Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 37

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Carlwev
Archive 30 ← Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40
FAILED
1-3 in 30+ days, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:38, 16 November 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 Scott McCloud

An American cartoonist and comics theorist. He is best known for his non-fiction books about comics, Understanding Comics (1993), Reinventing Comics (2000), and Making Comics (2006). He has been awarded several times.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd be open to considering Marshall McLuhan though. Cobblet (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We hardly have any comics artists, and I am not sure we should either, but if we do start adding comics artists would come before adding theorists. Names like Stan Lee, Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, and probably a dozen others are all before McCloud. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 1-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:25, 19 November 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 Harvey Kurtzman

An American cartoonist and editor of comic books and magazines. His large body of work includes writing and editing the parodic comic book Mad from 1952 until 1956, and the sexy and satirical Little Annie Fanny' strips in Playboy from 1962 until 1988. His work is noted for its satire and parody of popular culture, social critique, and an obsessive attention to detail. His working method has been likened to that of an auteur, and those who illustrated his stories were expected to follow his layouts strictly.

There is an award in honour of him.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Of the five comics artists currently on the list two already represent the American golden age of comics - Eisner and Kirby - we dont need Kurtzman too. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Same reason as 1. Logical1004 (talk) 05:35, 17 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:27, 19 November 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 Sōseki Natsume

Undoubtedly the most famous and popular novelist within Japan (second likely going to Ryūnosuke Akutagawa who should also be added), he was highly influential to later writers such as Akutagawa and Haruki Murakami. Certainly more important than some of the 152 writers on the list from the US, Canada, or Europe. Jucchan (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Regarded by many as the greatest modern Japanese writer. Certainly at least as important as the other Japanese writers we have, not to mention - as Jucchan points out - some of the huge number of Western writers we have. Neljack (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • I agree that Murakami should also be added, I would say Akutagawa as well. That would get most of the really important Japanese writers. Jucchan (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just want to point out that Japanese writers are better represented in the modern era than China for one (three Japanese writers to one Chinese writer). Lao She and Mo Yan might have a case. And maybe there are other neglected regions that deserve representation. Orhan Pamuk for Turkey? --Rsm77 (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I've noted the same imbalance. Cobblet (talk) 02:33, 7 November 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.
FAILED
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:03, 16 November 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 G. E. Moore

He was an English philosopher. He was, with Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and (before them) Gottlob Frege, one of the founders of the analytic tradition in philosophy. Along with Russell, he led the turn away from idealism in British philosophy, and became well known for his advocacy of common sense concepts, his contributions to ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics, and "his exceptional personality and moral character."

Support
  1. as nom. He is no less crucial than Bertrand Russell.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Moore was an important philosopher, but not at the level of Russell. Neljack (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Much less important than Russell, who was also an important public intellectual. Mostly notable for being the one to whom Wittgenstein said "Don't worry, I know you will never understand it" when he turned in the tractatus for his defense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:03, 16 November 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 A. J. Ayer

An English logical positivist whose book Language, Truth, and Logic is an essential reading on the tenets of logical empiricism– the book is regarded as a classic of 20th century analytic philosophy, and is widely read in philosophy courses around the world.

Support
  1. as nom. He is a crucial figure in logical positivism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Logical positivism is dead and Ayer's influence largely is too. Neljack (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 9 November 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.

Paramahansa Yogananda

Paramahansa Yogananda's teachings are not properly characterized as either Hinduism or Christianity for that matter. The goal of his teachings is to reveal the oneness of original Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ and original Yoga as taught by Bhagavan Krishna [1] There is not category that represents this in your Vital Articles, so he needs to be placed in the section Other. His teachings are Self-Realization Fellowship. This is why I created a new category called Self-Realization Fellowship. Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • If there is not response to my post in one week, I plan to correct the mistake. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I think a section titled "Self-Realization Fellowship" would look out of place in the Other section since Self-Realization Fellowship itself isn't a vital article. Yoga is currently categorized under "Common concepts" in Philosophy and religion, but there isn't a general "Eastern religions" section in People. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here. Malerisch (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. (The last !vote was added on 16 October.) Malerisch (talk) 07:30, 19 November 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 Giuseppe Peano

He was an Italian mathematician. The author of over 200 books and papers, he was a founder of mathematical logic and set theory, to which he contributed much notation. The standard axiomatization of the natural numbers is named the Peano axioms in his honour. As part of this effort, he made key contributions to the modern rigorous and systematic treatment of the method of mathematical induction. He spent most of his career teaching mathematics at the University of Turin.

Support
  1. as nom. I'm very surprised that this article is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. We should have the Peano axioms, I think they are on the list.
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.

History of the social sciences

Is there any interest in adding this? Maybe it seems redundant on level 4, but I could see this being a useful addition at level 3. Cobblet (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support adding it. Neljack (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It should be added to both level 3 & 4, and history of anthropology should be added to level 4 as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the actual article it is more a history of sociology than of social sciences. It does not deal with the history of economics and psychology. The social science are that much of a hotchpot of competing paradigms and approaches that I seriously doubt that there are reliably sourced accounts of the social sciences as a group (but there is much on the history of sociology, psychology, economics etc). I am afraid any article in Wikipedia will be plagued with non neutral point of view (excluding important social sciences) or original research (trying to synthesize a history of social science ourselves). For that pragmatic reason I would not support inclusion in vital articles. Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

PASSED
Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:36, 19 November 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 Islamic architecture

Huge omission. This article's subarticles Ottoman architecture and Persian architecture strike me as important and worthy of consideration for inclusion. Sumerian architecture is represented by Ziggurat of Ur which we voted onto the list recently; it's of course earlier, but close in terms of space. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Logical1004 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I dont think Ottoman and Persian architecture are subarticles of Islamic architecture any more than Baroque and Romanesque are subarticles of Christian architecture. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 15 October 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Indian architecture

Huge omission. I would also support the addition of the subarticles Indo-Gothic, Indo-Islamic architecture and Hindu temple architecture. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Logical1004 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:44, 19 November 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 Divine presence

Article about the concept of the presence of a god or gods, everywhere, and the ability of god to witness, know, and understand everything including human thoughts. I think this is pretty specific and not particularly studied, or written or read about. I don't see why it's higher importance than other articles on believed properties of gods or supernatural beings like Omnipresence, Omnipotence, or Telepathy. Also there are a number of articles about god or gods actions or properties named "divine something" which seem to be the same area as divine presence and equally non vital, there is Divine judgment, Divine providence, and divine will. I think topics like this about properties of god, are not vital in themselves, hard to study and write about as stand alone topics and should be covered enough by articles about god, goddess, deity, belief etc anyway. Also many religious topics and biographies seem to get a lot of reading and editing attention across many language wikipedias; however, divine presence is a stub, half of which a list and it only appears in one other language. Although this is only suggestive, I would have thought a truly vital religion topic would have received more attention in the 5 years the article has existed for.  Carlwev  16:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Also too similar to theophany. Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Peanuts

