Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 26

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cobblet
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 21 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 History of radio, Add History of communication

Apart from radio, no other form of communication (e.g. writing) has a dedicated history article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. History of writing might be a good add also. Ypnypn (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

History of telecommunication should also have priority over history of radio. Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 2 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.
Removed pbp 18:26, 14 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 Youth

Redundant with adolescence.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:53, 13 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 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:22, 21 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 Food preservation

We list a couple examples of food preservation techniques but omit notable ones like smoking, drying, curing or freezing. The overall concept is unquestionably vital.

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  10:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:36, 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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:28, 21 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 Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day pales into insignificance compared to the other holidays on the list. It is also less vital than Chinese New Year, Vesak and Diwali which was recently rejected by the Wiki community. It is a public holiday in very few countries if at all. I believe Valentine's Day is on par with Mother's Day and Father's Day which aren't on the list. I believe its addition is another oft-mentioned example of Western bias on the VA list as it stands.

There are many potential swaps or adds that can be proposed to replace Valentine's Day apart from CNY and Diwali. Unfortunately there is no generic Independence Day article which is just a list (as is the case with National Day, Liberation Day and Republic Day). If we need another article related to love, there is Wedding anniversary or the more general Anniversary. There are probably other good choices which I haven't suggested.

Support
  1. Support - as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The list as it stands now is severely biased toward Western culture. Since there is no consensus to fix this by adding more holidays, I support removing some instead. Cobblet (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I believe Halloween isn't as vital as the rest too. It is similar in geographical spread to other Celtic holidays such as St. Patrick's Day and does not have public holiday status. It may be celebrated more fervently in particular countries though. Gizza (t)(c) 23:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd support removing Halloween, Pentecost, Hanukkah and Passover. Not only is it unjustifiable to have these when we don't have the holidays Gizza mentioned, I'd also have thought they were less vital than Carnival or Rosh Hashanah. Cobblet (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I would vote to keep Halloween, I know Diwali and Holi didn't make the cut, I'd like to try Diwali again at some point in the future, and Chinese New Year looks like it has half a chance. Also, do others think we need to include all days of the week and all months of the year, I'm half and half on that. I would support carnival also.  Carlwev  18:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd vote to keep Pentecost. pbp 03:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Passover is a vital article to the Jewish community. It is the story of the creation of the Jewish holy book, the Torah. Hanukkah is not as important as Passover and is not as vital to the Jews as other holidays. Pentecost is celebrated by Jews as Shavuot. Both of these holidays are vital to both Christians and Jews. With regards to Chinese New Year, that should be on the list. I am on the fence with Halloween, with it being more of a commercial holiday in the US than a religious one in modern times. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I wish there was a generic Valentines Day to add since many cultures have different forms of the holiday. Even China has one. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:37, 14 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.
Moved 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 21 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 Code of Hammurabi from Art to Law

The main significance of Hammurabi's Code is that it was one of the first legal codes in the world. Although it is indeed an ancient artifact, its main purpose is to be a written code of law. The purpose of Hammurabi's Code should gain precedence over the physical appearance of it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Rwessel (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support The original law code. pbp 14:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Most definitely. Gizza (t)(c) 11:47, 5 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 6-0 Gizza (t)(c) 00:56, 13 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 Fugu

Fugu is the Japanese word for pufferfish which is on the list. Fugu either refers to the same fish or to a dish made from particular species of them. And it is clearly not vital enough to go into the food and dishes category.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  17:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:25, 4 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 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 09:39, 21 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 Ephemeris

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Could add almanac as a replacement (not in Astronomy of course; this goes for any of my suggestions). Cobblet (talk) 05:29, 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 I think there should be something on celestial navigation on the list but this is a little bit too specific. I could support almanac. Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:18, 18 May 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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:38, 21 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 Pasture

We already list field (agriculture) in the same section, and grazing under Biology/Zoology. When those articles are fully developed, I imagine there should be discussion of fields used for grazing in both, so I don't think we need this.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support not a well developed article Plantdrew (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:46, 14 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.
Withdrawn Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 21 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 Microprocessor

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Hmmm... I'd suggest Central processing unit instead. While microprocessors as such are certainly important to our world, as far as computing goes, it's more an implementation detail. While almost no non-microprocessor CPUs exist any more, the fact that the CPU ended up on a single chip is more an accident of technology. Many of the things done in microprocessors were first done in non-microprocessor CPUs, as those were could be much more complex implementations given the limits of chipmaking technology at the time. Rwessel (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. CPU's already on the list. Too much overlap? Cobblet (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. Rwessel (talk) 00:50, 2 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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 21 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 Warship

While exactly which specific types of warships need to be listed is debatable, a general article on warships seems vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC).
  3. Support It's a good overview and provides links to all the types. I could see a *few* specific types listed, submarine (although that's not specifically a warship) stands out as a particularly noteworthy type, since it’s so fundamentally different from conventional sea-going vessels (and already included as level-3). Rwessel (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  05:00, 16 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 Cobblet (talk) 09:36, 21 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 Blimp, Add Airship

A blimp is just one type of airship. Zeppelins are one example of airships that aren't currently covered, but would be if we had the more general article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Rwessel (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support We also had Aerostat earlier, but removed it, but that's not as good anyway.  Carlwev  05:16, 16 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.
Not added 4-3 Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 27 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 David Sarnoff

The first person to realize that radio could function not only as a tool for point-to-point communication, but as a medium for the dissemination of news and entertainment: in realizing his vision he created the modern broadcasting industry. As general manager (later president) of RCA he built the first radio broadcasting network. He then recognized the potential of television and formed NBC, which became the first major TV broadcast network. Many businesspeople can claim to be fabulously wealthy; few can claim to have built up an entire industry from scratch, dominate it for half a century, and drastically affect every level of society the way Sarnoff did.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. support  Carlwev  18:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Radio and Television is vital, the first person to mainstream it not necessarily so.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Maunus. Philo Farnsworth who IMO is more vital in pioneering television is already on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 13:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose There are a number of American businessman not on the list who I would add before this person pbp 14:21, 29 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.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 27 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 Thích Nhất Hạnh

The 14th Dalai Lama is the only person we need to represent the modern West's interest in Buddhism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support -we could have more articles on buddhist practitioners if the topic justified it, but he is still mostly a figure within the western buddhist community, and less of a world figure than other titled religious leaders, such as popes, dalai lamas, etc. I expect his influence will be more obvious in the next decade or 2, just as someone like billy graham is an obvious choice in retrospect now.99.101.137.235 (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  15:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If we have multiple Popes, we can have multiple Dalai Lamas. I do not see the big deal. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

