Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 44

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cobblet in topic Tweaking the science quotas
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 → Archive 50
Added 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 M. C. Escher

Maurits Cornelis Escher was a Dutch graphic artist. He is known for his often mathematically inspired woodcuts, lithographs, and mezzotints. These feature impossible constructions, explorations of infinity, scenery, architecture, and tessellations.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I always thought he was included, but I see he is missing after just checking. We previously had a work of Escher's on the list, Relativity (M. C. Escher). I removed this myself a long time ago, as I believed the man himself was enough and was on board, but it appears I was mistaken. I shall support this one. Not that it's a good reason, but we do include less notable/vital people than this, in artists and elsewhere.  Carlwev  19:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

tessellation itself has also crossed my mind before as well.  Carlwev  16:57, 27 July 2015 (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, 6-0

The following discussion is closed. 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 Peter Zumthor

Architect which has won his major awards within the last 6 years and compared to others on this list, hardly that influential in his field. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support- As nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  09:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sam Cooke, Add Curtis Mayfield

Sad to see my previous vote was doing well before someone unfortunately decided to do some apparent sock-puppetry. Again, making another vote in hopes of being legitimately passed this time, as Mayfield is a highly influential figure of soul music that needs to be added, in my opinion, to a list that would otherwise be underrepresented without him. Same as my previous vote, swap of Sam Cooke. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is Sam Cooke less vital than Curtis Mayfield? Cobblet (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Aisha

A polarizing figure in several ways, she was Muhammad's favourite wife, and is esteemed by Sunnis as one of the most knowledgeable and authoritative sources of information on his life and teachings (hadith). She was also his youngest wife and was the daughter of Abu Bakr, who became the first caliph upon Muhammad's death. Her opposition to Ali led to their confrontation at the Battle of the Camel, an action that precipitated the first civil war among Muslims, and has forever sullied her reputation among Shi'ites, who view Ali to be Muhammad's first rightful successor. To quote UCSB professor Stephen Humphreys, "more than any other woman, A'isha symbolizes Islam's quandaries about female sexuality, permissible roles for women in public life, and the formation and transmission of the Prophetic tradition."

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose too specific. If one wife is to be included, why not all of Muhammad's wives (I mean the Muhammad's wives article, not each individual wife's article).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

@Godsy: That's like saying Peter, John and Judas are too specific and should all be replaced by Apostle (Christian). Cobblet (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll change my oppose to weak for the time being. While I'm less familiar with this religion, I'm not sure those are quite accurate comparisons. I'll stay tuned in, because I'm interested in others opinions about this possible addition.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no way a figure as central to Islamic culture like Aisha isn't vital if minor Christian figures like Columba and Mary Baker Eddy are deemed vital. Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Explain why Columba and Mary Baker Eddy are "minor figures". pbp 18:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"Minor" in the sense that Columba's contributions to the early growth of Christianity are not more notable than those of Thomas the Apostle, Frumentius, Saint Patrick, Saint Boniface, or Ansgar, none of whom we deem fit to list. And in the sense that the Christian Science movement is well on the decline. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What does being on the decline a the present time, or at a moment in the near past, have to do with anything? The "on the decline now" argument could be used to remove hundreds of entries from this list. pbp 19:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
For a person to be deemed vital their contributions ought to have left a lasting impact on the world. I think this is more debatable in the case of Mary Baker Eddy than it is for many of the other religious figures listed. There are a lot of advocates for spiritual/faith-based healing out there; what makes her more vital than the others? Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
per WP:TALK and WP:NPA - discussions should be kept civil—Godsy(TALKCONT)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm calling your bluff here. If you think Mary Baker Eddy doesn't belong on this list; nominate her for removal in a separate thread. That would be the place to discuss her merits, not a thread about another person. pbp 23:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you're the one who started the interrogation, and now you're calling me out for explaining my point of view? Screw you, man. It's true that I've strongly considered nominating Columba (but not Mary Baker Eddy, as a matter of fact) for removal in the past, but I've never decided whether to propose removing him straight-up or a swap for a more vital person, and your melodramatic and pathetic whining isn't going to change that. Cobblet (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I just don't think this is the place to discuss people other than Aisha, unless they are proposed for being swapped for her. But if you want reasons why Mary Baker Eddy should remain on this list, the fact that she is one of a handful of women to have founded a Christian sect is a good reason. Or the fact that she made Atlantic's 100 most influential Americans is another; the only female religious leader to be on the list. You want her set apart from other spiritualists/faith healers; many of them didn't found religious sects; many of the sect founders founded sects that are now defunct, or are smaller than the Christian Science Movement. In full disclosure, I was the one who got her added in the first place; the reason I wanted her added is because there was a serious dearth of Christian female religious leaders on the list; when she was added, she was the only female Christian religious leader who wasn't Catholic. I also think you and I view religious leaders differently; I believe that it should be larger than you do. Columba I can take or leave; I think the main reason he made it on was because we decided that each of the Core 200 bios should be on here. pbp 01:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's very difficult to have a meaningful discussion about who constitutes a vital religious figure (which a discussion of whether Aisha is vital must involve) if you don't allow discussing other examples of religious leaders from the list. At least my assessment of the importance of Columba and Mary Baker Eddy is pretty much in line with yours. Regarding the number of religious figures (which is after all the name of the section, not "religious leaders"), I will note that there are several Christian theologians not listed here, but under the Philosophers section. I'm glad you've considered the number of Christian female religious leaders on the list, but I have to wonder if you (or anyone else reading this) have ever considered how many women of other religions or cultures appear on the list. User:DaGizza's mentioned an interest in adding Meera more than once; do you want to take him up on it? Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Saint Patrick does seem more vital than George Fox. Irish Catholicism has left a stronger mark than the Quakers throughout the whole world, including all major English-speaking countries. So do some of the other Christian figures suggested. Meera is the only female Hindu figure that would make it on the list on an objective basis. She is more vital than many of the modern gurus listed. After Meera you will have to become a little bit generous and add female Hindus partially because they are female rather than just on their deeds (this is not including more ancient female mythological figures whose historicity is uncertain, then again we include similar people for other religions in this section). She could fit here or in writers. There are pros and cons in both places. Gizza (t)(c) 04:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Add C. V. Raman

Arguably the greatest physicist to have emerged from India. A Nobel laureate, Bharat Ratna recipient, discoverer of Raman effect, etc.,

Support
  1. Support as nom —Vensatry (ping) 11:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I've taken the liberty of recasting this proposal as a swap. There are several modern scientists from India whose contributions are of similar importance, but Raman's impact on the development of science in India (founded the Indian Academy of Sciences and the Indian Journal of Physics) makes him more vital than the others IMO. His biggest scientific achievement was the discovery of the Raman effect, which is the basic principle underpinning Raman spectroscopy, which is widely used in materials and surface chemistry nowadays. Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Raman was already proposed recently. While he's unquestionably one of the most notable modern scientists from India (although we did also add Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar recently) I'm not convinced he's vital when compared to other modern physicists, who are probably the best-represented group of scientists on the list. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Chandrasekhar seem more notable than Raman? —Vensatry (ping) 14:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably not – I'm not even sure Chandrasekhar is more vital than Satyendra Nath Bose or Jagadish Chandra Bose. Frankly, I think that only scientists who have made discoveries of fundamental, even revolutionary significance should be considered vital, and in that respect I think all these figures fall short, even Raman. The kind of scientists I'd consider vital but are not currently listed are people like Hermann von Helmholtz, Louis de Broglie, Rudolf Clausius, Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff, Theodor Schwann, Robert Koch and William Herschel: these are the sort of people who would likely be mentioned in any discussion of "greatest physicists/chemists/biologists/astronomers of all time". On the other hand, if one looks at the bigger picture, Raman's contribution to the development of science in India at least makes him more noteworthy than the other Indian scientists I mentioned, and cannot be ignored. Cobblet (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I guess Chandrasekhar might have been added mainly because of the Nobel Prize. In any case, I don't think any physicist from India are more notable than Raman. We should probably remove Chandrasekhar and Raman instead, what say? —Vensatry (ping) 07:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe it would be an improvement. What do others think? Cobblet (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I can support that swap. Gizza (t)(c) 03:32, 28 June 2015 (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 2-5 Cobblet (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Rahul Dravid, remove Donald Bradman if need be