Shouldn't Peanuts be here, under a subsection called comics of the Specific Works section? It standardized the use of the four-panel gag, and pretty much defines the modern comic strip. Plus, it made a big impact on pop culture and is the most popular and influential comic of all time, and besides, it says on the Peanuts talk page that it is a vital article in art, but I can't find it here, so perhaps we have to add it.User talk:Gonzales John 10:12, 6 October 2014

Peanuts is already listed in Arts > Literature > Specific works of literature > Fiction > Comics. Are you asking that the article be moved to the Visual arts section? Malerisch (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thank you.I was just looking for it in this page, and I just wasn't able to find it, so I made this suggestion. Also, saw Comics under Visual Arts, so I thought it would be there. About your question, I'm not sure whether it should be on Visual Arts or on literature, but that wasn't what I was asking, because I was just looking for it, so no, and thank you very much for telling me where it is. User:Gonzales John (talk) 10:37 6 October — Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I would vote for removing peanuts entirely.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it should be kept if any comic strip is kept; if any comic strip is iconic, it's Peanuts. So perhaps we should just close this one as a "never mind..." Montanabw(talk) 16:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Unitarianism and Nontrinitarianism

I'm not an expert on the area but these articles seem to be covering the same concept. Both articles refer to a belief in God as one united being in contrast to the three of the Trinity which is itself listed. Should one of these be removed? Unitarianism also shouldn't be in the general religious concepts section when it is specific to Christian doctrine. Gizza (t)(c) 04:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a fair point. I'm not sure which one should be removed though. Neljack (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Theologically they are not the same. And Unitarianism is also an actual church, where non-trintarianism includes many different ones, some that are unitarian and others that arent. Jewhovah's Witnesses for example is non trinitarian, but not unitarian, neither were the gnostics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
FAILED
Shahada not added 2-5, Salat not added 3-5, and Zakat and Sawm not added 1-5 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 07:26, 19 November 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 Shahadah, Salat, Zakat and Sawm

All of them are no less crucial than Hajj.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support for Shahadah which is the most fundamental tenet of the religion. Learning towards supporting the others. Islam is underrepresented compared to Christianity and Judaism. All four of these articles are more vital than Imam in any case. Support Salat as well. Gizza (t)(c) 01:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Salat, a basic description of the prayer ritual. (Potentially, the article is plastered with tags). The term may be known outside Islam and the prayers are a frequent issue in the workplace (praying and washing five times a day). --Melody Lavender 06:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Five Pillars of Islam is listed. Cobblet (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Per Cobblet. Hajj is the only one of the pillars that is widely known outside of the islamic world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Cobblet. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. 'Oppose per Cobble. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Thinking about these, I like the first 2 more, the 3rd is OKish. When I think of the last one, it does seem significant, but we already have fasting and if you read the fasting article you'll see many religions have their own fasting tradition and article. If we add Sawm which we could then a strong argument could be made to include Lent possibly a few more, not that that's a bad thing. Also we are missing a fairly good overview: abstinence.  Carlwev  13:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why would we list the Shahada if we don't list the Nicene Creed. I think it's the number of Christian denominations we list that gives rise to the disproportionate representation of Christianity. I don't know the religion well enough to be certain about this, but topics like Twelver and Wahhabi movement/Salafi movement are the sort of article I would consider adding, particularly when things like Druze are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 17 October 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 19 November 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 Grendel

Although I like Beowulf and Grendel, I think listing Grendel as a stand alone vital article is unnecessary. We already list the Poem the character is from, Beowulf. There are several notable characters from the poem, we don't list others including Beowulf (hero) himself. I think other removed characters are equal or higher importance like Scrooge, Lancelot, Romeo etc. It's listed under Celtic mythology, we don't even have the article Celtic mythology itself which is better. For myth legend, Grendel has been described as a giant and/or a monster, I think those mythological creatures/species articles in themselves would be higher importance plus also a few more like elf, troll, and even dwarf and pixie are more important to myth and legend, as are Medusa and Minotaur too I should think (although Greek mythology is bloated and I'm not suggesting an add at the moment, Also I don't think Grendel fits well in mythology, more literary/legend character, not that it matters if it's removed)  Carlwev  18:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Beowulf is not even Celtic. It's Anglo-Saxon. Druid might be the most well-known ancient Celtic cultural topic though I'm not sure if it is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support redundant with Beowulf.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Instead of Celtic mythology, we list Celtic polytheism. It looks like they should probably be merged. Most other "ABC polytheism" articles redirect to "ABC mythology" or vice versa. Gizza (t)(c) 00:05, 4 November 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.
ALREADY LISTED
already listed as a mental illness in the medical section --Melody Lavender 18:02, 15 November 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 pedophilia

Probably a bigger taboo than cannibalism and incest, which are also on the list. Rather controversial, but it also happens quite a lot. Perhaps not something that should be put in "everyday life", but I don't know.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support addition in the crime section --Melody Lavender 17:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

This is already on the list, as a mental illness in the medical section.--Melody Lavender 18:02, 15 November 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.

Add harness racing in lieu of Standardbred

!Voting down in the #Organisms section, proposing there to delete Standardbred and replace with harness racing. I guess people vote down there? Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(Voting below in the other section, this is an FYI Montanabw(talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC))

FAILED
Not added 4-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:04, 19 November 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 scarcity

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. This is one of the very very basic concepts in economics. Things that aren't scarce don't have a price, like air for examples and aren't suitable as merchandise. Absolutely vital. The list would be incomplete without this. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Main motivator of economic behaviors. pbp 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is a very vital concept in an economics dictionary. Not vital in an encyclopedia. There isn't any literature on scarcity itself, only on the scarcity of water or oil for example. Adding this will be like adding social phenomenon. Gizza (t)(c) 04:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per DaGizza.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per DaGizza. Abstract concepts should be listed only when other articles cannot be expected to cover it at the level of detail one would expect to find in an encyclopedia containing 10,000 articles. There is no compelling reason to include things like scarcity or choice or resource, or supply (economics) or demand individually, when economics and supply and demand are listed: it could even be argued that the former articles should be merged with the latter. Cobblet (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 1-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:06, 19 November 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 monopolistic competition, oligopoly, oligopsony and monopsony

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I can't accept each concept as vital; I'd prefer a more over-arching concept. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'd prefer to discuss each one separately. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Split FWIW, oligopoly is about the only one of these I'll get behind. pbp 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:07, 19 November 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 externality, public good, information asymmetry

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support even though I would prefer to have these listed separately, I will support them all because each and everyone is so perfectly basic and vital. Good research!--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I have thought about this before and don't think the major instances of market failure are vital, except for monopoly and maybe the Coase theorem (but probably not). I was the one who proposed to add market failure some time ago here where I also discussed about information asymmetry. There are areas of economics that are not covered by anything except by the economics article itself. I would prefer to add those first. Also I think 100 articles is a good target to aim for in the Business and Economics section. It can possibly go higher but I will need to be convinced. Gizza (t)(c) 00:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Split I support the first two. The last one I can take or leave. pbp 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:09, 19 November 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 government failure

We have market failure but not government failure on the Level 4 list, which is quite strange.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 16 October 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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:11, 19 November 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 high culture and counterculture

Both are crucial topics, however this list does not contain these articles, which is a big mistake.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 15:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Add a comma

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 13 October 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.