While we're on the subject of modern religious figures, I'm not even sure that somebody like Billy Graham is vital within the context of Christian history. Surely there are several Biblical figures of far greater importance. Cobblet (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

With the possible exception of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII, Billy Graham had more influence on the world than any Christian leader of the 20th Century. He was consistently rated as one of the most respected living Americans, at a time when the people he was being compared to were people like Walter Cronkite and Dwight D. Eisenhower who are on the list. He preached to more people than anybody else in the history of the World. Removing him would leave Americans, Baptists and born-again Christians underrepresented. pbp 18:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd compare his legacy to people like Diana, Princess of Wales, Abbé Pierre and Desmond Tutu, none of whom are on the list. According to the academics who compiled that Atlantic list you and I like to refer to, even Brigham Young was more notable than Billy Graham. Did you check to see whether we had any modern figures from other religions before claiming that modern Christians are under-represented? We have no Muslim clerics after 1300, for instance, despite the importance of modern Islamism. Cobblet (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I said modern Christians were underrepresented, merely specific subsets of which Graham is the only representative. By contrast, re-adding Young to the list would give us two Mormons against only 14 (other) Protestants (13 if we remove Graham). I consider Graham to be more substantial than Diana, and Tutu to probably a candidate for inclusion to this list. If you're saying Graham is nothing more than a pop figure, removing him would also require the removal of most actors, musicians and athletes on this list. And having no Muslims after 1300 is a gross omission pbp 20:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
MLK was also a Baptist minister. We have entire schools of Islam that aren't even represented as a whole (nothing listed in Islamic theology is on the list), let alone have specific people to represent them. Pop figure or not, the Atlantic list includes three other American religious figures not on our list, and also finds room for several actors, musicians and athletes; yet it still doesn't include Graham. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll reiterate that the solution is more Muslims, not fewer Christians. And while the Atlantic list is a lot better list than the Discovery Channel list or other great Americans lists, I don't agree with that selection. I believe Graham to be more significant than Lyman Beecher or Brigham Young, and again, that discounts the argument that having the only Southern Baptist on the list is of more utility than a second Mormon. Also, actors? It has Sam Goldwyn and Walt Disney from Hollywood, but no actors. pbp 03:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:PointsofNoReturn, feel free to propose adding another Dalai Lama if you think one is vital, or removing non-vital popes. But Buddhist monks in general are not poorly represented on the list. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Cobblet Thích Nhất Hạnh is the only Buddhist article that is even above good article status. Most are start class. Also he was more than a buddhist monk. He was a peace activist, working to end the Vietnam War. He was even nominated by Martin Luther King Jr. for a noble peace prize. He is critical to the Buddhist list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Article quality has nothing to do with whether a subject is vital. We list plenty of activists, and we don't list things of much more relevance to the Vietnam War like Viet Cong. Wikiproject Vietnam rates him as mid-importance: besides Ho Chi Minh, the only other top-importance Vietnamese figure according to them is Tôn Đức Thắng and he's not on the list. Dozens of high-importance Vietnamese figures aren't listed. Thích Nhất Hạnh credits 13th-century Vietnamese emperor Trần Nhân Tông as the originator of the ideas he's popularized; he's not on the list either. We don't list most Nobel Peace Prize winners, let alone nominees. I'm all for increasing the diversity of this list, but listing figures of secondary importance is the wrong way to go about it. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 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.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 27 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.

Considering there have been numerous comments about the list being too recent and/or too American. Recent American culture like movies, television shows and Music gets known all over the world, but journalists especially news anchors not really. We have already removed all the TV networks/channels apart from BBC. Some journalists are significant writers but there are so many other missing writers of fiction and non fiction. Some of the journalists have had some impact on politics, but we don't have or have removed many UK/US and other nations leaders, which must have had more of an impact and were more notable or vital than all but a few journalists. Carlwev (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

With the swaps/removals below I am basically proposing we narrow the list down to 15 journalists. We could narrow it down still further, although at some point we also have to address whether we have the most significant journalists (Tom Wolfe and William Howard Russell look like journalists that might have a better case than some of the people still remaining) and whether we could use someone not from an English-speaking country (Ferdinando Petruccelli della Gattina, maybe?). Cobblet (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove John Reed (journalist), Add James Gordon Bennett, Sr.

Reed seems to be a relatively minor figure even among journalists. Bennett founded the New York Herald and invented many of the techniques of modern journalism: his paper conducted the first newspaper interview, published the first Wall Street financial article, was the first American paper to have correspondents in Europe, pioneered the use of illustrations (via the use of woodcuts), and was the first paper to have a society page. Bennett was ranked #69 on The Atlantic's 2006 list of the most influential Americans.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Dagko (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support the swap. Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 15:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I support adding James Gordon Bennett, but John Reed is also important. John Reed represents the rebel journalist in American history. Is there a way to add James Gordon Bennett without deleting John Reed? If so, I would support adding James Gordon Bennett. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:14, 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.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:12, 28 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 Suprematism, Add Rock art

The history of visual arts section is incredibly skewed towards modern art movements. Out of 31 articles, 22 are modern or contemporary. The 9 "Pre-modern" articles range from the late medieval to the 18th century. There are no representatives of early medieval art or anything historically older than that. I understand that something similar will inevitably happen in music, because music had only begun to be recorded in the late 19th century. On the other hand, visual arts have existed and survived for thousands of years. There is no excuse not to make the list more chronologically balanced.

Rock art consisting of pictographs, petrogylphs, and earth figures, has been discovered on every continent in the world. It is practically found in every prehistoric culture. The cave engravings and paintings still hold significance for many indigenous people to this day.

