. Gizza (t)(c) 03:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd support Chinese opera (which belongs in the performing arts) but not Guoyue. I'd also support adding samba, Sub-Saharan African music traditions and Arabic music to increase diversity. I'd remove Bluegrass music as being too specific and not any more notable than any other regional folk music tradition. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 22 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.
Moved 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:57, 3 May 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 Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors from History to Religious characters

Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors are legendary or semi-historic figures. Redtigerxyz Talk 09:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Redtigerxyz Talk 09:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. If they are to be on the list it should be in mythology not history, vaguely similar territory to King Arthur or Noah, both of whom are not in history  Carlwev  10:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support But then I really have to ask again what Abraham is doing on the People list. Cobblet (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:07, 3 May 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.

Add Hot sauce

Not added pbp 16:39, 6 May 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.

Hot sauce isn't that great an article (basically a list), but the condiment is used in cuisines almost globally.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think this article is going to be anything more than a list-style article plus a rehash of information that is already covered by chili pepper. I see the same problem with including this as I would with something like tomato sauce or green sauce. To me, the most obvious omission on this section of the list is soy sauce. I was going to suggest tahini might be worth considering as well, but I've just realized that we don't even list sesame to begin with; that needs to be fixed. Cobblet (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. oppose Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Would fish sauce be worth adding? The core of the condiment list (mustard, ketchup, mayonnaise) seem pretty US-centric. Not that these 3 condiments aren't popular in other western countries, but they are the anchors of a US supermarket's condiment aisle. Are they globally vital? Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that sesame is a big omission. I am still undecided on which sauces should go in and out. Gizza (t)(c) 11:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been having trouble finding production statistics for oil crops, but finally found something here, page 8 of PDF. Sesame isn't exclusively an oil crop, but oil is a pretty big part of sesame's importance. Production stats don't tell the whole story; stats are biased towards oils used industrially in processed foods, but e.g. olive and sesame oils are probably more important in home cooking than soy oil. I'd like to see oil palm (or [[palm oil) and rapeseed on the list, and olive seems like at least as big an omission as sesame. Plantdrew (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you Plantdrew regarding olive and the three most produced vegetable oils. If we have butter and lard on the list then it makes sense to include the major plant sources of oil/fat. Some vegetable oils are not just consumed but have other uses such as biofuel and soap making them significant in multiple ways. Gizza (t)(c) 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Welp, that's a lot of important articles we're missing. Cobblet (talk) 04:56, 1 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.
Swapped, 5-0 pbp 16:39, 6 May 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 Venison, Add Poultry

I don't think any game meat should be vital, but surely poultry ought to be.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I would support adding game (food). Hunting is in at 1000 so game meat can be added at 10K. Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

PointsofNoReturn, you voted twice here, once as "support" under the Support section, and once as "support" under the Oppose section. Do you mean to support the swap or not? Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 28 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 pbp 16:39, 6 May 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 Cola

This one specific type of soft drink would not be any more vital than others like cream soda or root beer if it weren't for Coca-Cola and its competitors. Since that's already listed, I don't think we need this.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support We can do something similar with removing wiki and keeping Wikipedia. Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cola is a type of soda. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I might support this although I'm pretty neutral here but we have many alcoholic drinks, while soft drinks are maybe drank more, but yes we do have Coca-Cola the top player of cola. We have Lemonade too, about the same importance as cola? and the only fruit specific soft drink. Also we don't have orange juice or squash (drink) which are roughly equal to cola.  Carlwev  13:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support adding orange juice and grape juice. They are of equal importance to cola. Also, cola is a type of soda, and is thus not vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:36, 4 May 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, 6-0 pbp 16:39, 6 May 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 Fast food

We list several examples of fast food on the list but not the general concept, which forms the basis of a highly prominent, successful and controversial modern industry.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

PointsofNoReturn, you've got a "support" under the Oppose section. Do you want to see fast food added, or do you oppose adding it? Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Woops. I'm in support. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:38, 28 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Relish, Add Soy sauce