Rahul Dravid is an iconic personality as far as cricket is concerned. I don't really feel the need to enumerate his achievements here to justify his case which are just too many. Anybody who follows cricket knows that if there is one cricketer whose article should be of high-quality on wikipedia, it is Rahul Dravid, who is one of the greatest batsman India has ever produced and a thorough gentleman. I can see that the target for 'People' category in the expanded project has been kept to 2000. It is 1979 at present, so I don't think there is a need to replace anyone in order to add Dravid. Still if need be, I'd suggest to remove Donald Bradman from the list. Donald Bradman, no doubt, should have a high quality article on wikipedia. But considering the fact that his article is already FA-class and the fact that he is no more, there is little room for improvement in his article. I suppose his article would remain more or less the same with little or no edits till the end of time. His page doesn't need to be tracked on Vital Article project. Dravid's page does. He deserves a better page than what he is having right now. I'm not saying that he should replace Bradman as there is still scope left for addition of 'people' without removing anyone. But if need be, Dravid should replace Bradman, after all who better to replace Bradman than the person who is the only non-Australian cricketer to speak on Bradman Oration.Skagrawal4k (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support- As nominator(I'd prefer both be kept, but if need be replace Bradman with Dravid).Skagrawal4k (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. A crucial figure in the history of cricket.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Article quality is irrelevant to vitality. Many of the articles on the list have a star next to them. We need to track all vital articles form stubs to Features Articles. If/when most of these articles become FA, we would then create another level of vital articles (not likely to happen in a long time though). Besides, Rahul Dravid is nowhere close to the next vital cricket player to add to the list. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Sports figures are overrepresented. We should only have 1-2 cricketers. pbp 18:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Too many Cricketers, we have enough, @pbp it's the 2nd biggest team sport (India, The Commonwealth, Bangladesh, The Caribbean, SA and Pakistan) 7 is a fair number (although i'd accept 5 too.) GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Bradman is far more vital than Dravid. I wouldn't suppport him even if we were to add another cricketer - I'd regard most of the players mentioned by DaGizza, as well as some others, as more vital. Neljack (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

There are a sufficient number of batsmen and sufficient number of modern (1990s-) cricketers listed. Modern players are if anything overrepresented. Even among modern batsmen, Brian Lara and Ricky Ponting are ahead of Dravid, and possibly Jacques Kallis and Kumar Sangakkara too. As modern spin bowling is well-covered too, the only modern player worth considering is a pace bowler, so Glenn McGrath, Wasim Akram, Curtly Ambrose and Dale Steyn will all be far ahead of someone like Dravid and the other batsmen.

Then there is the fact that many eras and facets of the game are not represented on the list. From pre-WWI (Victor Trumper), wicketkeepers Alan Knott and Adam Gilchrist, bowling dominant all-rounders (Imran Khan and Richard Hadlee, pace bowlers in general (Dennis Lillee, Malcolm Marshall, Sydney Barnes) to cricketers who actually revolutionised the game (Ranjitsinhji for inventing the leg glance, George Headley and Frank Worrell for bridging racial divisions in the cricketing world, Sanath Jayasuriya for changing limited overs batting strategy forever, etc.) FWIW, Dravid doesn't appear in ESPN's top 25 "Legends of Cricket" [1] nor is he among the 80 cricketers inducted in the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame (though he may in the future)

Among Indian cricketers, taking into account that Sachin Tendulkar is already listed, apart from Ranjitsinji, Kapil Dev, Sunil Gavaskar, Erapalli Prasanna and possibly Vijay Hazare are all more vital than Dravid. Anil Kumble is probably at the same level as Dravid since modern spin is well represented. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, if that's what you truly believe then we should have no baseball players at all. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need more than 50 sportspeople on this list. Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson are more than adequate to represent baseball. pbp 22:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
People is already under quota. If we cut sportspeople by that much, we will have to cut other entertainment/pop culture biographies too (modern music, actors, directors, modern writers, modern artists) Where will all the extra space go? More politicians? Many politician add proposals have failed in recent times. The only other option is reduce the people quota by a big amount. Maybe down to 1800 or even 1500. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Am I the only person who finds it disengenuous that there are more athletes than religious leaders? Especially of non-Christian religions? pbp 00:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure we can do with a few more non-Christian religious figures. But often people are not that important in certain religious and mythological traditions compared to God/s and other divine beings. All of the indigenous, pagan, shamanistic, folk types of religion out there don't really have a founder or a person who radically changed the beliefs of the people. We can add someone for Shinto I guess like Motoori Norinaga even though we added the Kojiki. There are regular contributors here who know Japanese culture pretty well so we could ask them.
Also there are probably more non-Western religious figures that you think. There are Indian religious poets like Kabir and Tulsidas that can fit in either writers or religious figures but are currently in writers. Tulsidas in particular is considered by his followers to be a reincarnated form of Valmiki (author of the main Ramayana and who is currently in religious figures) and also allegedly performed miracles. Meera who isn't listed, would also fit in both places. Similarly, Laozi who is regarded as a deity in religious Taoism is listed in "Philosophers".
I wonder if we should add some prominent atheists too. It might be premature to add Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens but history of atheism could be a good add. Gizza (t)(c) 03:32, 11 July 2015 (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.
1-5, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pete Rose and Barry Bonds

The former is the man who made the most hits during his MLB career, and the latter is the man who made the most homers while being an MLB player. Both are quite controversial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The consensus has been that we need fewer sports figures, not more. We recently removed Roberto Clemente, Satchel Paige and Cy Young. Cobblet (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Too many sports figures (and definitely too many baseball players) as it is. pbp 00:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: per Barry Bonds being included in the proposal, though I'd probably oppose Pete Rose too. As Cobblet said, fewer sports figures, and I don't think these two meet the bar for inclusion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: - too many baseballers already we should cut by one (i'd say Lou Gehrig). GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. Lou Gehrig is vital, since he was the first MLB player to have his uniform number retired.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Many non-Americans watch MLB games, though baseball is less popular than soccer in the world, thus MLB superstars like Barry Bonds are sometimes vital, and adding these two men would let the list have just another 2 baseball players, while there are still more soccer players than baseball ones in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You cannot compare the global popularity of baseball to soccer. Think of the disparity in the global audience for the World Series or the World Baseball Classic vs. the World Cup. There's a reason why soccer is the only team sport we include on the level 3 list. Cobblet (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, in Taiwan soccer is much less popular than baseball, in terms of both playing and watching. However, there are more amateur basketball players than baseball ones, since Taiwan's population density is too high so that in some cities it is quite hard to find a decent baseball park for amateur players.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Taiwan is hardly representative of the world. Cobblet (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But baseball is popular among Canadians and Australians as well, not just Americans. It is also popular in Mexico, Dominica, Venezuela and Brazil. And Israel established its own professional baseball league this year, meaning baseball is gaining more popularity in some states.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't contradict what I said before. Of the countries you mentioned baseball is only the most popular sport in Venezuela and the Dominican Republic. (You forgot Cuba by the way.) What's more popular in Brazil and Mexico, baseball or soccer? Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if we were gonna add Baseball players, there's no way we should add any more hitters if we don't have a pitcher. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Now that you said so, I would add more proposals about excellent MLB pitchers.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (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.
1-5, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Paper clip