There might be others than are less worthy but Suprematism is not vital. A movement confined to one country Russia for a few decades in the early 1900's with only one painter of note Kazimir Malevich, is not significant enough. Adding him in the biographies would provide sufficient coverage to the movement although I don't think even that is necessary. Gizza (t)(c) 10:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Gizza (t)(c) 10:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support If we're to include one art movement from 20th-century Russia surely it ought to be socialist realism? Cobblet (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I have had Cave painting on my mind for a while, my first thought is it's probably a more widely used term but Rock art is the parent term but used a bit less often, I may be wrong though. Could we have both, or would it be too much? it wouldn't be the worst overlap, and they do cover several millennia and regions unlike some other topics.  Carlwev  19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind adding cave art. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:00, 24 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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:30, 30 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 Tantra

Tantra is a heterodox religious school central to Hinduism, Buddhism (Vajrayana a vital article is Buddhist Tantra), Bon and Jainism. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 25 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) 06:32, 30 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 Virginity

Significant topic with regards to religion, ethics, as well as sexuality, has effects on psychology and sociology.  Carlwev  11:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Zayeem (talk) 12:27, 29 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 Cobblet (talk) 06:33, 30 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 Burqa, Add Veil

Veils are a common type of headgear across many cultures, of which burqas are just one type.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Good choice. Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Burqas are more covering than veils, but too culturally specific. Hijab covers both the concept of modesty in Islam and a specific modest garment that is far more common in the Muslim world than the burqa. Plantdrew (talk)
  4. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Zayeem (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

In principle I'm not opposed to including culture-specific clothing articles (we have so much culture-specific stuff for food and drink), but I think the cross-cultural terms should be included before we start looking for specific examples. I'd prioritize hijab over burqa for sure. I think suit is not a bad choice, but from Western clothing consideration should also be given to t-shirt and jeans before stuff like necktie. Cobblet (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I'd use more space for clothing, I mean it's in the vital 100, very universal, even if specific items aren't, for all world and all history, they're still pretty wide spread Here the clothes list size is comparable to the list of tennis or football players, doesn't look right to me, I might give consideration to, suit, tie, T-shirt, jeans, athletic shoe but that's just me. I would consider and explain each item singularly. I probably won't propose any adds today, and I'll think more about it because I have a feeling others think differently, and my POV might not be with consensus.  Carlwev  16:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 30 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 Weight class (boxing)

The weight class boxing article is structured like a list and is in fact tagged as "list-class" on its talk page. As there has been consensus to remove all lists from VA, this should be removed too. Even if weight-class wasn't a list, I don't think it is the second most important article about boxing just behind boxing itself. Professional boxing and amateur boxing at the very least are more important. Gizza (t)(c) 11:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Agree that the other articles mentioned by Gizza are better choices. Cobblet (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm guilty of adding that, over a year ago there was heavy weight and bantam weight, I removed them but was reverted, and asked why I removed them and what I was going to replace them with, so I suggested weight class to cover them both, but it is pretty weak, there are no other classes here nor male/female sport articles.  Carlwev  15:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Weight class itself links to the weight classes on ten different sports. If we add one we would need to add many others. But none of them are vital. They are a technical aspect of each sport. Gizza (t)(c) 01:06, 7 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 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 30 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 Rugby World Cup

One of the biggest international sports competitions - often regarded as the third-largest after the FIFA World Cup and the Olympics. Neljack (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support  Carlwev  17:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. More people watch cricket and field hockey than rugby. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

The Hockey World Cup is certainly not a bigger event or watched by more people than the Rugby World Cup. The Cricket World Cup would be up there, but we already have it on the list. Neljack (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Water chestnut, Add Water caltrop

Water chestnut is currently a disambiguation page. I propose it be replaced with Water caltrop, which seems to be the more used worldwide of the species disambiguated. pbp 13:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 13:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose adding water caltrop. I've proposed a straight removal of water chestnut below. Plantdrew (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm leaning towards doing a straight remove of water chestnut and not swapping in water caltrop. If I was going to propose adding another root vegetable, I'd go for Xanthosoma over water caltrop. But both are more or less arbitrary picks of crops that have more regional than global importance.

Aside from food, water caltrops are noted as invasive species in North America. But Invasive species/Introduced species/Weed aren't on VA/E yet, and one or more of these article probably ought to be listed before the VA/E starts worrying about individual examples. Plantdrew (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree a straight remove is best. I think we should add either invasive species or introduced species to ecology, and weed control to agriculture. Cobblet (talk) 05:49, 17 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 17:05, 21 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 Water chestnut

Water chestnut is set index article (disambiguation, more or less), and doesn't belong on the VA/E list. Swapping in one of the plants called "water chestnut" is proposed above, but I don't think either of the water chestnuts really belong on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I supported the swap as it was an improvement. However, looking at water chestnut/caltrop more closely it isn't vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:26, 4 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.

Redistributing articles in the Everyday life section of vital topics

  • I thought about this above, and think you have a good idea. Also, What do people think of some of the following. We could get rid of the A, P and EL section completely, it's an odd mish mash of stuff art and entertainment I think belong together among other things.
  1. Move TV and radio shows to arts, near films
  2. Move all mass media to arts.
  3. Move videogames, or all entertainment/recreation/games to arts.
  4. Rename arts to, something else perhaps "Art and Entertainment" or another variation, using some of the words: arts, entertainment, recreation, media, sport.
  5. Move museums to arts.
  6. Move colors to visual arts.
  7. Move food to health in biology, rename food and health.
  8. Move timekeeping to measurement.
  9. Clothes and household items ?? not sure ?? put with culture in social science ??

I explained my thoughts in more detail on my own talk page here so to not clog this page up too much. Good ideas or not? Carlwev (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with moving colors to visual arts (they would fit better in psychology or biology, or physics), and with moving objects and household items to social sciences. There should be a section for technology if there isnt one already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't really like this idea—putting mass media and sports on the same page as the arts seems particularly arbitrary. I view the "everyday life" page as an extension of the "society and social sciences" page, covering subjects that are less abstract in nature. IMO, it's somewhat analogous to the distinction between "Geography" and "Earth science". Cobblet (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with moving TV shows to arts, but I don't want to get rid of the APEL section completely. Language has nowhere better to go, and the connection between sports and art is a bit tenuous (they're both often done for fun, but so is eating, transportation, and shopping). -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much anywhere is better for Language than among the furniture and clothes items. Society for example. Social sciences. Psychology. TO name a few better options.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe the reason a section on everyday life existed was that articles on sports and clothing fit poorly anywhere else. Some of the things in everyday life (psych, anthro) can easily be moved, others not so easily pbp 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Clothes is a technology. Sports is entertainment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Time for a new table?