If by "relish" we mean fruit preserves, that's already on the list; if we mean chopped pickles that some people put on hamburgers and hot dogs, I don't see how that's vital. Since we're listing things like ketchup and mayonnaise, surely the sauce that's essential to the cuisines of East and Southeast Asia is vital as well. I would argue soy sauce is more vital than other soy products like soy milk and tofu which are already listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  13:03, 29 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) 00:18, 4 May 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 Cyperaceae

By some (potentially outdated) statistics, the 11th largest family of plants, and the only one in the biggest 14 not on the vital list. Worldwide distribution and species in this family are often ecologically dominant plants in wetland habitats. I've proposed above removing from the vital list two of the species that are most important to humans (Cyperus esculentus and Cyperus papyrus), as their human importance is still relatively minor. Ecological importance of the species in the family collectively outweighs some minor human uses.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm not highly invested in getting this added, but I do think it's a better candidate for the vital list than the (currently listed) Juncus. There are 3 plant families with similar appearance that are the subject of Wikipedia's grass article (which isn't a very good article, but might be a potential add as a vital concept). Individually, the 3 families are the "true grasses", sedges, and rushes. True grasses are the Poaceae (vital listed), and rushes are Juncaceae (represented on the vital list by the largest genus, Juncus). Sedges are Cyperaceae, the third "grass" family, but include many more species than the rushes, and are more common/ecologically important than the rushes. I'd like to see all 3 (grasses/sedges/rushes) represented on the vital list, but if there are only two, it should be grasses and sedges. If it'll help move this add proposal through, I could sweeten the pot by proposing removal of Juncus. Let me know. Plantdrew (talk) 03:54, 11 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) 23:50, 3 May 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.

Ohm's law

I'll admit I'm no expert in this field -- my specialties are computers & the liberal arts -- but I was under the impression that Ohm's law is one of the foundations of Electronic engineering. This section does show a bias towards things, rather than concepts, so that might be why this was overlooked. In any case, there has been no discussion about whether this belongs in the Vital 10K, so I'm starting one here.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support a fundamental concept in the analysis of electrical circuits. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

If you haven't already, you may want to check the Physical sciences/Physics section, which has the concepts you're looking for. We don't list this but we do have Electrical resistance and conductance which covers the topic more generally (not all materials are ohmic, of course). But in general our coverage of EM is pretty sparse – I'm alarmed we don't have Kirchhoff's circuit laws, for instance. Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 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.
Both added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:54, 3 May 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 Watermill

We have wind power, windmill, and wind turbine, solar power plus solar cell. We don't have watermill. I was also thinking of Water wheel also/instead what do people think of that, there is overlap but no more than having windmill, wind power and wind turbine, I don't think any of them should get booted though, not really.  Carlwev  15:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 06:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Hydroelectricity

We have hydropower, but that includes modern methods as well as medieval and ancient. We should probably have hydroelectricity before listing 3 examples of dams that we have. There is some overlap, but these are important topics and the wind and solar power articles overlap too. Hydroelectricity was also once included in the smaller vital 1000 but was swapped out for hydropower, in the 10'000 list I believe both should be in.  Carlwev  15:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:09, 3 May 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 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 01:06, 4 May 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 Bleach and Detergent