Rosetta Stone? where does it belong?

Rosetta Stone is listed under language, while I understand its importance in deciphering Egyptian Hieroglyphics, it itself is a text, should it not be in works of literature, dictionaries are listed there. Or somewhere else, is it a work of art, as there is only one of it? Could it go with ancient Egypt?

This is one of those things that cannot be solved. Honestly, the Rosetta Stone is more important in language than other dictionaries are. I would keep it where it is right now. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
It could be viewed as one of the first texts in several different languages. It illustrates the problems translators and bilinguals have and solve. I think linguistics is not a bad place to put it. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
FAILED
Not added 1-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:13, 19 November 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 economic, social and cultural rights and three generations of human rights

They are not less crucial than [[civil and political rights], however they all don't belong to the list.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose three generations as it is a minor, non-vital theory about human rights. Gizza (t)(c) 23:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

These should be nominated in politics and the first one might be covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is already listed. I wouldn't mind swapping economic, social and cultural rights with the covenant though. Gizza (t)(c) 23:50, 22 October 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.
FAILED
Women's rights not added 5-3, Children's rights not added 4-3, and LGBT rights by country or territory not added 3-4 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:18, 19 November 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 women's rights, children's rights and LGBT rights

These articles are vital, however they all are not included in the list.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. Vital. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support women's rights, children's rights, oppose LGBT rights. --Melody Lavender 16:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support all PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support women's rights only. I think child labour as a specific issue will be a better choice than children's rights. Most LGBT groups have their own article listed which I believe is sufficient. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Ugh. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

LGBT rights redirects to LGBT rights by country or territory, which is a list. Malerisch (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Women's rights has the strongest case of the three. I personally prefer it to something like feminism. Having said that, there are many minority/discriminated group rights articles. Why not minority rights, workers rights, indigenous rights and disability rights as well? We'll have to draw the line somewhere. Gizza (t)(c) 03:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree we have to draw the line somewhere. Women's rights and children's rights concern almost everybody directly or indirectly. So in this particular proposal I'd draw the line at LGTB rights. Worker rights (redirects to labor rights, so so does employee rights) and Labor law, which has been mentioned before, both sound like vital material to me.--Melody Lavender 16:12, 25 October 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.
FAILED
Not added 2-4 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:19, 19 November 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 presumption of innocence, double jeopardy and extradition

All of them are crucial, however they do not belong to the list.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support all, with presumption of innocence being the most vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital. Would consider Presumption of innocence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Presumption of innocence is redundant to guilt (law) and evidence. Double jeopardy shouldn't be listed before defense (law), criminal procedure or procedural law. Extradition shouldn't be in before public international law or conflict of laws (the latter two articles should take the place of international law IMO). Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per DaGizza. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I can get behind swapping presumption of innocence with guilt (law). Practically speaking, the former is likely to always be better written than the latter. The underlying principles expressed in both articles are the same. Presumption of innocence gets almost ten times as many page views as well. Gizza (t)(c) 00:39, 19 October 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.
FAILED
Not added 3-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:21, 19 November 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 regulation

I can't believe that it does not belong to the list!

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support: pbp 21:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender 16:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Believe it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
  2. Oppose Redundant to legislation. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Legislation isn't a vital article, though. Should it be? Malerisch (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, statutory law is listed in law which is really the same thing. Statute, legislation and statutory law all have a strong case to be merged with one another. Something like Code (law) is distinct and vital enough to be added IMO. Codes distinguish themselves from the usual legislation in common law nations by covering the area of law exhaustively, which is supposed to leave no room for interpretation by judges or lawyers. Gizza (t)(c) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd take issue with the line of argument that "regulation is redundant to legislation". All regulations may be legislation, but not all legislation is regulation. pbp 21:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right regulation and legislation are not the same thing. I still think regulation is redundant because legislation/statutory law is the overarching concept. Regulation, like delegated legislation, is only one part of it. Gizza (t)(c) 23:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Considering this is the politics section and not the law section, the fact that regulations are passed in the form of legislation is irrelevant. From a political perspective, it's a very different issue to set an arbitrary norm for a product or regulate a market that it is to pass a law on taxes or crimes.--Melody Lavender 16:25, 25 October 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.
MIXED
Animal welfare added 7-1 after 15+ days and Animal rights not added 3-4 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:27, 19 November 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 animal welfare and animal rights

Both of them are crucial, however they are not included in the list.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support only animal welfare, oppose animal rights.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support animal welfare and oppose animal rights. Gizza (t)(c) 00:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support animal welfare, oppose animal rights. Jucchan (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  11:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support all PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support animal welfare, but not animal rights in this category. I support animals rights if categorized under "Law" (like women's rights, etc...) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Would also support removing animal shelter. Gizza (t)(c) 00:06, 23 October 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:34, 19 November 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 Sustainability

Important topic in environmental science, urban planning

Support
  1. pbp 02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  14:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There is overlap between this and Sustainable development. Gizza (t)(c) 00:19, 22 October 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.
MIXED
Clupeiformes not removed 3-3 after 30+ days and Clupeidae removed 6-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:37, 19 November 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 Clupeiformes and Clupeidae

We have several representatives of the order clupeiformes, like hering, anchovis, sardine.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Clubpeidae. Gizza (t)(c) 04:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Clupeidae Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Clupeiformes. Gizza (t)(c) 04:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support removing Clupeidae (menhaden, the most notable genera of this family not currently listed, would be a better choice), but oppose removing Clupeiformes, which is one of the most notable fish orders: see the Britannica article to appreciate how much can be written about this order even in a general-interest encyclopedia. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Clupeiformes Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 14 November 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:39, 19 November 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 Pika

Being a cute little mammal doesn't make pika vital for this list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support rabbits and hares are vital, not pikas. And we still have the overarching lagomorpha. Gizza (t)(c) 09:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:02, 14 November 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:40, 19 November 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 Erinaceidae