An article about a definitely crucial stationery.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose even within the stationery products category, its function isn't that vital.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Paper clip? Really? Wouldn't be my first choice at another stationery article by a long shot. What makes it stand out more than other articles of a similar area? Looking at Category:Stationery There's 80 articles in that category, and many more in the sub cats, one could pick stationery from. Articles that seem equal or higher status to me include, ruler, eraser, pencil sharpener, rubber band, staple/stapler, Adhesive tape, pin, knitting needle, sewing needle, ballpoint pen, Protractor, Compass (drawing tool), envelope and many more. We don't list staple either but we do list fastener, that includes staples, paper clips and more; well at least in it's category anyway, and nothing's stopping us adding it to the article either.  Carlwev  16:47, 22 July 2015 (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.
Withdrawing this nomination for the time being, as Cobblet raised a very good point. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Leap second

An occurrence where time is added or removed to compensate for irregularities in the Earth's rotation. Important to timekeeping.

Support
  1. Support as nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I suggest we wait four months until the World Radiocommunication Conference in November, where there's a good chance the leap second could be abolished. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  • @Cobblet: I have no issue with waiting, can I withdraw my nomination such as in a deletion discussion? While I'm quite familiar with Anno Domini, I'm less familiar with Leap Second. I probably wouldn't have nominated it if one hadn't happened recently which it fresh in my mind. An odd question for an interesting topic: Do you know if this would retroactively affect leap seconds (time) already added in any way? Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I haven't seen anyone say anything about the leap seconds that have already been added. Cobblet (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2015 (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 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Homelessness

I would have thought this a huge social and economic issue. It, and its causes and effects are written and read about and studied, and efforts to combat the issue, help those it effects, are pretty common. The article states over 100 million people worldwide are homeless. Although it is probably more common in some areas compared to others, the issue is pretty wide spread across different parts of the world, not confined to one or two regions, and quite well known in history too, it's not exactly just a recent issue.  Carlwev  19:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  19:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Good catch. Exactly the kind of topic we need to make sure we have. This doesn't overlap with house any more than, say, poverty overlaps with money. Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support There is overlap between this and house too but not enough to make it non-vital. Gizza (t)(c) 00:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. SupportPointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

The only thing that cover this I believe would be Poverty. However the two are not the same, Poverty is in the vital 1000, and if you view Category:Poverty you will notice several articles included there are vital 10'000 as well anyway, such as hunger, malnutrition, famine, slum, welfare. So I don't think being a poverty related issue makes it redundant to poverty.  Carlwev 

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dissection

Foundational to the study of anatomy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Salvia officinalis

Why list sage when we don't list rosemary or oregano or marjoram, other species of the mint family with a similar level of notability? Besides, we also already list the genus Salvia. We list Mentha but not individual species of mint like spearmint or peppermint.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 06:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Kelp

A variety of seaweed with tremendous ecological importance (kelp forests).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Green iguana

We list no examples of iguanas despite this being one of the most notable types of lizards. "Iguana" usually refers to members of the subfamily Iguaninae (including species like the marine iguana) but on Wikipedia it's used to refer to just the genus of the same name, while Iguaninae redirects to Iguanidae which includes related lizards like anoles. So I've decided to nominate the most familiar species of iguana, notable as a pet and an invasive species.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  06:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose I'd rather see a broader article about iguanas added, as opposed to one particular species. "Weak" because the nominator pointed out the article I described doesn't exist in a preferred fashion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Since they comprise ~60% of all reptile species, the lizards could use a little bit more representation. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This or a broader iguana article, but there are issues, already pointed out.  Carlwev  06:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Commment Green iguana was the 11th most viewed lizard article last month (Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Popular pages) if I've counted correctly. If we're adding more lizards (which seems like a good idea to me), green iguana is a strong candidate. Not that page views should be the sole criterion for inclusion on the vital list (for one thing people do seem far more interested in snakes than lizards based on the popular pages). For what it's worth, lizards with more views than green iguana that also aren't on the vital list are: monitor lizard, Jackson's chameleon (apparently a popular pet), Pogona (bearded dragons, also popular pets) and iguana. And the lizard on the vital list with the lowest views is horned lizard, which comes in just behind green iguana (with a bunch of snakes and amphibians in between). We have 7 of the 12 most viewed lizard articles on the list. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Right. I decided against monitors since we already list the Komodo dragon. And I figured that being a type species made the green iguana more vital than the other highly viewed lizard species and other notable iguana species like the marine iguana. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily view type species status as indicating vitalness; it's mostly a taxonomic detail. The type species often will be one of the most common species in the genus, but not always. Vaccinium uliginosum is the type species of Vaccinium, but my first pick for a vital Vaccinium would be Vaccinium corymbosum, which is the most commonly cultivated blueberry. And Drosophila melanogaster is not the type species for Drosophila; there's some pretty good evidence that Drosophila should be split into multiple genera, in which case the most well known species would become Sophophora melanogaster. This resulted in an (ultimately failed) proposal to make D. melanogaster the type species. 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
True, I guess what I really meant was that when people talk about an "iguana" this is the most likely species they're referring to. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Stack (geology)

Not a type of erosional landform with much significance besides its unusual shape, like natural arch or hoodoo. We don't have space for this when coastal features of real significance like barrier islands are missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Wet season and Dry season

Tropical climate and monsoon ought to cover these topics in sufficient detail.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Steve Martin

Not that big enough to qualify for this list as an actor and he is not really known for his comedy these days, he is associated with acting where he is not that influential. Not vital in the field of Banjo playing either, where we don't list Earl Scruggs who if we were to represent the Banjo would be the better choice. Can't induct him as a all-rounder as Arnold Schwarzenegger has the better all round career and he is not here. Jack of all trades, vital in none. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  14:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support We're missing Earl Warren, John C. Calhoun and hundreds more Americans of more vitality than this clown. pbp 01:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose


Discuss

Agree with nom. OK at both, but not a huge actor, nor comedian; Arnie had a bigger impact on cinema and was involved in other areas. I was close to nominating him myself, he's been on my radar for ages.  Carlwev  14:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Itzhak Perlman

Newish Violinist who mainly got popular with Schindler's List, he's not vital enough for this list, atleast not more-so then Yo-Yo Ma who we do not list. If we were to add another violinist i'd support Pablo de Sarasate or Fritz Kreisler first. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm not sure that's an accurate way of describing Perlman, but the fact is that there are a number of accomplished violinists from the late 19th century onwards (such as the ones GuzzyG mentioned; Jascha Heifetz would be an example from the 20th century) that are all significant to some extent, but none of them have made enough of an impact that I think it's necessary to include them on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  14:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support David Oistrakh and Jascha Heifetz are the two violinists of the recorded era that have strong claims to inclusion. Perlman certainly doesn't have their reputation; his inclusion seems to be a clear case of recentism. Neljack (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Semyon Dezhnev