Now that we've moved ~300 articles to Society and social sciences and made a new subpage called Everyday life, the table at WP:VA/E needs reorganizing, because the old numbers and quotas no longer apply. I suggest we get rid of the current table along with the old statistics and make a new one, which will have a quota of 500 articles in the Everyday life section and a quota of 900 in Society and social sciences to reflect the move. Meanwhile I'll leave the old table here so it will be saved to the talk page archive. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Section 31 May 2013 02 July 2013 31 July 2013 30 Sept 2013 1 Nov 2013 23 Jan 2014 30 Mar 2014 Target number
People 2188 2048 1993 1975 1980 1986 1980 2000
History 643 644 638 642 644 644 644 650
Geography 1418 1408 1384 1183 1175 1144 1155 1200
Arts 650 679 670 637 634 636 641 650
Philosophy and religion 397 424 423 428 427 421 421 425
Anthropology, psychology and everyday life 826 819 806 783 782 789 794 800
Society and social sciences 584 583 569 554 554 535 533 600
Biology and health sciences 1566 1561 1550 1532 1532 1511 1487 1500
   Organisms NA NA NA 1050 1051 1057 1002 ?
   Health, medicine, and disease 216 220 221 222 223 211 214 250
Physical sciences 1062 1062 1058 1140 1134 1123 1119 1125
   Basics, measurement NA NA NA 98 98 98 95 100
   Astronomy 223 220 220 219 219 219 219 225
   Chemistry 289 289 289 281 280 281 284 275
   Earth science 269 272 272 274 270 266 263 250
   Physics 273 273 270 268 267 258 258 275
Technology 824 814 813 715 713 713 708 750
Mathematics 255 254 255 259 259 260 260 300
Total 10 413 10 296 10 159 9848 9834 9762 9747 10 000
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 4 June 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 Andean civilizations

The Andes are the only cradle of civilization without an article on the list devoted to it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support It is good to complete the set of the six cradles of civilization. Gizza (t)(c) 10:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  04:07, 2 June 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) 04:00, 4 June 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 Norte Chico civilization

The oldest civilization in the Americas. Compare Akkad, Sumer, Naqada III, Mohenjo-daro and the Xia Dynasty, all of which are on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. Gizza (t)(c) 10:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support seems one of the most significant and oldest civilization in the Americas  Carlwev  17:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Akkad is actually a disambiguation page. Should it link to the city (Akkad (city)) or to the Akkadian Empire? Gizza (t)(c) 10:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Akkad (city) is what is actually listed. Cobblet (talk) 16:57, 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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Hudson River

There are no rivers listed along the east coast of the United States. The Hudson River should be listed because it flows through the biggest city in the United States as well as forming a shipping link between New York and Montreal via the Champlain Canal and the St. Lawrence Seaway. I would also support adding the Delaware River, but I feel that the Hudson River is sufficient for the east coast of the US.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The historical significance of the Hudson River is subsumed by that of the Erie Canal which is already on the list. We should remove the Thames – its significance is comparable to that of the Po or the Seine and neither of those is listed. I've previously suggested adding the Nelson River and the Darling River and I still believe these are the two most important rivers we're missing. Cobblet (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Comment: The United States takes up only a fraction of the world's land area, and the rivers on the East Coast are short relative to most of the rivers on the list pbp 01:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are shorter rivers on the list. An example is the River Thames. If the River Thames is on the list, then the Hudson River should be on it too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would support adding the Nelson River and the Darling River as a tributary for the Murray River. I would also support removing the River Thames. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:48, 26 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 an extra Taiwan

Taiwan was listed at both "Countries" and "Islands". I removed it from the list of islands without discussion as I assumed it would not be controversial. Other island countries are listed in countries instead of islands. Gizza (t)(c) 05:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. there is no need for two listings for one country. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:41, 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.

Add Manhattan and Long Island

I was surprised not to find Manhattan on the list of islands, as well as not finding Long Island either. I would support adding either of the islands due to their high population. Staten island is another possible choice, but it is not as critical as Manhattan and Long Island are.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Both these islands are populous because they're part of New York City, and their significance is subsumed by that of the city. We don't list Salsette Island even though it's the most populous island in the world not on the list, because it's where Mumbai is located. Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. There is nothing particularly striking about either island apart from part of NYC. Gizza (t)(c) 13:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Looking at the list of islands more carefully, you notice that all of the islands are just a special case of "regions" since single island countries are listed with the other countries. Some of the peninsulas and articles under "Land relief" are also just special regions. The articles in "Regions" are just the regions which couldn't fit anywhere else.

Looking at all of these subsections together shows the inconsistencies in the list. For instance, Tasmania, the smallest Australian state by area and population is on the list because it is an island while the bigger five states are not. Tasmania doesn't have much of a unique history or culture to be included on that basis. Then there are the eleven Canadian island articles including nine on the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Surely Nunavut is more vital than nearly all of those islands? Gizza (t)(c) 05:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Several months ago, we took a meat-axe to the regions. Too much of a meat-axe if you ask me pbp 18:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree pbp, the meat-axe to the regions was silly. I don't think there was anything wrong is reducing the number of regions but the way they were removed was the problem. Instead of discussing why some regions are less vital than others, a lot of regions were selected randomly then removed pretty quickly without discussion. We will need to do at least 20 swaps (if the general consensus is to not add too many regions) in order to restore some balance to the list. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that the merits of of Long Island and Manhattan need to be taken into account. Long Island has 7.6 million people, and is more populated than many countries in the world. Manhattan is the island that is the center of New York City and the home of the New York Stock Exchange. In both cases these should be vital articles. Long Island should be on the vital list for islands, and Manhattan could be put in as a vital island or as a subsection of vital cities within New York City. Either way, both these articles need to be listed as vital.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Many of the regions we removed back then had at least that. New Jersey is bigger than Long Island and we don't have it. We don't even have New York State, though we do have New York City. pbp 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
New York State and New Jersey aren't islands though. Long Island and Manhattan are. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
New Jersey could be nominated as a peninsula. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for (re-)adding some regions – we clearly went too far in removing them and it resulted in undesirable imbalances like Tasmania being the only Australian state listed. On the other hand, the 29 largest islands in the world are all on the list and Tasmania comes in at #26, and I'm comfortable with staying on the list of islands for that reason – size is the simplest proxy for geographical significance, and this obviously has be a primary factor when making a list of geographical features.

Of course that isn't the only factor; human significance matters too. Now we list things like cities, countries and cultural regions that are tied to human geography, and we shouldn't list populous geographical features if their human significance overlaps with a city or country we've already listed. (We don't list Kuwait City or Doha for similar reasons – the city overlaps with most of the country so it's not necessary to list both.) I'd point out that New Jersey's significance is also subsumed by that of New York and Philadelphia. There's no such overlap with Tasmania and anything else on the list. IMO the best way to fix the imbalance in our representation of Australia is to add other Australian states.

With respect to the island sublist itself, I think we list too many uninhabited islands and archipelagos, particularly in the Canadian and Russian Arctic. On the other hand, we unreasonably omit islands that hold a significant degree of political autonomy as dependent territories and are comparable in population to other island countries, but were removed when we took a sledgehammer to the Regions section. If the islands were actually listed under Islands instead of Regions and weren't subject to a mass deletion proposal, I doubt we would have ever considered removing them.