We've got Hedgehog to represent the family.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:52, 16 November 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 gynaecology

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose mostly redundant with obstetrics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 1-4 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:49, 19 November 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 funding of science

An absolutely crucial article which does not appear in the Level 4 list.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I doubt any other encyclopedias have an article about this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Government spending is not vital and neither are the 20 types of government spending. Research and development is the article closer to being vital although I don't think that is either. The only article worth a shot is fiscal policy. Gizza (t)(c) 00:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Vital for academical careers: Yes, but not for an encyclopedia aimed at the general public. Arnoutf (talk) 08:41, 21 October 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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 02:45, 18 November 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 point particle

A crucial concept in physics, however the list lacks this crucial article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add circular motion

A vital concept mentioned by many junior high school science and physics textbooks, however the list lacks this vital article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add ideal gas, real gas, equation of state and equation of state (cosmology)

All of them are crucial physics articles, however the list contains none of them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ideal gas only Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Add fictitious force

A crucial article about classical mechanics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 1-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:50, 19 November 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 reaction (physics)

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered in Newton's laws of motion. Malerisch (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose agree with Malerisch. Seems to be a content fork of Newton's third law. Gizza (t)(c) 06:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 2-4 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:51, 19 November 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 ASCII, Universal Character Set and Unicode

Support
  1. as nom. I'm surprised that all of them are not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I think articles on standards are very vital and we are missing them in many areas. I was thinking of suggesting at least ASCII myself. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital at all. That we have a consistent character set encoding across many platforms is certainly handy (look at all the difficulties users of EBCDIC system have with data interchange), the actual encoding is really quite arbitrary, and has no real impact on anything. Rwessel (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Your surprise is not a valid criterion. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

@Rwessel: You're right, just like any standard, the encoding itself is actually arbitrary. The purpose of standardization is to eliminate the arbitrary use and make communication possible. Just think if all our computers would be using different systems we could not communicate. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to support one of these, but am not sure which. standards are vital, per Melody Lavender, but adding all three of these seems redundant... Maplestrip (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:54, 19 November 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 Summation

The key operation in series, and as such, is widely used. Jucchan (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 04:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 1-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 19 November 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 foundations of mathematics

This article is crucial, however it is not included in the list.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too much overlap with mathematical logic and philosophy of mathematics. Cobblet (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Is this needed in addition to Principia Mathematica? Gizza (t)(c) 07:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:56, 19 November 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 model theory

A branch of mathematical logic.

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:39, 17 October 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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:57, 19 November 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 proof theory

A branch of mathematical logic.

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 1-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:58, 19 November 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 future of mathematics

I'm not sure whether to put this proposal to the other sub-section or to the basic sub-section, so I put it here.

Support
  1. as nom. Though having no other language editions, this article is still crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No reason given as to why this is crucial. Why do we need a 'future of' article? Future of science, future of life, future of technology, etc. aren't listed either, and they don't even exist on Wikipedia. Malerisch (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Malerisch. I'm surprised that the article meets the WP:Notability guidelines. At first glance, it looks like something that might violate WP:Original research but maybe there are just enough reliable sources on the topic. Anyway, borderline notable is not vital. The only related article that is possibly vital is future studies. Gizza (t)(c) 04:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:51, 18 October 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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 07:00, 19 November 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 meta-analysis

A frequently used research method.

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yes this is vital. Not covered by anything in the statistics section as well unlike some of the recent proposals. Gizza (t)(c) 02:20, 17 October 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:42, 23 November 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 Haruki Murakami

The most famous Japanese author internationally, he has received critical acclaim and is regarded as an important figure in postmodern literature. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support 01:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion There was no consensus to add Murakami a year ago. I think however that the regular participants on VA currently, compared to the people back then, are as a whole less Eurocentric in their outlook. Gizza (t)(c) 08:38, 14 November 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.
PASSED
Added 7-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:48, 21 November 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 Jamsetji Tata

We only have one East Indian businessman on the list. We don't have the scion of a family of businessmen that have run multinational conglomerates for over a century. BTW, if any of you read History Today, there's an interesting article about the Tata family in a recent issue. pbp 14:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Commerce outside Europe is poorly represented on the list. Cobblet (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender 06:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Logical1004 (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Great idea. Either he or Ratan Tata or Tata family should be on the list. Hard to decide. --Melody Lavender 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

He has a stronger case than the other Indian national on the list Mukesh Ambani, definitely. A lot of the businesspeople listed were copied from the richest people in 2012 list or something, which is too simplistic and superficial as a way to determine vitality. If you want to use power and influence beyond the company as an important criterion and not just wealth, then Rupert Murdoch also has a strong case (surely he's just as vital as Ted Turner and a bunch of other guys listed if not more?). Unless no one person in the family stands out, I'm not a fan of adding family articles since they tend to focus on genealogy rather than the information that makes the person or family vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
TBH, half the reason I didn't nom the family article is that it's in poor shape ATM, and I don't really see a lot of hope of improvement. pbp 00:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The article could easily be expanded with material from the subarticles that are already there. A family article would probably focus more on genealogy, but it also has the potential to show how wealth was accumulated over the generations. In any case Jamsetji Tata is a very good add. I would also support Rupert Murdoch. --Melody Lavender 06:49, 6 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:50, 21 November 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 Marshall McLuhan

A Canadian philosopher of communication theory and a public intellectual. His work is viewed as one of the cornerstones of the study of media theory, as well as having practical applications in the advertising and television industries.

McLuhan is known for coining the expressions the medium is the message and the global village, and for predicting the World Wide Web almost thirty years before it was invented. Although he was a fixture in media discourse in the late 1960s, his influence began to wane in the early 1970s. In the years after his death, he continued to be a controversial figure in academic circles. With the arrival of the internet, however, interest in his work and perspective has renewed.