This might be controversial and i understand he was the first but i don't think we should list him as we have Vitus Bering and it is overlap to include both in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support We need a Russian explorer/conqueror on land like Yermak Timofeyevich before a third explorer of the Russian Arctic waters after Barentsz and Bering. Yermak is a national hero; Dezhnev is nearly forgotten. I'd also consider Dezhnev less vital than the first European to sight the Pacific from the American continent. Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 7-1 Cobblet (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jerome Kagan, Add Plotinus

A couple of the psychologists listed don't look absolutely vital to me. For instance Kagan isn't on the level of Jean Piaget or Erik Erikson when it comes to developmental psychologists. I suggest swapping him for Plotinus, founder of Neoplatonism and through his collected writings (the Enneads) one of the most influential figures in the history of Western philosophy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. The addition of Plotinus, since his though has been quite influential.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Plotinus had a huge influence on Christian theology in particular. Neljack (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal of Jerome Kagan, since he pioneered in developmental psychology and was listed as the 22nd most eminent psychologist of the 20th century, just above Carl Jung. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 8-1 Cobblet (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Alexander Luria, Add Montesquieu

I don't think we need a second psychologist from the Vygotsky Circle beyond Lev Vygotsky himself. More vital Russian academics or scientists not listed include Vladimir Dal, Nikolay Pirogov and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Montesquieu, author of The Spirit of the Laws, was one of the most important political writers in history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - I thought there was too many psychologists myself GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Considering our detailed coverage of European philosophers, I will have to paraphrase one of Rekishi's favourite catchphrases and say I'm surprised to see Montesquieu not already included on the list! Gizza (t)(c) 12:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  13:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Montesquieu should be added, no doubt.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support pbp 01:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Montesquieu's absence is indeed astonishing. Neljack (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Luria should be kept, since he was one of the founders of Cultural-Historical Psychology, and a leader of the Vygotsky Circle.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Helena Blavatsky

Through her work in co-founding the Theosophical Society and serving as its principal theoretician, Blavatsky is probably the person more responsible than anyone else for reviving interest in esotericism; in particular the modern Western fascination with Eastern religions can be attributed to her. Her role and that of the Theosophical Society in the Hindu reform movements of the 19th century makes her at least if not more vital than some of the modern Hindu figures we list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - We really need someone representing this area and she is the perfect fit. GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support underrated as far as influence and vitality is concerned. Gizza (t)(c) 12:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 02:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pancho Gonzales

We should definitely lower the number of Tennis players from 14 down to preferably 10 and he is the least vital on the list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support I appreciate he was the greatest tennis player of the 50s, but I think pre-Open era tennis is sufficiently well represented by Lenglen and Tilden. Gonzales is not well remembered by the general public these days – he wasn't mentioned on SportsCentury at all, and came in at only #35 on Tennis Channel's 100 Greatest of All Time. His notoriety pales in comparison to other athletes of the 50s like Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio or Rocky Marciano, not to mention Americans outside of sports like Joseph McCarthy or James Dean; and we don't list any of these people. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Olga Korbut

I think five gymnasts is what we should have and she is the least vital/accomplished out of the ones listed in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support I'd be inclined to support removing Tourischeva too. Neljack (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Ludmilla Tourischeva may have won more medals but her impact on the sport might be less notable than Korbut's. Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I was going to do Ludmilla first but i think her being one of two that has won the grand slam of all-around titles is more vital then inventing a technique, if we were to have a high jumper i don't think we would list Dick Fosbury and if we were i'd prefer the Fosbury Flop the technique is probably more important then Korbut too. GuzzyG (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 History of atheism

If we have the history articles of five major religions we should have the history of atheism article. The article discusses not just atheism but related ideas like the history of agnosticism, secular humanism, etc. If these ideas together were classified as a religion itself, it could be the the third largest in the world. Atheism also has a long history, longer than many probably think.

Individual atheists may not stand out as vital apart from those scientists, philosophers and political leaders already listed but this article is useful in understanding the development of atheism over time.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Excavation (archaeology) and Radiocarbon dating

As far as I can tell we have nothing on the methods and techniques of archaeology. I propose adding the most obviously notable aspect of archaeological fieldwork and the most important of archaeological dating techniques.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Vital techniques to discover ancient civilizations. GuzzyG (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Anyone with an interest in archaeology needs to know about these techniques. Gizza (t)(c) 08:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Other general aspects of archaeological work, i.e. archaeological field survey and post-excavation analysis, may also be vital. Cobblet (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sum of Logic

We already list Aristotle's Organon. Ockham's textbook on Aristotelian logic is less vital than, say, the writings of Augustine (we don't list Confessions (Augustine) or City of God (book)) or The Imitation of Christ. If we want better coverage of Aristotelian logic the obvious thing to do would be to add term logic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Literary criticism

Art has aesthetics and music has music theory, but we don't have an article that talks about the analysis and interpretation of literature even though the history of this field goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Our article is basically an outline at this point but the Britannica article gives a better idea as to what such an article could cover. I nominated this rather than literary theory as this article seems broader in scope.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. You bet!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Audition

Résumé/curriculum vitae and job interview aren't listed and auditions are even more specific. Neither this nor artist's portfolio ought to be vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support had my eye on this.  Carlwev  13:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support someone must have run out of ideas when they added this. Not as bad as celtuce or paper clip though. Gizza (t)(c) 09:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Fine art

An unnecessary umbrella term already covered by other umbrella terms. The question of what constitutes fine art is covered by both art and aesthetics. The rest of the article is basically just a duplicate of the content in visual arts. Also we don't list applied arts, the antipode to fine art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas, Chinese art, Indian art and Islamic art

Since we already list African art and several articles on architecture and film by culture, and the articles on we've chosen on art styles focus exclusively on the European tradition, would it be a good idea to add articles to at least broadly cover the art of major cultural areas outside Europe?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support We can't be too Anglo-centric. - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 01:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

While it could be argued we should be doing the same for literature and music, I'd say that this is a more pressing issue for the visual arts than for the other fields. First of all, we have fewer articles on either topics or biographies in the visual arts compared to literature and music. Secondly, unlike writers, artisans (especially in non-European cultures) frequently remain anonymous, so we wouldn't get very far if we tried to expand our coverage of world art by adding more biographies. Thirdly, I think it's a little easier to pick out vital genres of world music than vital genres of world art. (For example gamelan and Indian classical music are more obviously vital than batik or cave paintings in India.) I'm not saying we shouldn't list broad genres of world music (there's been some discussion of this before), but for better or worse we seem to have settled on listing more specific musical styles instead. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 color motion picture film

Less vital than color photography or color printing and no more vital than sound film (none of these are listed). Film stock is being phased out by digital cinematography anyway. (FWIW, we again list neither of those articles.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Scallion

Covered sufficiently in onion which is already listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Allium, onion, garlic and possibly leek seem sufficient IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 09:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