For example, compare French Polynesia with Nauru: despite being an independent country, Nauru is probably more dependent on Australia for protecting its sovereignty and keeping its economy afloat than French Polynesia is on France. The greater human significance of French Polynesia vs. Nauru is much better reflected in the difference in population (268,000 vs. 10,000) than the difference in political status. The haphazard way in which we trimmed the Regions section has led to us keeping Guam and Curaçao (both pop. ~150,000) but not French Polynesia or other islands like Guadeloupe or Martinique (both pop. ~400,000).

I have about eight swaps in mind to redress the imbalances on the list of islands. If we believe Guam and Curaçao are worth keeping despite their small population (and a proposal to add the Virgin Islands attracted some support despite them being even less populous than these two), then it seems logical to add other dependent territories with a larger population than them (there are six in all). Also there are two archipelagos I think we should include as vital geographical features: the Ryukyu Islands and Kuril Islands. Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and propose some of those. I'd support 'em pbp 14:19, 14 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.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 4 June 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 Southern Alps

This is the only island mountain range on the list. It isn't geographically or culturally more notable than the Barisan Mountains, Japanese Alps, or the highlands of New Guinea, Madagascar or the British Isles (the Scottish Highlands), none of which we have. We don't need more coverage of these mountains beyond what's discussed in South Island.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - so long as we keep South Island. Gizza (t)(c) 02:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:17, 1 June 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 pbp 15:58, 4 June 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 Qi

We could use a non-Western mystical concept. Qi underpins many facets of Chinese culture including philosophy, medicine and the martial arts and is internationally known.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Zayeem (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:52, 4 June 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) 07:02, 4 June 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 Spiritualism

Where it goes in this section is debatable, but I think Spiritualism should be somewhere in VA/E, particularly if occult is deleted. It held a place in society 100-150 years ago that Scientology (on the list) has today. pbp 22:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 22:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Actually it looks a good deal more significant than Scientology; even today Spiritism still maintains a large following in Brazil. Of the new religious movements we list only the Falun Gong might approach it in number of adherents, but that movement doesn't have a 150 year-old history. Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  02:53, 4 June 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 to social classes 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:04, 4 June 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 Eunuch

Significant topic of sexuality, much more so historically, although around today still in smaller numbers, where more historically back into ancient times of several cultures in the East and West, for slavery, servants and other reasons. Carlwev (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support although it's a bit odd to add it to sexuality when it's about a lack of sexuality. Another place for it might be under Society/Social classes. Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support It makes sense to be put on the sexuality list because it is a lack of sexuality. Just like abstinence is a type of sexuality. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  • Unsure of placement, sexuality is best place I can think of. Many but not all Eunuchs where in slavery, so under slavery wouldn't be right. Carlwev (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I'd support everything except castration – too much overlap between Sterilization (medicine) and Eunuch. And putting them all under Sexuality seems reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Another sexuality-related addition is incest (the most noteworthy and prevalent social taboo). To make some room for these additions, I'd suggest removing boyfriend and girlfriend – the two articles are virtually identical atm, and the material there is already covered in the various articles we have on courtship, romance and interpersonal relationships. Maybe replace them with significant other but I'm not really sure we even need that. What do you think? Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Incest, I believe to be a vital topic, I would open or support that too, I remember considering it a while back but completely forgot about it. I can understand your concern on the overlap between Castration, Eunuch and Sterilization, not sure which I would leave out, maybe none, others votes and comments will decide anyway, I'll take into account all comments before making my mind up completely. I think I got significant other removed via voting earlier, I think in a swap for Concubinage. Significant other I think is a very weak article. Boyfriend and girlfriend may be marginally better, but are also fairly weak as well. Carlwev (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Eunuch under sexuality, but it's a lack of sexuality, correct perhaps it would be better in social class. But Atheism is nearly always under religion, it is here, that's about a lack of religion, kind of.  Carlwev  17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Right. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that eunuchs are historically significant (which is the main reason why I think this should be on the list) because they were the result of a form of cruel and unusual punishment and they often formed a distinct social class; reasons that have more to do with society in general than sexuality in particular. Sterilization and castration are about the actual medical procedures, and would have more direct significance to sexuality. (Just to clarify my other earlier comments, I think we should have either eunuch or castration but not both.) Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Put another way: atheism is a religious preference, and asexuality is a sexual orientation. Being a eunuch is not a matter of sexual orientation. Cobblet (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You make a good case, I agree Eunuch's best place is social class, and being a Eunuch effects more than just having a lack of sexuality.  Carlwev  10:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:51, 4 June 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 Flatbread

Another common staple (tortilla, roti, injera), unleavened bread also holds special significance in some religious traditions. (I know not all flatbreads are unleavened, but all unleavened breads are flatbreads and unleavened bread is a pretty weak article.) If we have room for several kinds of cheese, surely there's room for a particular type of bread.

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) 17:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 22:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 1 June 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 pbp 16:46, 4 June 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 Rock climbing

Some other people have indicated an interest in adding this; to me it seems no less vital than some of the other sports on the list such as Basque pelota or orienteering.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Yeah rock climbing seems more significant than a few other sports we have. I'm surprised rock climbing only appears in 18 other languages, low compared to other activities. Maybe other counterparts are at Climbing, that's in more languages, but it English it's half a list of different types of climbing, and not too good. Do people think climbing is a good idea, a lot could be written about it that is not there now, summarizing the different types, and what they have in common. On the other hand it could be seen as a dictionary definition and list only kind of page. Skating for example could potentially be a good article, about all different forms of wheel and ice skating, for recreation or sport, but it's not, it is only a disambiguation page. I think climbing is very poor in its present state but it has potential.  Carlwev  11:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

None of the other types of climbing look vital to me, so I don't think we need the overview article. Cobblet (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added pbp 16:46, 4 June 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 Underwater diving

Very substantial article and appears in 49 languages longer article and more languages than scuba diving that's in 34 languages. Underwater diving contains sections for the tech and methods of scuba, free diving, surface supplied diving, atmospheric diving suit, diving bell, snorkeling, dangers, reasons for diving. The article covering all types of diving, including scuba, is probably more vital than scuba.  Carlwev  14:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:58, 1 June 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 pbp 16:46, 4 June 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 Premier League

The English premier league is one of the most important soccer leagues in the world. Since there are complaints about how there are too many American leagues, I feel that the Premier League is a good choice to represent European soccer.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Would also support adding La Liga. As the most popular sport in the world, football deserves substantial representation on this list. Man U and Arsenal are the second and eighth most valuable team brands in the world according to Forbes. Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support if we have 17 football players, an article like this is pretty sensible  Carlwev  04:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added pbp 16:46, 4 June 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 FIFA

We have the FIFA World Cup as a vital article, but we do not have the league itself. There needs to be coverage of Soccer leagues, and this league represents every professional league in the world. Certainly this is a vital article.