Support
  1. as nom. I'm surprised that the article is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Prescient and influential. Cobblet (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - Clearly should be on this list. Jusdafax 08:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 2-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:51, 21 November 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 Gough Whitlam

Described by The Times (London) in his obituary today as "the most charismatic and clever prime minister Australia has had. He was also the most radical, introducing in three hectic years in office in the early 1970s a series of measures that helped to create modern Australia and continue to shape the country today.... For a time it seemed that Whitlam would be remembered for the manner of his departure from office... History, however, has been kinder, remembering his social reforms, his attempts to tackle institutionalised racism towards the aboriginal community and, perhaps more significantly, the way he forged a more self-confident country." No Australian politicians on the list at present, which surprised me (disclaimer: I am not from Australia). BencherliteTalk 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support BencherliteTalk 18:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - per nom. Well worth adding to the list as vital. Opposes fail to convince me otherwise. Jusdafax 08:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose John Curtin is the obvious choice for an Australian PM, not Whitlam. While the Whitlam government did implement successful social reforms (free university education and a national health care system), it was also rocked by embarrassing political scandals (Gair Affair and Loans Affair, not to mention his dismissal) and failed to combat the rising inflation and unemployment in the Australian economy. The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis was ultimately caused, after all, by dissatisfaction with his administration.
    Curtin, meanwhile, was the PM who saw Australia through World War II and is respected for many of the same reasons that Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt are. He declared war on the Empire of Japan, throwing Australia into its greatest crisis in history and leading to widespread national conscription. His famous "Australia looks to America" speech changed the course of Australian foreign policy. Curtin's social policies were more far-reaching than Whitlam's as well: his overhaul of social security (child endowment, widows' pensions, funeral benefits, wife's allowance, and unemployment and sickness benefits) essentially led to the birth of the Australian welfare state.
    For a more quantitative comparison, Curtin consistently ranks first/second in historical rankings of Prime Ministers of Australia; Whitlam ranks sixth. The Australian considers Curtin the fourth-greatest Australian of all time; Whitlam is unranked.[2] If we need more than one PM, Whitlam wouldn't be the next either—Bob Hawke and Robert Menzies have better cases than him as well. Malerisch (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Frankly I dont think there are any vital Australian primeministers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

While I'm quite prepared to bow to your superior knowledge of the Australian political landscape, I'll just note that the article from The Australian is one journalist's personal list, not a wider survey like New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers or similar efforts by expert panels or public vote. I'll also take your word for the comparative rankings of Australian PMs, although the page to which you link only mentions one survey in 2004. I'm not going to press this nomination any further - it's not one of "my" articles, I claim no specialist knowledge, but I thought it would be worth testing the water while his name was back in the news. BencherliteTalk 23:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Vital leaders are not necessarily great leaders and vice versa (I'll avoid invoking Godwin's Law but to use another cliché Pol Pot is listed as vital). @Bencherlite: this isn’t necessarily a bad proposal. I think Gough Whitlam is right up there with John Curtin as the two most vital leaders in 20th century Australian history. How many should be here is another matter (I’m leaning towards only one at the most). Simply put, Whitlam’s 3 years of leadership is studied and debated in far more depth within schools, universities and the media than Menzies’ 20+ years of leadership. Whitlam’s government had achievements and crises, and overall was far more controversial than Menzies, who was a greater and more stable leader but relatively mundane. The Menzies era is usually looked at only as a reference point in order to understand the changes that occurred to the nation when Whitlam came into power.
John Curtin’s foreign policy shift puts him right up there as well since it is arguably the turning point of modern Australian history. He also developed the welfare state in Australia. The foreign policy of the leader should probably count for more in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia where most readers are not Australian. However, Whitlam’s embrace of China and willingness to foster strong relations with the Chinese well before Nixon and Co. is probably Australia’s second biggest foreign policy turning point in the last 100 years. Gizza (t)(c) 10:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The 19th century might be a better period to pick a second Australian leader if we were to have one, not that I'm saying we should. The leading contender would be Lachlan Macquarie who transformed the prison island hellhole into a liveable colony. The other defining moment in 19th century Australian history would be the Victorian gold rush but there isn't a single figure associated with the period. Gizza (t)(c) 11:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ADDED
5-1 in 40 days, proposal passed --Melody Lavender 18:46, 21 November 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 Byzantine architecture

Many mosques are built using Byzantine architectural style, so this article is crucial.

Support
  1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Had a big influence on Medieval, Renaissance and Ottoman architecture. Neljack (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 12 October 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.
PASSED
Added 6-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:59, 21 November 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 Ancient Egyptian architecture

Huge omission. We do have a pyramid and Thebes (Egypt) and Luxor, but not the overarching article, of which the inclusion makes sense in this case. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jusdafax 08:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support--Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We dont need all these overarching architectural traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 15 October 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.
PASSED
Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:00, 21 November 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 architecture

Huge omission. Forbidden City is on the list, but that's not enough. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support--Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We dont need all these overarching architectural traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 15 October 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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:05, 21 November 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 Stock character

Our literature section has currently 20 basic concepts and the rest is specific works of literature. This is a basic concept about recurring character types in literature. And it is a basic topic in the theory behind literature - very needy article, don't rely on it to judge if it's vital, but I think it is commonly known that the characters of a play or novel are of course a big issue in the theory behind literature. If you read a lot you'll discover that the characters are recurring - that's the idea behind a stock character. While an individual work of literature may be interesting, it's even more interesting that some characters are used often and this might say something basic about human life. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk)
Oppose
Discussion

Quotation, Archetype, Plot device, and Dramatic structure are other theoretical literature topics that I think are vital, for readers and also writers. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We need Narrative, Oral literature and Epic. Before we start adding concepts used to analyze literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Stock character was removed in February (see here). I proposed removing it and adding Character (arts) in it's place. While I do think some concepts like this are more vital than some of the 100s of books/works we have, stock character is one of many character types antagonist, villain, protagonist, hero, main character, supporting character, sidekick, which will we have or not? Are those I listed actually stock characters themselves? Does the character article cover this enough, or not?  Carlwev  15:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Character (arts) was a good addition. But rather than removing stock character we could have removed a fictional character. Most of the ones you're mentioning, villain, hero, sidekick, are stock characters, and I believe some of those are worth listing, hero and villain were mentioned before.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:57, 20 October 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.


FAILED
Not removed 5-5 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:06, 21 November 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 Horror fiction

On a list of 8 genres Horror fiction should not have a chance of representation. It is not one of the main geres of human literary expression.

Support
  1. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Agree that Poe, Hitchcock, vampires, etc. make horror redundant. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Carlwev. I would prefer adding a few more literary genres. Malerisch (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, per Carlwev, major genres are vital. Would horror fiction be vital in a list of 12 genres? If so, please do suggest some more genres! Maplestrip (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Carlwev. Jusdafax 08:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I would prefer more literature/fiction genres not less. Music has a large number of genres, we are removing songs and adding more genres like Samba. I think literature should go the same way, I would prefer if we added more literary genres, the reason why horror may look out of place is because there is so few. You could feasibly argue that the overview article on horror should appear before things like Dracula, vampire, Edgar Allen Poe, Stephen King, Psycho, vertigo etc. Although we probably have room for them all, If we were to remove anything I would prefer to keep genres and add a few more, I think they are more vital to an encyclopedia to include genres before several notable examples of genres that we are leaving out. I think Horror is one of the basic genres of fiction, be it book, film or something else. More genres could be comedy, western, film noir etc.