User:Plantdrew has suggested swapping this with Allium fistulosum which is the "green onion" used extensively in East Asian cuisine. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Upon further investigation Scallion and Onion actually contradict one another on what a "scallion" is. I'd have no problem with including Allium, but Allium fistulosum is too specific in my opinion as it only concerns one variety of scallion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you remembered my list, Cobblet. I suppose I should update it since a bunch of stuff has been added/removed here. At the moment, I'm pretty neutral on Allium fistulosum. I guess I was considering it for inclusion in an effort to balance vegetables more globally (not just what's common in western supermarkets). Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, I'd have to say Nelumbo nucifera ought to be our next choice for an Asian plant, and peony would be a good choice as well. Cobblet (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Prosody (linguistics)

Brought up above, suggested as better and encompassing compared to tone, stress and other articles proposed above. Decent article, covers many things that would have a chance at being included singularly like stress (linguistics), Tone (linguistics), rythem and intonation (linguistics). Unwritten things that suggest question, statement, command, mood/feeling, irony and more. The article explains it better than me.  Carlwev  21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  21:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Somehow we don't have a dedicated article on suprasegmentals but "prosodic feature" is a term also often used to refer to phonetic features that operate over syllables, words or phrases. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added under Geometry 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 ruler

I just separated this proposal from another proposal which I had posted before in #Household_items. Hope that you support my proposal.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems trivial to us now, but historically important nonetheless. If we list calipers we ought to list this as well. I would however put it in the math section, under length. (Same with calipers; and I'd move thermometer under temperature.) Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 12:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Jerry Seinfeld? and other waffling thoughts

Seinfeld is on my radar too, although article says he earns lots and lots, and appears top of polls, but I just don't see it, maybe he's someone who's fame doesn't spread outside the US as much. I always thought he was known mainly for the sitcom semi based on him. Which could make him comparable to possibly Lucille Ball and Bill Cosby who we do have, but also to people who don't have like Roseanne Barr and Ellen DeGeneres, all of who'm are comedians and actors with their own namesake sitcom. If his sitcom makes him notable, something like Cheers or Friends is Bigger than Seinfeld I would've thought. Or maybe it's just the view from this side of the pond. After his sitcom he's not really in the league of Robin Williams, his movies are thin and include roles like voice acting in Bee Movie and his TV isn't big outside of his sitcom and Saturday Night Live. In fact isn't Saturday Night Live more relevant to comedy than Seinfeld and more relevant than something like Soul Train is to music, we list soul train, is that vital, is it known outside US a lot, it only appear in 7 other languages, whi. Do people wanna keep Seinfeld? Also, do we need both Lucille Ball and I Love Lucy, we removed Monty Python's Flying Circus, mainly because Monty Python is included.  Carlwev  14:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I would support removing Seinfeld. Neljack (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Jerry Seinfeld

Owes a lot of his fame from his sitcom, but we don't list Roseanne Barr or many others actors known for stand up and a sitcom. We do list a few like Bill Cosby and Lucille Ball but I don't think Seinfeld cuts it. If sitcoms were that important we would list something like Friends. He does seem to be a good earner but I'm doubtful of his influence, We aren't including all the top earners of other areas at the expense of the more influential. Comparing to other stand up comedians/actors like say Robin Williams who has many well known movies, Seinfeld has only a few, the most well known maybe Bee Movie. The article doesn't appear in that many languages compared to other articles of the same area suggesting he isn't as well known internationally as others.  Carlwev  13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2015 (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 Gizza (t)(c) 09:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Josef Albers

Josef Albers was a German-born American artist and educator whose work, both in Europe and in the United States, formed the basis of some of the most influential and far-reaching art education programs of the twentieth century.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per prior consensus. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 03:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed it before, but the proposal was rejected. (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_Josef_Albers).--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Wang Xizhi

In China calligraphy is considered the most important of the visual arts; and there is precisely one Chinese artist most people in China can be expected to know by name and it is not Shitao but Wang Xizhi, the greatest of Chinese calligraphers. Our list is lacking when it comes to both non-Western artists and non-Western genres; adding Wang Xizhi helps fix both issues.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. One of the greatest calligraphers. GuzzyG (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 11:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I've actually wanted to nominate him for a very long time. But there was no sense in including a calligrapher when canonical figures in Chinese literature and history weren't on the list. We've come a long way. Cobblet (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2015 (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 1-5 Cobblet (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Bill James

A baseball writer, historian and statistician who coined the term "sabermetrics". His work has been widely influential.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No doubt influential, but in a rather niche field. I don't think we list any other sporting writers, historians or statisticians. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Be far better for us to have the actual term sabermetrics, or a broader one like sports statistics. pbp 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per Neljack. Sports writing is too niche. Gizza (t)(c) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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: Whitney Houston

Whitney Houston is undeniably one of the most influential figures in pop music. She created a breakthrough for Women of Colour on MTV with her "How Will I Know" music video, allowing other artists like Janet Jackson and Anita Baker to become successful in the music industry. She also has a big influence in many of today's musicians, including Britney Spears, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey and Ariana Grande. Ms. Houston is also the most awarded female act of all time, with 415 career awards, and has all six of her studio albums under Diamond or Platinum certification in the U.S. I do understand that she was removed on this list before, and I do understand if there is a valid reason why she isn't on it. But I think when weighing all her contributions to the music industry, she deserves to be on this list. |CanadianDude1| 20:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. |CanadianDude1| 17:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not in the league of Billie Holiday, Diana Ross or Aretha Franklin in terms of groundbreaking impact on pop music. Other people more important in their time than Houston was to ours, like Mahalia Jackson, Ella Fitzgerald or Donna Summer, aren't listed. There's more to what makes a musician important than commercial success and industry awards. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Pop music doesn't need our help. pbp 23:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add David Sarnoff

A highly influential figure in the history of radio and television, however currently it does not belong to the list.

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that it currently does not belong to the list quite surprised me!--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Invented the concept of broadcasting and used it to build RCA, the first media empire. Initially a radio monopoly, its subsidiary NBC was the first national TV network in the US, which also became the first TV network in the world to regularly broadcast in colour. Cobblet (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Per Cobb. GuzzyG (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Denis Diderot

Being a prominent figure in the Enlightenment and a co-founder of Encyclopédie guarantees his vitality.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that this article is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Had a major influence on the Enlightenment and even the American and French Revolutions. Neljack (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 John Curtin

Proposing this Australian leader as this one seems to be the one regulars here seem comfortable with, as i said before, my key arguments are "Australia is the only member of the G-20 without a leader to represent, the others have 2+ each." "We could use the argument of "Australian leader's not having a impact worldwide" but i would say Australia has more prominence worldwide then Madagascar or Turkmenistan which both do have a leader" and also the fact that Oceania has no political figures at all, to put it in to perspective Figure skating has 3x the representation of a whole continent's politicians and politicians are arguably histories most important biographies, right next to military leaders and religious founders. Would also recommend Kamehameha I and George Tupou I GuzzyG (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support- As nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support assuming good faith versus my lack of knowledge. I'm not up on Australian politics, but surely there's room for at least one Australian politician. Being in office during WWII suggests some longer term importance. Plantdrew (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I don't usually weigh in on biography discussions, but this nomination inspired me to look at vital listed recent world leaders (particularly US ones). Every post WWII US president is listed except for Gerald Ford, George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton. I'm not sure why Carter should be listed and not Bush Sr. or Ford with similar terms of office. And for two term presidents why Bush Jr. but not Clinton? Should there be a moving wall of sorts? Current US president is likely vital. The immediate predecessor, maybe not; need some history to judge. Plantdrew (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If you poke around in the archives you'll see we've tried to remove both Carter and Bush Jr. on more than one occasion. OTOH Clinton was successfully removed. Cobblet (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Irene of Athens, Add Theodora (6th century) and Eleanor of Aquitaine