Support
  1. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is a governing organization that represents national federations, not a league. We don't list any such organization and we don't even list the IOC. Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose No international sports body is vital at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 01:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Fair enough. I thought that a governing body would be vital, but I guess not. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 3 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.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:19, 4 June 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: Add Stock, Remove London Stock Exchange

Stocks are one of the three main types of financial securities, the other two being debt and derivatives. It is a fundamental topic. Stock is more important than stock exchange and is definitely more important than specific examples of a stock exchange.

Out of the four listed, the London Stock Exchange is the smallest in terms of market cap and trading volume.

Support
  1. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Also support adding securities and derivatives. Would support limiting specific examples of stock exchanges to just the NYSE. Cobblet (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

In the interests of geographic diversity, removing NASDAQ is another possibility since it is the smaller of the two US stock exchanges. Gizza (t)(c) 06:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That could be done. However, my only question is this: How diverse can we make this list? The New York Stock Exchange should definitely be there. Should we add a Chinese stock exchange due to their large economy? I am not sure what we can do. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:40, 2 June 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) 07:20, 4 June 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 Exchange rate

The concept of exchange rate, the value of one currency in terms of another, is vital. Whenever somebody travels to, buys from, or sells to another country with a different currency, the exchange rate comes into play. The exchange rate can have a very significant impact on a nation's economy. IMHO, it is more important than all of the specific currencies listed even the United States dollar.

Support
  1. Support as nom Gizza (t)(c) 03:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support adding either this or foreign exchange market. Cobblet (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  04:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The Society section is underpopulated and Business/Economics can probably go up to 90. But looking at the list, there are a lot of vital topics missing and lots of articles that probably shouldn't be there. I have proposed a removal below. I proposed them separately instead of a swap in order to give the !voters more flexibility. Gizza (t)(c) 03:14, 2 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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:21, 4 June 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 International Trade

Per Gizza's suggestion above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The business and economics section can afford to expand a little bit but not too much. I can support this without swapping it for anything. It's an extension of globalization on the Level 3 (1,000) list. Gizza (t)(c) 05:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Zayeem (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Should we add economic growth or Growth Domestic Product? I think we need at least one of them. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:36, 14 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 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 4 June 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 Chinese New Year

Chinese New Year is one of the most important holidays for the Chinese, if not the most important. It is celebrated by both Chinese citizens and ethnic Chinese worldwide. It also begins a 15 day period of celebrations until the Lantern Festival, which I will also be nominating below.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Don't really think the Lantern festival is necessary (this isn't the Chinese Wikipedia) – would support adding harvest festival instead. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I'd still support Holi and Diwali too  Carlwev  04:15, 2 June 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 pbp 16:53, 4 June 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 Harvest festival

Per Cobblet's suggestion above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Widespread phenomenon in many cultures. Apart from the New Year and certain specific religious holidays, this tends to be the most significant time of celebration in cultures that have it. Cobblet (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Zayeem (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Currently much of it is written like a list but I think using similar reasoning National Day should also be included. Gizza (t)(c) 05:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 1 June 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.
5-0 Swapped Gizza (t)(c) 02:25, 3 June 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 Extortion, Add Corruption

Extortion is at a similar level of significance with embezzlement. Bribery which is not included in the list is just as significant. The general phenomenon of corruption is more vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Corruption is definitely vital. Extortion is more borderline: I think a more serious crime like treason or an unrepresented area of law like procedural law would be more vital. Cobblet (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Sorry to see any crimes go but agree with previous comments, extortion is borderline and corruption more vital, again social issues might be a better place than crime, possibly.  Carlwev  19:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Zayeem (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Corruption is better suited to go in the Society and Issues subsection than Crimes. Gizza (t)(c) 03:42, 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.
Both swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 4 June 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 Embezzlement, Add Negligence

The law section is heavy on crime but light on other areas of law. Embezzlement is ultimately one particular type of fraud which is already listed. Negligence is a major category of tort law which is not very well covered at the moment.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Negligence is a vital concept of tort law. We should list corruption before listing means of corruption like embezzlement or extortion. Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportMelody Lavender (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nominator's reasoning. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Adding negligence and either trespass or intentional torts will make our coverage of tort law sufficient IMO. Other torts such as nuisance are too minor to be considered vital. Gizza (t)(c) 13:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Copyright infringement, Add Intellectual property

As stated earlier, we have 3 articles related to intellectual property (copyright, patent and copyright infringement) but not the main topic. We need an article that discusses all types of IP. Copyright infringement is one type of IP infringement. Patent infringement and Trademark infringement also exist. In fact, Trademark itself is a major type of IP and is clearly more vital than the infringement of copyright. Gizza (t)(c) 12:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:26, 3 June 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.
5-0 Removed Gizza (t)(c) 02:32, 2 June 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 Fundamental rights

Too much overlap with rights and civil and political rights (which tend to be the most fundamental rights). It also overlaps with the eight specific documents listed since they all deal with fundamental human rights. Gizza (t)(c) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Speaking of legal documents, why don't we list the Napoleonic Code? Cobblet (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It doesn't help that the article is in a mess. The topic is quite ambiguous and the only substance within the article is a discussion of some of those landmark documents including the UN declaration and US constitution. Gizza (t)(c) 05:36, 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.
6-0 Added Gizza (t)(c) 02:32, 2 June 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 Jury

I brought this up in the poaching-murder swap proposal. If judiciary and judge are on the list then jury should be on it too. The concept of a jury is vital to many legal systems and modern democracy. Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support and would support removing judge. Cobblet (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  10:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support We should keep Judge, judiciary, and add Jury. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nominator's reasoning. Oppose removing judge. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Since there is overlap between judge and judiciary, one of them can be removed to make space for jury. We are currently 63 articles under the limit in "Society" which for each subsection on average amounts to roughly 4 articles under the limit. Obviously some subsections will need more than 4 articles added and some less than 4 but that is a matter of discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither should be removed. The Judge and Jury are both equally important.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with PointsofNoReturn. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:50, 28 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.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 4 June 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 Arbitration, Add Alternative dispute resolution