Essential cleaning chemicals, like soap.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  17:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - very important topics although there is an overlap between them. Maybe only one is needed but I can't decide whether bleach or detergent is better. Gizza (t)(c) 02:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom/ PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 00:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I seriously doubt that we wrangled and argued all last summer to get the list under quota just so that we can stuff it full of cleaning supplies. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Feel free to split this thread if you like one more than the other. Cobblet (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel bleach is better, I mentioned it before, detergent not as good, but it's crossed my mind before, and I support both if the thread is split by someone else.  Carlwev  17:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Gabe, let's keep things in perspective: hygiene and cleanliness are vital to civilization. If 30 articles on clothing and 120 articles on food are vital, I don't see why we can't have three cleaning chemicals. Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Cobblet, I think its a weak argument that we should include X just because we also include Y and Z, which you imply are not well justified in the first place. I think its beyond ridiculous to have 30 articles on clothing and 120 on food and I've made a few attempts to trim those sub-lists down. I also think that there are two distinct camps when it comes to this type of proposal, and one camp seems to think that common/popular=vital. I don't think that this list is best served by including any and all common topics no matter how mundane. Vital and common are not synonyms. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
First, let me clarify that I did not mean to imply any such thing. The inventions of both chemicals are noteworthy milestones in the history of the chemical industry. To quote the Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Vol. 4, p. 45), Charles Tennant's invention of bleaching powder in 1799 "was the chief source of textile bleaches over the next century and was the impetus for much of the early chemical and chemical engineering developments." Synthetic detergents are the modern solution to water hardness, which people have been trying to overcome for literally millennia (Ullmann's Encyclopedia for Industrial Chemistry (Vol. 20, p. 355) notes that the ancient Egyptians used soda ash for this purpose). I understand how one would find this sort of thing mundane and I don't blame you for it, but I wouldn't take these things for granted just because we have the good fortune of living in a time and place where they're ubiquitous. Some things become commonplace precisely because they're vital.
Second, this process isn't about deciding whether one camp's right and the other's wrong; in a list of 10,000 things, I think we can find room to accommodate the wishes of both sides. Whether you believe five types of cheese to be vital or not, the fact that they are on the list is a result of consensus. I respect the fact that some people want to read about cheeses, but if I bought a 10,000-article encyclopedia, I know I would much prefer specific articles on bleach and detergent than articles on five specific cheeses. Hence my suggestion to add these topics. Cobblet (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I hear you, but there is a large gap between topics that are virtually meaningless and topics that are vital, and I think that individual cleaning agents fall somewhere in the middle. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Since we're significantly below quota in Tech, I wanted to see how much interest there is to add things into this section, and I wanted to start with things everyone's familiar with. Whether this proposal succeeds or not, at least this is something on which everyone can give some sort of an opinion. As always, your feedback and your interest in helping improve the list is appreciated. Cobblet (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what kind of overlap Gizza's referring to: detergent and bleach are two completely different things - one's a surfactant that's used to dissolve greasy substances in water, while the other's an oxidizing agent used to whiten materials or as a disinfectant. There's more overlap between soap and detergent in that they're both surfactants, but soap forms scum in hard water: detergents were specifically designed to overcome this problem. Cobblet (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The overlap is simply that they both cleaning agents which also includes soap. They don't overlap in terms of the mechanism of cleaning but their underlying purposes are similar. I think the "Food, Water and Health" section coul bed expand to 15 or 16 articles. Any more though and it might be pushing it. Another hygiene related article we can include (but not in this section) is bathing. Gizza (t)(c) 04:41, 31 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) 23:54, 3 May 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 Sandpaper, Add Abrasive

Sandpaper seems a little too specific to me, but the concept of an abrasive is probably vital, especially when we don't have polishing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Broader topic a better choice here. Plantdrew (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Rwessel (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:16, 3 May 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) 01:05, 4 May 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 Furnace

At least as important as fireplace; more so, I'd argue, since there's the industrial application as well. And apart from fireplace, we have nothing on how buildings are heated. We have many household appliances of lesser importance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I think we should consider adding central heating and ventilation (architecture) as well. Cobblet (talk) 10:31, 24 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 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 20:49, 3 May 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 Naval mine

Important and relevant large effect on modern warfare and how it plays out. We have several firearms and several swords, which although I don't want to remove any, naval mine is more relevant than several types of sword. We also have land mine. In English and most other languages I've checked land and naval mines are always 2 separate articles, mine in English is a disambiguation page; there is no single article that covers them both we could have instead. I attempted a swap last July with Molotov cocktail but that article was more popular than I thought with 2 people said they like the add but not the remove. see here  Carlwev  15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per "several types of sword". There are plenty of poorer topics in the military technology list. I'll propose a naval related removal. Plantdrew (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:07, 19 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_25&oldid=1137397841"