Irene is mainly known for restoring the veneration of icons in the Byzantine Empire; I'm not sure that's enough to make her vital when Christian figures of the likes of Gregory Palamas, Sergius of Radonezh or Catherine of Siena aren't listed. Andrei Rublev, the greatest painter of icons, isn't listed either. In Irene's place I suggest adding two of the most powerful and famous women from the Middle Ages, including the most powerful woman in Byzantine history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Good choices. --Thi (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Now this is a good swap. GuzzyG (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Eleanor of Aquitane was one of the most influential females of the Middle Ages. pbp 15:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Diego de Almagro, Add Afonso de Albuquerque

Afonso de Albuquerque was the principal architect of Portugal's trading empire in Asia, conquering Ormus, Goa and Malacca in succession, and discovering the Spice Islands. In doing so he laid the foundation for further European exploration, trade and colonization in Asia. Diego de Almagro was just one of many semi-notable conquistadors in the New World (compare the exploits of Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Pedro de Alvarado, Francisco de Orellana or Francisco Vázquez de Coronado); he is less essential to the history of Chile and South America than Bernardo O'Higgins.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support big improvement. Gizza (t)(c) 13:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We list Conquistadors such as this one and Pizarro. I've not thought about it before but I am thinking about Conquistador article itself, we list specific historic soldier types/classes like ninja, knight, samurai. Maybe I'll propose a swap for Boyar, we don't list Tsar and we removed Pharaoh?  Carlwev  15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

We actually kept pharaoh. Conquistador was just the general term for any overseas soldier in the Spanish and Portuguese empires, not a specific social class or type of combatant. European colonization of the Americas and especially Spanish colonization of the Americas (note how conquista redirects here) ought to cover the same ground. Cobblet (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Albrecht von Wallenstein, Add Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden

If we're going to include one general from the Thirty Years' War it shouldn't be the mediocre von Wallenstein but Gustavus Adolphus, one of the greatest generals of all time. His military successes, as well as the administrative reforms he instituted with the help of Axel Oxenstierna, led to the rise of Sweden as a great power for the next hundred years.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gustavus Adolphus should definitely be on here - as Cobblet says, he is widely regarded as one of the greatest generals ever and the founder of Sweden as a great power. Neljack (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gustavus Adolphus was indeed very innovative. Gizza (t)(c) 11:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add George Stephenson

Father of Railways. Built first steam railroad. pbp 17:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 17:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support An obvious omission. Neljack (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (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.
1-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mariano Rivera

The greatest closer in the history of the Major League Baseball.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too many baseball players as it is. IMO, we shouldn't necessarily have a full set of the greatest at each of the major nine positions, let alone the greatest at a "fake" position like closer. pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose Although the position of closer is as valid as a position as the position of starter, I don't think the position of closer is important enough to warrant Rivera's spot on the list. It may also be a bit of recentism too. I do think we have a decent set of baseball players now though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
60+ days, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 10:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 textbook

Most teachers of academic subjects use textbooks while teaching, and the term has been frequently used, and textbook controversies occur in many countries, for example, USA, Japan, South Korea, Mainland China and Taiwan, so this article is definitely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Neutral for a long time but I'll lean towards support because our coverage of educational topics other than universities and libraries is underdeveloped. If there are better choices than textbook, I'll support adding them or swapping them in place of textbook in the future but for now textbook will do. Gizza (t)(c) 14:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already have curriculum, which covers the textbook. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Textbook fits better in "Education" than "Literature". I haven't formed an opinion on its vitality yet. Gizza (t)(c) 01:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There are several types of nonfiction that for me fall somewhere between vital and not vital: things like letter (message), diary, essay, biography/autobiography/memoir, almanac, recipe/cookbook and travel literature for example. It could be said that choice or content of a textbook is determined by a curriculum, which we already list. Textbook controversies should at least be touched upon in propaganda and historiography; more directly related subjects we don't list include historical revisionism (or more accurately historical revisionism (negationism) – interesting how that topic got forked) or media manipulation. Cobblet (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Art movement

We don't list genre, literary genre, architectural style, music genre or film genre; we don't need this either.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support agree with nom's rational. Also it's half a list as one would expect; lists are unpopular here too.  Carlwev  20:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Porcelain

If we're listing types of painting, carving and even comics, I think it's reasonable to list a specific type of pottery, particularly when it's as important as this one.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support absolutely  Carlwev  20:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 21:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support good catch. Gizza (t)(c) 11:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2015 (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 3-3 Gizza (t)(c) 09:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Tone (linguistics)

Not really used in English and other European languages, but important part of many languages in East Asia, Central America and Africa, including some widely spoken like Mandarin. Use of tone can change the meaning of otherwise identical words, and is important to languages that use them, and important for people learning them to understand.  Carlwev  09:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom,  Carlwev  09:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Stress should be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Words in English can change meaning depending on stress (e.g. record, proceeds, contract); does this make stress vital? The general topic of prosody (linguistics) might be a better addition. Cobblet (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose non-vital for English Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Prosody (linguistics) sounds good, I wasn't familiar with that topic before reading it here, it covers tone, stress and more. We should open a thread for that soon, I'll leave this open too though, it has 3 support now.  Carlwev  08:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been added now. Cobblet (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Grand Ole Opry

I don't care if it's the longest-running radio broadcast in history: we don't list the world's longest-running company, longest-running parliament, longest-running NGO, etc. Nashville should be listed first and if there was ever one music event that was vital it should be Woodstock (which receives five times as many views).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Constitutionalism

Why do we need both this and constitution? This is like listing new institutionalism along with institution – in fact maybe it's worse, since constitutions are just one type of institution.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Pointless article. Redundant to constitution, separation of powers and rule of law. Gizza (t)(c) 11:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 ambassador

Note that we include both ambassador and diplomatic mission. There's no need to have the head of an embassy when we don't include more important heads of organizations like chief executive officer, president, prime minister and monarch. The only general head of something that is vital is head of state.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Should we add the different types of heads of state to the list? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually they're covered by the system of government, say monarch/monarchy and prime minister/parliament. That being said, we list neither president nor presidential system. Cobblet (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd support presidential system. Gizza (t)(c) 11:43, 19 August 2015 (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 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mendelian inheritance and genetic code

As I try to trim the Organisms section further, I'm also slowly compiling a list of concepts in biology we need to add. Here are two of the most obvious omissions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Capillary

We have Artery and Vein but not the smaller one in between, the capillary. When I remember back to biology in college, the three usually came up together, when ever I encountered pages or articles on arteries and veins, in text books and encyclopedias capillary was always there too. We have the articles about the blood vessels that carry blood toward and away from the heart. The capillaries are the ones in between where the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide, as well as other nutrients too takes place. A common topic studied in biology.  Carlwev  19:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support was going to nominate this myself. Cobblet (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Blood vessel is a missing a good overview article that's quite decent, it appears in more languages than capillary, but less than vein and artery. I was also thinking if that would be a good idea, but people may think it unnecessary if we have the main 2 or 3 kinds of blood vessel as well as blood and circulatory system? Although I still quite like the idea. What do others think? there are other small blood vessels I would never think of suggesting as stand alone that could be covered by it like the Arteriole and Venule.  Carlwev  19:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