Arbitration is one of many types of ADR. The other notable types include mediation, conciliation and negotiation. The process as a whole is vital as it is growing and replacing litigation in many situations but each type is not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I just noticed we have both copyright and copyright infringement. Swap the second one for intellectual property? Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's a good start. The list is also too crime heavy. If we can push down the number of crimes there will be space for concepts such as will and testament, trial, negligence, lawsuit (litigation) and procedural law. Gizza (t)(c) 05:36, 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.
5-0 Added Gizza (t)(c) 02:36, 3 June 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 Plagiarism

Considering we devote hundreds of articles to works of literature and other works of art, not to mention the artists themselves. I think the topic of Plagiarism is important too, and would be of interest to people wanting to know about literature and art, and law. It is not an art itself however, it is a law/crime concept, probably. We have copyright and copyright infringement and also theft which overlap slightly and may put people off. But plagiarism can exist even where copyright does not, and plagiarism existed before the concepts of copyright and patent did, and I believe it is a topic worth having that people would look up. We also have several law articles I consider slightly less important Impartiality, witness etc  Carlwev  12:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Zayeem (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

If this proposal is successful, plagiarism should go in the "Ethics" section. It is an ethical issue, not something that appears in the courts. Talk:Plagiarism doesn't even have a WikiProject Law tag. It won't be in the top 300 of most vital legal articles but has a much stronger case under Ethics and Philosophy. Gizza (t)(c) 10:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We could move it if it gets accepted. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:41, 14 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.

Gizza (t)(c) 02:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Added pbp 16:57, 4 June 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 Napoleonic Code

Per Cobblet's suggestion above. This law is a key legal document of early 19th century France. The code also influenced other developing regions and is thus a vital document.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support One of the most influential legal documents in history. To quote Britannica, "it has been the main influence in the 19th-century civil codes of most countries of continental Europe and Latin America." Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I think most importantly, adding it will provide better coverage to civil law jurisdictions (mainland Europe and its former colonies). The list is inevitably biased towards common law nations (UK + former British colonies) although more so in content within the articles than the choice of articles. Gizza (t)(c) 12:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 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.
Both added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 4 June 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 Trial

This is a key aspect of law in every country in the world. Almost every country has trials, whether or not they are jury trials or bench trials. Trials are a fundamental part of any legal system in the world.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Surprised this was missing. Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I think I mentioned trial in one of my rants in the law section somewhere (it might be archived now). I'm glad PointsofNoReturn picked up on it since I almost forgot about it. Thanks for that PONR. Gizza (t)(c) 11:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Pretty big omission, article could do with some work though, but that's the aim of this list pointing out important articles that should be high quality and getting them there.  Carlwev  09:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nominator and Cobblet. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Lawsuit (litigation) is the other big omission. It is the mainstream complement of alternative dispute resolution, which I have already proposed adding in way of a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 11:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit should definitely be on the list. I still think that alternative dispute resolution is important though. It is used widely in contract law such as a suspension appeal in professional sports. I would support simply adding lawsuit and keeping alternative dispute resolution. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Lawsuit

This is one of the most important legal articles. Lawsuits are the basis for Civil Law. Lawsuits should be added in order to balance the criminal law on the list with Civil Law.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. At least one of lawsuit or legal case should be on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Some discussion of litigation is needed on this list. Cobblet (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 1 June 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.
Superseded by the more supported straight removal Gizza (t)(c) 10:48, 31 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 American Idol, Add Reality television

The genre is more important than one specific example in this case. The genre is popular worldwide whereas AI's popularity is mainly restricted to the US.

Support
  1. Support nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm not too sure about adding reality television, but strongly support removing American Idol.Plantdrew (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I would support a straight remove also.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Survivor should get the credit for making this sort of show an international phenomenon, not American Idol. But the term "reality TV" is a recent coinage for a pretty old concept: This Is Your Life and Truth or Consequences would nowadays fall under the reality TV umbrella, but back in the day they were called a documentary and a game show respectively. I think all of reality TV nowadays could still be classified under either of those categories, so I wouldn't consider it a distinct genre. If there's one media genre we might need and don't have, I think it's interview. Cobblet (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose American idol started an entire genre of talent shows in the US and around the world. I would still suppor adding Reality television separately though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
6-1 Removed Gizza (t)(c) 10:48, 31 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 American Idol

An alternative proposal to the swap above. American Idol is only popular in one country. It wasn't the first "Idol" and therefore wasn't the show that spread the franchise around the world. The credit for that should go to the British Pop Idol. But even Pop Idol was influenced by the previous Popstars, which was first aired in New Zealand. None of the recent singing talent shows (Idol (TV series), Popstars, The X Factor, Got Talent, Star Academy, The Voice (TV series)) are vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. pbp 16:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. support Not an ounce of vitality in this topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Talent shows don't need special representation any more than cooking shows or medical dramas or legal/crime dramas do. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Almost all television shows are popular in only one country. That doesn't make American Idol any less vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  • First off, American Idol was hardly the first talent show-style TV show. The Gong Show predates it by a few decades. We should have few if any TV shows on this list at all, fewer that are just American, and the ones we have should be more groundbreaking pbp 17:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • There are many US TV shows that are/were popular in other countries including Gunsmoke, I Love Lucy, Sesame Street, Star Trek and The Simpsons. There are many others not on the list. American Idol is not one of them though. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
    • American Idol is still a critical talent show. I can guarantee that almost all Americans know the show. I do not know any other talent shows from anywhere else in the world because talent shows are for specific countries. This come from someone who dislikes American idol by the way. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:51, 18 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.
The discussion above is closed. 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) 07:39, 4 June 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 Anxiety

If risk is not going in, I like Plantdrew's suggestion of anxiety, it is absent, and looks like a decent concept to include and cover the same general area as risk, all we have now is fear for that area.  Carlwev  17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support anxiety and phobia. I would support risk in economics as well. Gizza (t)(c) 00:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. The concept of "anxiety" is much more fundamental than anxiety disorder or phobia, and it should be included before either of those two. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This isn't what I had in mind when I nominated risk – I had in mind the role of risk perception in human decision-making. I'm not so sure this is an important psychological concept (as Maunus would say), but I would support adding anxiety disorder under mental disorders in Disease – I'm not sure why we have PTSD but not this or phobia or OCD. Cobblet (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

wow I thought phobia was in, I thought I added it over a year ago, I was wrong, I would fully support phobia, much better than anxiety.  Carlwev  17:46, 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.
Removed pbp 17:11, 4 June 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 Ruminantia

Ruminantia is a redundant taxonomic rank. When you go to the even-toed ungulates section of mammals, you will see that we have even-toed ungulates, rumninantia and bovids. Bovidae is a family consisting of cattle, sheep, goats, antelopes and gazelles. Ruminantia is a suborder/unranked group consisting of bovids plus deers and giraffes. Even-toed ungulates are ruminantia plus camels, llamas and pigs.