Also...In a way I would like fiction and it's sub topics sci fi horror fantasy etc to be a topic directly under arts not literature, as they are all genres of film, comic, TV, radio, stage, video games as well as literature.  Carlwev  17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary I think the genre articles are redundant with Poe, Dracula vampire etc. These are the vital concepts. Moving genres that cross media might be an idea, but on the other hand they always originate in literature whether written or oral.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:08, 21 November 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 Highlife

The list currently has only two non-Western musical genres Gamelan and Bossa-Nova. This is the main musical genre of West Africa which has influenced contemporary Jazz. If we are to include only one African music genre I think this should be it. Much wider sphere of influence than Gamelan music which is on the list. The article is in a sorry state but that is unfortunately the case for most articles about Africa related topics.

Support
  1. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 2-4 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:08, 21 November 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 Bugle

Significant musical instrument, particularly in military history

Support
  1. pbp 21:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. Military history articles are important for Wikipedia and I'd rather have this than military logistics or more types of rifles. This instrument is a Natural horn, a brass instrument without valves, very interesting, and from all natural horns the best choice to represent the group. Ancient. Everybody knows the sound. Rated high importance by WikiProject Musical Instruments. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose more of a signal instrument than a musical instrument. Not of significance in any musical genres of vital importance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not any more vital than the post horn, fife (instrument) or their non-Western analogues. Cobblet (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per Maunus and Cobblet. I'm opposed to more types of guns as well but at least military logistics and rifles are actual military topics. From a solely military perspective, bugle is not vital. From a musical perspective, it ain't vital. Even looking as it from a combined perspective (this is an advantage of not delegating discussion to specialist Wikiprojects) it still ain't vital. It's very niche when you look at its area of use, time of use (300 years) and limited geographic range. I would put topics like marching or marching band ahead of this. Gizza (t)(c) 13:44, 24 October 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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:09, 21 November 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 Leather crafting

Seems to be one of the few long-lasting media we're missing.

Support
  1. pbp 21:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Maybe we're missing it for a reason. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not every art medium is vital. I would say that ivory carving is more vital. There's also ice sculpture, snow sculpture and sand art, which although popular and widespread, are probably not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I think it would be beneficial to have most of the mediums in which art is done. We've got canvas well-represented. We've got pottery for clay and sculpture and architecture for stone. Two that seem to be missing are leather and wood. Both have been art forms for centuries; both have a variety of objects that can be constructed from them. pbp 18:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Art is made in all kinds of materials. I dont think leatherwork has ever been among the main medium of artistic expression. Wood has and continues to be so in many cultures.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 21 October 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.


FAILED
Not added 3-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:10, 21 November 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 Cave painting

Same rational as prehistoric art above.  Carlwev  15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender 08:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. SUpportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose due to overlap with rock art. Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblett. Maplestrip (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose now that prehistoric art has been added in addition to rock art, there is just far too much overlap. The period of art after prehistory and before medieval times is actually not as well represented on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 13:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 4-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:00, 22 November 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 meaning of life

A crucial article in metaphysics which is not included in the list.

Support
  1. as nom. I'm surprised that it is not included!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support This is one of the biggest philosophical questions in existence. It is the fundamental question that humans ask when they consider their place in the universe. It touches numerous philosophical subjects such as existence and symbolic meaning. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support It's an interesting topic to our readership (ranked 7000 or so in page view), it's entirely possible to write an encyclopedic article on the subject (not OR even in its current status (rated B and C)), high importance to many projects, and it is a central question in Philosophy. --Melody Lavender 07:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - The topic is vital enough for me, and the article is reasonably comprehensive. Strongly disagree with opposes. Jusdafax 08:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose informal conceptions of philosophy are not vital. Informal equivalents of most topics are not vital. Already covered by existence, metaphysics, etc. Gizza (t)(c) 13:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It's a bit like arguing that progress (history) is a vital history article or that scarcity is a vital economics article. Yes, these are important concepts; but they are so intimately related to the disciplines that study them that any well-written article on the discipline itself should necessarily contain a good discussion of the concept, and a separate article on the concept is not necessary. Cobblet (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

@Maunus: Why is this not vital? Explain please because I do not know why you opposed it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, by default I oppose all proposals given without a rationale. Secondly this is not the kind of topic one would expect to find in an encyclopedia, and it is not in fact a central question in philosophy, only in its most sophomoric and popular variant. Yes it touches on questions of import to philosophy such as existence, ontology, reality and meaning, but it is these fields that are important to philosophy not their popularized formulations. Prioritizing this kind of "one liner" philosophy over actual philosophical themes and problems is equal to prioritizing Deepak Chopra over Wittgenstein or Kierkegaard because more people in the world know the former. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 18 October 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 sup, 47 days,  Carlwev  19:11, 25 November 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 Bullfighting

Even though it's questionable it was huge in Spain Portugal and Mexico, even more so historically, it has a long history and many different types, and the article covers different types and history going back to ancient times of several cultures, and up to the more fairly modern kind. I think articles like this would more likely appear in a print encyclopedia than huge numbers of sportsman/woman from other sports we include. I cannot imagine a general print encyclopedia deliberately leaving this out but having numbers like 3 figure skaters, 6 gymnasts, 14 tennis players etc. We have articles like Rodeo popular in the US, which is probably similar importance or maybe slightly lower, and is much younger appearing in the 1800's. Bullfighting is described as a sport and an art, it could go in either, but the article seems to treat it as a sport much more, and puts it in sport categories. It would be good to have something not popular in the modern US but other nations and also other periods of history. I wouldn't be opposed to other articles of a similar kind like say Cockfight or even fox hunting. Although questionable they have much more history and impact on society than a modern gymnast, and probably have much more books and general articles written about them I should think.  Carlwev  13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Wouldn't go far as to support fox hunting. Bullfighting is more vital than Rodeo. Gizza (t)(c) 01:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support as a well-known Spanish pastime and, to a lesser extent, for its long-lived animal rights controversy. The only other blood sports I think could merit inclusion are fox hunting, competitive fishing, and cockfighting, but this definitely counts. Tezero (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-2 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:14, 21 November 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 Tetris

One of the oldest and most-prevalent computer games pbp 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender 19:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support (though "one of the oldest" is very false) Maplestrip (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support I think our list of video games should be very very short, but I think Tetris should be in  Carlwev  21:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Nothing vital about this. No broader cultural impact. Recentism. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose yes if any video games are included, it does occupy a special place, but we have so many other things more important, seems it is worth a mentionina video games overview article and an overview is really about all that is needed. Montanabw(talk) 03:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Montanabw, there are already some videogames on the list: Mario and Pong. It's currently being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Add_Tim_Schafer. --Melody Lavender 06:23, 6 November 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.
PASSED
Added 6-3 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:50, 23 November 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 Pokémon