With circulatory system and angiology already serving as overview articles I don't think we need what is essentially a third overview article in blood vessels; better to just have the three major types of blood vessels. Keep in mind we're missing other essential parts of the circulatory system like spleen and bone marrow; the other major type of blood cell, platelets; blood plasma or important components of it like antibodies; or coagulation or aorta or anemia or haemophilia. Cobblet (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Some good ideas, I'll open a thread for Spleen. What are your views on articles like breathing? We have lungs, respiration and resp system. But then we have eating although we list digestion, digestive system and its organs. Also non human anatomy, we have a few like feather and scale (anatomy), what are your views on others, like fish fin, swim bladder, wing, insect wing, bird flight? probably going too specific here?
I think it's reasonable to have separate articles on ingestion, digestion and excretion. Maybe we could swap respiration (physiology) (not to be confused with cellular respiration) for breathing since there's already an overview of physiological respiration in respiratory system#Physiology in mammals – obviously these articles are a bit redundant; plus physiological respiration is basically breathing + gas exchange and the latter is covered (for vertebrates anyway) in blood#Physiology. I don't like wing because flight is already listed and we should keep these cross-disciplinary overview articles to a minimum. Bird flight gets more page views than the other locomotion articles you suggested and I could support adding that, but I also noticed that both bipedalism and animal echolocation are even more popular. It's also worthwhile looking at other aspects of animal ethology, especially animal cognition. Cobblet (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Spleen

Space is being made in biology, by removing some species and groups of species. The Spleen appearing nearly all vertebrates including of course humans, has many functions such as acting like a blood filter important to the immune system. I think it deserves a place, and it seems a bit more vital than a few other anatomy articles we have. Cobblet mentioned this above in the capillary discussion along with some other articles that may be worth thinking about too.

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  14:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

What are opinions on other organs/glands, gland types hormones, or systems. I'm thinking of many, the more I read the more I find. Some I like more than others but I'm thinking of thyroid, adrenal gland, placenta, gland, pineal gland, melatonin, I'll stop there. I'm thinking about suggesting thyroid first.  Carlwev  00:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need gland and I think the pituitary is better than the pineal gland (how about just circadian rhythm?), but all the other ones are at least worth considering – I was eventually going to nominate thyroid and placenta myself. I agree, there are lots of things we should potentially be adding. Cobblet (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd certainly support adding just gland rather than 3-5 specific glands. I was just over at gland to see if we had it, and that article sure could use a helping hand. pbp 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I like thyroid. Not a fan of the general gland article being added instead of important glands. I think brain and heart are more vital than organ (anatomy) and it's similar here. Gizza (t)(c) 11:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Thyroid

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Here's why you need iodine in your diet. Cobblet (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Placenta

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support since we don't have Placentalia. Gizza (t)(c) 00:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support There's a great Quora post on the evolutionary significance of menstruation and the role the human placenta plays in that. Cobblet (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Adrenal gland

Support
  1. As nom.  Carlwev  15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I think the major endocrine glands are worth adding. Personally I'd draw the line at thymus and pineal gland, at least for the time being. Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Broadbill, Cotinga and Tapaculo

I don't see why we need so many members of the Tyranni – the listed Antbird, Ovenbird (family) and Tyrant flycatcher seem sufficient to me. The Andean condor would be a much better choice to represent South American birds.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It looks like the intent was to include the larger Tyranni families, but species count alone shouldn't determine inclusion here. Broadbill and tapaculo actually have fewer species than some families that aren't listed (e.g. pitta has 34). Cotinga is fairly large (~60 species), but it seems pretty arbitrary to draw a line for inclusion somewhere between the pittas and the cotingas. Plantdrew (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cuckooshrike, Motacillidae, and Nuthatch

Other non-vital groups of passerine birds.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Old World babbler and Old World warbler

These were formerly wastebin taxa that are currently undergoing major reorganization; it looks likely that when the dust settles, these families will be much smaller than they used to be. I think it's more important to list notable bird species than taxa that non-specialists are unlikely to care about.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Old World warbler especially; it's an article about an obsolete taxonomic concept (the current circumscription has a separate article at Sylviidae). Old World babbler covers multiple circumscriptions, but it's not clear that any of them are vital. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both added 5-0, 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add Common starling and Common myna

For instance, take these two members of the starling family, both of which have adapted well to human environments (they're notorious as invasive species and the common starling is one of the most widely distributed birds in the world) and are also well-known for their ability to mimic sounds and voices.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support at least for the Common starling. --Thi (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support both. Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support both. Gizza (t)(c) 11:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  12:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Starling is the most common bird where I live, in London, (not that that makes it vital) followed by the sparrow which is missing and wren which we have and pigeon which is coming soon.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Whistling duck, Add Mallard

Not sure why we list the whistling ducks when we don't list the diving ducks, the seaducks or the shelducks and sheldgeese. I think it's better to include the most notable duck species, which is also the ancestor of almost all domestic ducks.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Never heard of whistling duck before :-P --Thi (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Inclusion of whistling duck is rather puzzling. Perhaps it was considered a family fairly recently (subfamily now, but article mentions treatment as a family though doesn't give dates)? I can't see any reason to include it now. Mallard is a good choice to add. Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support even whistling is more vital than whistling duck. Gizza (t)(c) 11:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Streptopelia, Add Rock dove

Again, swapping a taxon few people will bother to look up for an extremely notable species, in this case the oldest domesticated species in the world. I think it's an even better choice than picking a specific Streptopelia species like the European turtle dove (I'll let you guys decide if you want to add that too).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely support How did rock dove ("pigeon") get missed for so long? Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Also bizarrely, both rock dove and domesticated pigeon are rated as low-importance for WikiProject Birds. Gizza (t)(c) 13:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support agree with other comments, I'm surprised this has been missing for so long and is only rated low importance?  Carlwev  15:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Buttonquail, Skimmer and Skua

Non-vital members of Charadriiformes. Bear in mind we already list seabird so I don't think we need to include every single type of seabird out there.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Wader

No longer a taxon in use, as far as I can tell. We already include the sandpipers, the largest group of waders/shorebirds; if we had to I would prefer to include a second group like the plovers than an obsolete taxon.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Obsolete taxa are no eligible for the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Do my eyes deceive me? I think this is the first time Rekishi is supporting a removal at this level for an article that is not a redirect. Gizza (t)(c) 12:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Storm petrel and Diving petrel, Add Procellariiformes

I think it's better to list the order as a whole (which includes all the seabirds collectively known as the petrels, including the albatrosses) than to include the two smallest families in that order, which aren't very notable on their own.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support indeed storm petrel and diving petrel are not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 09:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

good catch, not completely sure on removing storm petrel, but I can support this.  Carlwev  15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather list wandering albatross than these families. Cobblet (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Little owl, Add Barn owl

Currently the little owl ranks 411th on Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages; the barn owl ranks 51st.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support My only question was how widely distributed barn owls were. Went to the article and saw "the most widely distributed species of owl". If we're including any single owl species, barn owl is the one. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Harrier (bird)

The hen harrier is probably the most notable species of this small group of raptors. If we needed another group of raptors I think Buteo (the buzzards) would be a better choice; but better still would be to list a couple of the best-known species (see the next proposal).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I guess harriers are here because they're a subfamily? Buteo would be better even though it's only a genus. Plantdrew (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Golden eagle and Peregrine falcon