Bovids are an important family as a large proportion of species in the family have been domesticated and have a close relationship with humans. Even-toed ungulates represent an important evolutionary divergence from other placental mammals. Ruminantia is just an in-between rank and not vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I'd support adding ruminant. We do list the human gastrointestinal tract, and I'd also support adding some more articles on human anatomy like human skeleton. Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Perhaps whoever added ruminantia was thinking of ruminants. It is definitely an interesting article which discusses the four-part stomach and unique digestive system of these animals but it is still not vital. Human digestive system isn't currently on the list (maybe it should be) and the generic digestion and stomach articles, both of which are on the list, make mention of the ruminants' stomachs. Gizza (t)(c) 13:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would not mind adding ruminants to the list as well as the Human digestive system. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:42, 2 June 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 pbp 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Common wheat and Oryza sativa (Asian rice)

In effect a swap with the removal of spelt and triticale below. Common wheat is the most widely grown variety of wheat in modern times while Oryza sativa is the most widely grown species of rice. These crops are a greater source of calories to humans than nearly all other foods listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Plantdrew (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Zayeem (talk) 11:29, 29 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 pbp 17:11, 4 June 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 General practitioner, Surgeon and Dietitian

The number of types of health care providers we could potentially list is massive: I'm not convinced any of them are really vital apart from physician. I think we'd be better served by including more general occupations like scientist or artist; or other health sciences and medical practices we haven't covered, like public health and occupational therapy; than list professions that overlap with medical fields already on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. Dietitian is clearly not vital. Surgeon seems more important but does not cover much more than what surgery already does and which is on the list. General practitioner may again seem important but is one of many specialties which are at a similar level of importance. Gizza (t)(c) 12:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I'm not 100% sure on GP but I believe we have Physician, that is the same ball park (physician was recently removed from the 1000 list, is it here?) Surgeon is fairly weak, and dietitian is very weak.  Carlwev  17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is taking a meat axe to the list of professions in the medical industry. All of these professions are vital to the medical profession, regardless of whether or not other articles cover the scope of their jobs. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 3 May 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 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:57, 5 June 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 Scientist

A few people wanted this when I proposed the removal of chemist, so here it is. I think some entries on broad career fields are useful: for instance, an article on scientists should cover things like how scientists are trained and how scientific academia works, as well as related topics like research ethics; none of these topics are currently covered by the list. I will propose several removals of specific careers in the health sciences to make room for this.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I cannot believe this was missed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Zayeem (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 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) 07:57, 5 June 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 star chart

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:31, 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 V3n0M93 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I agree it is not vital in astronomy. But I believe it is vital in cartography and navigation. Star charts are one of the most important types of maps and for millennia have helped people move from A to B. I would support a move to the Geography page. Gizza (t)(c) 10:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Organization

I find it weird the way the sections are organized, with astronomical objects as a distinct section. I think it would be better to merge this section with the others (i.e. putting all the stars into the stellar astronomy section, etc.). There's also some other major problems (supernova being listed under variable stars, uh what?) that need fixing. If nobody objects, I'll do a little reorganization. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Cobblet (talk) 19:10, 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) 07:57, 5 June 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 Minor planet

Catch-all term for objects that orbit the Sun and are not planets or comets. We list two examples (asteroids, dwarf planets) but omit others (centaurs, trojans, Kuiper belt objects, trans-Neptunian objects), so I think we should include the inclusive term.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 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 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 07:57, 5 June 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 Chemist

Clearly not vital when we don't even have scientist or any other types of scientist.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, also support adition of scientist StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support removing this if we add scientist. Gizza (t)(c) 10:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support, also would support the edition of scientist. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is a critical profession to the world, regardless of if scientist is on the list. I would also support adding biologist and physicist. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I would support a scientist-chemist swap. Some other occupations we currently have include physician, farmer, teacher, domestic worker, judge, lawyer, astronaut, mathematician, aerospace manufacturer, clown, mime artist, officer (armed forces) and soldier. OTOH, we don't have artist which I would also support adding. Gizza (t)(c) 02:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research – I had considered proposing the swap. (I will note that "aerospace manufacturer" is where "aerospace industry" redirects to – that article's about an industry, not a profession.) How do others feel about this? Cobblet (talk) 03:14, 10 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 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 07:57, 5 June 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 Table of nuclides, Add Nuclide

I was originally going to ask an open question, but I changed to a swap proposal. We removed virtually all lists, as a kind of lists are not vital rule, the similar and probably more important List of elements for example, was one of the last I remember getting removed. Is Table of nuclides a list article? or is it considered similar territory to Periodic table? Should we not have Nuclide itself instead if we want to cover this topic? as far as I can tell nuclide is missing. Nuclide is a lot better but even that might not be very vital, I'll propose a swap anyway as I think it's an improvement none the less, straight removal may also be preferred?  Carlwev  11:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  11:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Rwessel (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support even though Table of nuclides is indeed the nuclear chemistry analogue to periodic table, and should not be classified as a list-type article. Nevertheless, we should prioritize the concept of nuclides in general. Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support adding nuclide. The table may still be vital (we have some space under the Physics quota). There is also Table of nuclides (complete) which contains the full table instead of a small section. I think for the moment it is better to add the relatively more vital article. Gizza (t)(c) 13:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per Gizza. Would support adding the complete table as well. Plantdrew (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support V3n0M93 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose; would support a straight addition. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:05, 6 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.
Both swapped 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 5 June 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 Fish farming , Add Aquaculture

Fish farming is the main type of aquaculture but not the only type. Other important types of aquaculture include Algaculture, shrimp farming and oyster farming. I think the general article which discusses a broader trend is more vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 02:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  04:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Winnowing, Add Hay

The three component processes in the harvesting of grain (reaping, threshing, winnowing) ought to be covered sufficiently under harvest (in fact, reaping just redirects there). Besides, the advent of the combine harvester has rendered them into a single process in mechanized agriculture. Hay is the most notable example of fodder and a lot can be written about its composition, nutritional value, cultivation and harvest.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support This might be one of those times when the specific article "hay" is more important than the general article "fodder". If space can be found, fodder could be added. I wouldn't go as far as adding silage. Gizza (t)(c) 12:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  04:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Slightly off-topic but it's surprising that winnowing is a more developed article than harvest. Gizza (t)(c) 12:32, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_26&oldid=1089829644"