An immensely popular multimedia franchise covering long-running game series, manga, anime and trading card game, as well as tournaments.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support the second most popular video game franchise ever with over 260 million copies sold, not to mention all of the popularity of the anime or the TCG. I don't see how it could be less vital than some individual works of art such as The Blue Boy or The Treachery of Images. Jucchan (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Let's add more media franchises, such as Space Battleship Yamato, Gundam and EVA!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support The statistics listed below make Pokemon vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support A good example of Japan's tremendous influence on global pop culture. Cobblet (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We removed this for a reason. The reason being that this is not vital for an encyclopedia.05:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This was removed and I strongly oppose returning it. "Vital?" Not in my view. Jusdafax 08:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose I have a few concerns about adding Pokémon to the list but will rescind my !vote if they are addressed. Pokémon is similar to another pop culture phenomenon, Harry Potter, in more ways than one: both are extremely popular media franchises originating in the late 1990s, both have sold hundreds of millions of copies—Pokémon with >200 million and Harry Potter with >400 million, and both were also once on the list but later removed. If Harry Potter isn't listed, I question why Pokémon should be. (There are other book series that have sold ~200 million copies as well, none of which are listed.) Furthermore, if Pokémon's sales numbers are a reason for being vital, why not re-add A Tale of Two Cities, which has also sold >200 million copies and doesn't qualify as recentism? I do agree, however, that the works of art Jucchan identified are likely less vital than Pokémon. Malerisch (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
Before this ends up as undecided, allow me to add the following:
On the other hand, the series isn't among the "best animated series" or "best RPGs" no matter how you look at it. I have not been able to find a good source for reception of the trading card game either. It is a long-running franchise, though. Pokémon appears here multiple times, and it has had games on each Nintendo hand-held system since the Gameboy. It's the best sold game on every Nintendo hand-held, except for the original Gameboy. And there is what Jucchan said above: second best-selling video game franchise of all time. Almost forgot to add that. Maplestrip (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I opposed removing Pokémon earlier because I thought that the two most popular video games franchises (Mario and Pokémon) along with the first video game to enter the mainstream (Pong) provides a reasonable coverage of video games. Now that Tetris is set to be added and Pac-Man may be in the future, I'm sitting on the fence. Maplestrip, Jucchan, Cobblet and Malerisch all make good points. Also bear in mind that there are 3 DC and 2 Marvel superheroes. I would support adding Pokémon in place of The Hulk or maybe even Spiderman or Wonder Woman (Superman and Batman seem to be on a higher level). I agree that if pop culture is to be represented, non-Western examples should be included as well and Pokémon is a great example. Gizza (t)(c) 01:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering about possibly removing Wonder Woman as well, evens out the superheroes too. There's a limit to how much impact superheroes have had in total.
Pop culture is troublesome, as they are vital topics for people to know of today, but have recentism going against them. Are individual works of art made a thousand years ago more important to an encyclopedia than what has been the biggest topic of discussion in the past ten years? I don't even know most of the movies listed in this list, eventhough I see myself as a fan of movies. This really comes down to the question of what is vital. I'd suggest Harry Potter to be re-added, and will probably do so later. Maplestrip (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Prefer Harry Potter and Pokemon to Wonder Woman and Hulk, I'd prefer to keep Spider-Man.  Carlwev  20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not a fan of Wonder Woman. A better modern female character would be Barbie. Better characters of antiquity include Little Red Riding Hood and Sleeping Beauty. Gizza (t)(c) 23:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


Try them maybe if you think? I actually added barbie myself before voting started, but it was voted out seen as redundant to doll, I mentioned Sleeping Beauty (or was it Beauty and the Beast?) before I think, but it's never been opened, I got Cinderella voted in also. Little Red Riding Hood was opened and failed previously too.  Carlwev  13:06, 23 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:20, 21 November 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 Sales

Basic economic topic. Major economic sector in many countries pbp 02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support article with huge potential --Melody Lavender 06:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per Gizza' comments. Cobblet (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose redundant with retail and marketing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Ignorant question: what's the distinction between sales and retail, which is also listed? Cobblet (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sales encompasses more than retail. It includes selling at earlier stages of the supply chain such as wholesale and selling to different users such as Business-to-business instead of consumers. The sales article would also discuss the art and methods of selling which does overlap slightly with marketing and advertising. Btw, retail is too high up at Level-3. Advertising probably is too. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't Sales then replace Retail in Level-3, or is there a reason for retail to be more vital?
Yeah it should. I believe Sales to be the parent of retail and marketing. I will support a swap of sales and retail. Retail is slightly more familiar to laypeople, which I guess is why it was added instead. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 21 November 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.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:21, 21 November 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 Malayali people add Adivasi

I dont know why we would include Malayali and not any of the other large ethnolinguistic groups of india - it seems arbitary. I think including the Adivasi, the Indian tribal peoples in the ethnology section makes more sense as the point here seems to be to give representation to ethnic groups that are particularly notable in spite of not being represented by the nation state or history articles.

Support
  1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support definitely an improvement. Gizza (t)(c) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Good swap. Cobblet (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

One does seem more vital than the other, and may be not represented by anything other than, wide articles India, History of India, and err Race? Also if numbers matter, they're also in favour as Adivasi number over 100 million, which is 3 times Malayali with about 35 million.  Carlwev  19:15, 30 October 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.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 21 November 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 guilt (law), add presumption of innocence

Both articles cover similar territory. While guilt is just legal terminology, presumption of innocence is the article that can be discussed at length and develop into a Featured Article. Note that presumption of innocence also receives almost ten times as many page views, and neither article is affected by recentism, geographic bias, pop culture bias, etc.

Support
  1. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender 19:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

At first I thought they could both be in, but after reviewing the articles I tend to agree Guilt is lower down, we have the general article on guilt also, and guilt is lower and should be partly covered by crime, court and justice etc  Carlwev  18:46, 6 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:26, 21 November 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 Totalitarianism

A totalitarian regime tries to control every aspect of the citizen's life. Important theory considering the current increase in mass surveillance possiblities and the current revival of totalitarian ideologies in Europe. It is different from Authoritarianism, which is on the list. The article on Totalitarianism elaborates on this.--Melody Lavender 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:26, 19 November 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:27, 21 November 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 Animal shelter

This just seems pretty weak in general, animal welfare seems set to be added any day now which is a better wider topic that covers this. There are several human welfare services and institutions that are missing and seem more vital like clinic, hospice, hostel, homeless shelter, emergency medicine, and/or emergency medical services. Thinking about it, I particularly like hospice and emergency medicine as potential adds, thoughts on that also?

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support when animal wellfare gets added Maplestrip (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support The broader topic is more vital. Cobblet (talk) 06:45, 6 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:28, 21 November 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 Child labour

Huge impact on societies throughout the world throughout history, perhaps not equal but comparable to slavery, which is lev3 by the way. Still an issue today also. The topic does appear frequently in specialist and general encyclopedias and text books that cover such areas. (At least the books I had for Sociology in college), I think this is more important than many articles we have and the issue just covers so many cultures, it is/was very widespread in at least some capacity. not sure on placement, probably social issues best place, but feasibly economics, or industry or employment.  Carlwev  18:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support prefer it to children's rights. Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support and would suggest to add it in the business and economics section. --Melody Lavender 14:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per Gizza~ Maplestrip (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not added 4-0 after 60+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:43, 21 November 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 Modernization theory

Modernization is a frequently heard concept. Many books mention it. And modernization theory is frequently discussed by sociologists. Yet this list still does not have modernization theory.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC) fix syntax
  2. Support Very important. Neljack (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:22, 27 October 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.
PASSED
Added 6-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:30, 24 November 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 Fingerprint

Of interest both to both anatomy and law enforcement

Support
  1. pbp 23:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support because of its importance to biometrics and the Biometric passport. --Melody Lavender 14:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support although I agree we really need to add things like hand and finger as well. Cobblet (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  13:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I am undecided, although the article looks good, and it is the kind of article I tend to like. On the law side it's borderline, we added forensic science, and is it any more important than DNA profiling or even something like witness. On the biology side it's OK but I'd feel odd adding it before hand mainly, and to a lesser extent even thumb and finger. I am particularly thinking about the Hand article.  Carlwev  13:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that fingerprint(ing) belongs on the list ahead of DNA profiling on account that it's been a forensic technique for much longer. pbp 15:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
DNA profiling and witness are both included. I could support hand as it's a distinguishing part of human anatomy. It is arguably up there with our brain and eyes in terms of what separates us from other animals. However, thumb and finger will become redundant to hand. Gizza (t)(c) 13:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two proposals to add fingerprint on this page. Should one be deleted? Malerisch (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Seems as though my original anatomy proposal was copied and pasted into sociology pbp 00:55, 10 November 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 23:30, 21 November 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 Salmo

We've got Salmon to represent the species.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  14:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Currently the vital list has salmon, trout, Salmo and Oncorhynchus. Salmon and trout are common names for species of Salmo and Onchorhynchus (trout also includes members of a third genus, Salvelinus). Including articles on both the common named folk taxon and the scientific named scientific taxon is redundant. Salmon seems to be the best developed of the 4 articles, so I'm inclined to keep the folk taxa and remove the scientific taxa. There are a substantial number of interwiki links for all 4 articles, but I haven't looked at the links in detail. English common names might not be the best choice when it comes to the interwiki links. E.g. does Vietnamese really have a folk taxon concept that aligns with English "trout" when none of the species naturally occur in Vietnam? Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 14 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:32, 24 November 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 Staphylococcus aureus

Notable bacterium. Known for causing "staph-infections". They are everywhere, mostly harmless, and they are the bacteria that can cause orange stains on things that aren't cleaned regularly. MRSA, an antibiotic resistent mutation of these bacteria, are called "hospital germs" and can be dangerous.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:36, 23 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:52, 21 November 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 Sterilization (medicine)

Common, used all over the world in the old days, and up to modern days, article includes with and without consent. We have birth control, condom and the pill, this also seems vital to me too. I was also wandering about Castration mainly because the article is longer appears in more languages and has more references. However Sterilization covers many techniques and also male and female where as castration primarily covers one kind of sterilization of males, although it also mentions animals.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support castration is redundant to eunuch who are just guys that have been castrated. Gizza (t)(c) 00:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 02:43, 20 November 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 andrology

Support
  1. as nom. I'm very surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not even a major field of medicine. This is not vital by a long shot.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose There are vital topics within andrology but the field of study itself is not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 02:43, 20 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 21 November 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 Technical drawing

This could go in any number of sections. It was mentioned above as something that we're missing, and appeared as one of ~140 topics important to young men (see User:Purplebackpack89/VAEMeritBadges), so I'm proposing it.

Support
  1. pbp 01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, yeah need to think and discus where this goes, seems more important than individul programming languages, and paintings.  Carlwev  14:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I think it should go under engineering. Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. It should go under the section "engineering".--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I agree with Cobblet. This fits well in engineering or architecture. Gizza (t)(c) 02:45, 20 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:59, 23 November 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 Consumer electronics

Huge topic, not recent, it started with the industrial revolution. Pervasive influence on all aspects of life. --Melody Lavender 08:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support --Melody Lavender 08:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, see comment. Maplestrip (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It's a rather broad topic; adding "consumer" before something might not make it as important as the topic itself. On the other hand, I can't think of any comparable topic. There isn't such a thing as "consumer furniture" compared to regular furniture. Electronics mainly covers how electronics work, while consumer electronics covers the impact of these electronics. It's only rated mid-importance by its own projects, but I have decided support it... Maplestrip (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 20:58, 21 November 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 Invention

We have a bunch of specific inventions on here, but not the concept of inventions or inventing. pbp 23:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 23:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The reason why I'm still hesitating to support this is because Innovation and Research and development, which has been mentioned before, might be of equal or higher vitality.--Melody Lavender 08:50, 7 November 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:00, 23 November 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 Worm drive

I usually like keeping or adding tech articles more than others here, but looking at worm drive article listed with gear and axle, I found the gear template box which I've added below under discussion. Looking at this template box, it appears worm drive is one of many types of gear article, and although it doesn't look like the least notable it doesn't stand out as the most vital either. Articles like Transmission (mechanics), Differential (mechanical device), Belt (mechanical) are missing but seem more important than worm drive; in fact half the articles in the box look at least of equal importance to me. Also what are peoples opinions on adding any of the articles I linked?  Carlwev  18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support: When my first reaction is "WTF is a worm drive?" and upon review it appears too specialized to be vital, articles like gear and axle would be, so I'd support those. Open do discussion about other car parts - is there any sort of overview article about engines and such that would encompass belts, transmission, etc...? Montanabw(talk) 18:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Transmission definitely seems more vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose and the other ones should also be added. --Melody Lavender 19:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

See gear template box for comparative articles.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 7-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:01, 23 November 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 Spring (device)

Absolutely vital device in engineering used in pretty much all modern machinery. Jucchan (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 23:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender 19:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Maplestrip (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  16:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  7. Definitely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:17, 17 November 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.
PASSED
Added 5-2 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:10, 23 November 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 Quadrilateral

A more general term that encompasses squares, rectangles, parallelograms, trapezoids, and others. We have square, but not quadrilateral. This is as if we had Right triangle but not Triangle. Jucchan (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support--Melody Lavender 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Rwessel. Jusdafax 07:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_37&oldid=1089829587"