Outside of the US, the golden eagle is the eagle that appears commonly in myth and symbolism – it's apparently the most common national animal in the world. So when it comes to listing a notable eagle I think it's the best choice. The peregrine falcon is noteworthy for its speed, its cosmopolitan distribution and its recovery from DDT use in the 1970s.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Good choices, I still keep thinking of wider bird articles like bird migration and falconry. Others don't seem to like them though.  Carlwev  15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

By all means bring them up now that I've proposed some cuts. Cobblet (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Live oak

I'll take User:Plantdrew up on the suggestion. We already list oak and I'm not sure we need to separately list evergreen oaks. Quercus virginiana may be a symbol of the Southern US but I would've thought magnolia was the better choice. Taxus baccata has been brought up before and is more vital; so is Populus.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support If there's anything vital here, it's Quercus virginiana, but I don't see any reason to open the door to individual oak species Plantdrew (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Turkey (bird). Add Domesticated turkey

The turkey (bird) article covers the genus Meleagris which has a few extinct species, and two extant species. One extant species is rare and has a limited range. The other extant species has a huge range in North America, and has a domesticated form found all over the world. The genus isn't vital at all. The domestic form is clearly vital. Wild turkey may also be vital, but let's get domestic turkeys listed first.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pig

The pig article covers animals in the genus Sus. Wild boar and domestic pig are on the vital list. Wild boars are broadly distributed, but the other species of Sus are restricted to small parts of southeast Asia. Doesn't seem to be anything vital about the genus itself. Also, Wikipedia choice to equate "pig" with Sus is pretty arbitrary. In most contexts pig equals domestic pig. While "pig" is sometimes more broadly defined to include relatives of the domestic pig, the broader definitions don't usually stop at Sus. I think most people using a broader concept of pig would consider a peccary to be just as much a pig as a Javan warty pig. Perhaps Suidae or Suina are worth including as vital, but Sus/Pig is not. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. I note that peccary is also listed. The only other member of Suidae that's worth considering is the common warthog but I don't think we need it. None of Sus, Suinae or Suidae look vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support I'm more familiar with the common warthog than peccary though I'm not sure whether either one is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jade

Valued by the Chinese as highly as gold and also prized in Mesoamerica, jade is as vital as any of the gems we currently have on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Arnoutf (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This one's been on the cards for ages, I was waiting for someone to open this, or i was gonna do it myself. Been brought up a couple of times in discussion, several people seem to like the idea of this.  Carlwev  15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Forward error correction

Quite specific and specialist, too much so, I believe, for this list. Also, we already list, Error detection and correction, (which itself seems quite specific) in the same sublist, which covers this topic. We also list Data transmission, which touches on it slightly too. Computer technology articles are usually articles that appear in many languages often well over 50, however this article only appears in about 15. Also there is a Category:Error detection and correction that contains 6 subcategories plus 120 articles including Forward error correction, which doesn't stand out as being much more important than all the other articles in this category.  Carlwev  16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Reluctantly support – error-correcting codes are vitally important for modern digital communication and information storage, but if we're not even listing something as basic as Recursion (computer science) (I wouldn't mind that proposal being reopened) then the error detection and correction overview article is enough. We need to add things like hash table, sorting algorithm or Dijkstra's algorithm first (all three are highly-viewed Top-importance CS articles). Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support the general article is appropriate here, not the more specific ones. Rwessel (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 11:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add after 30+ days, 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ivan Aivazovsky

A famous Armenian painter who was one of the greatest marine artists in history, and during his time he was quite famous both in and outside Russia.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not the best choice to represent 19th-century Russian painting, and I'm not sure 19th-century Russian painting even needs representation in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, failed Gizza (t)(c) 04:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jean-Léon Gérôme

A French painter who brought the Academic painting tradition to an artistic climax.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Again, not convinced that we need a painter from this tradition, or that Gérôme is the best choice. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose--Thi (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I think we have all the French artists we need. pbp 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add after 30+ days, 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Alphonse Mucha

A Czech Art Nouveau painter and decorative artist known best for his distinct style. He produced many paintings, illustrations, advertisements, postcards, and designs.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that he is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose On the one hand, he's probably a better choice than Beardsley. On the other hand, Eugène Delacroix, William Morris, Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele, Amedeo Modigliani and Joan Miró are all equally good if not better choices from the 19th and 20th centuries. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Being a core figure in the Art Nouveau movement guarantees his vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Hannah Arendt

Johanna "Hannah" Arendt (/ˈɛərənt/ or /ˈɑːrənt/; German: [ˈaːʀənt]; 14 October 1906 – 4 December 1975) was a German-born political theorist. Though often described as a philosopher, she rejected that label on the grounds that philosophy is concerned with "man in the singular" and instead described herself as a political theorist because her work centers on the fact that "men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world." An assimilated Jew, she escaped Europe during the Holocaust and became an American citizen. Her works deal with the nature of power, and the subjects of politics, direct democracy, authority, and totalitarianism. The Hannah Arendt Prize is named in her honor.

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that this article is not included in the list quite surprises me!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support A highly influential political theorist. Neljack (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support important political theorist. GuzzyG (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Add George Fox

We have the founders of Mormonism, Methodism, Christian Science, and other Protestant sects. I propose, since we're under quota, to add the founder of the Quaker movement. pbp 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  • Support as nom pbp 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  • Oppose--Thi (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a very small religious group (about 350000 people worldwide). I think listing both the religion (which is listed) and its founder would be overdoing it. Arnoutf (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would rather add William Penn to represent the Quakers. Besides being a Quaker, he is the founder of Pennsylvania. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

This is not the kind of proposal I expected after reading your comment on the underrepresentation of non-Christian religions. We do already list the Quakers. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Cobblet, I don't know who to add next for those religions. If somebody else who actually did made some proposals, I'd probably support them. pbp 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thi: What's your opposition rationale? pbp 18:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The article about the Quakers is on the list. Menno Simons is maybe not vital enough. [2] Maybe Emanuel Swedenborg. --Thi (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
In the area of smaller religions/belief systems, there is also Jehovah's Witnesses, the article says world figures for it are between 8M and 20M depending on level of involvement. There are also articles that have been removed Scientology (Hubbard has been mentioned a few times himself too, seems odd to consider him with Scientology's absence), we also had Ufology before, that or UFO itself wouldn't look completely out of place, but they were removed once before, so probably won't get in. We've never had Jehovah's Witnesses though, which has many more members compared to the Quakers, but a shorter history though.  Carlwev  15:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The other thing is some religions have outsized influence relative to their numbers. We cover Judaism pretty well on this list; though Judaism is a very old religion, it's been a very small one relative to total world population for a very long time. Scientology, Christian Science and Jehovah's Witness are all religions that pull above their weight. I'd personally also put Quakers in that category; most of the great reform movements in the U.S. and Britain have counted Quakers among their most fervent champions. pbp 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gordon Gould

Another in the controversial field but we do not list Theodore Harold Maiman who i think is as equally (if not more) important to the laser as him and we do not list him, the same circumstance as Saul Perlmutter where we removed him due to him not having a certain, higher influence compared to compatriots. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support- As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Agree that Maiman is as least as important. Neljack (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Despite my comments below, it's true we probably do list too many physicists compared to other types of scientists, and Gordon Gould doesn't have the strongest case to be included on the list. Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I'd support a swap if that's better? GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We previously removed Charles H. Townes for similar reasons, and I think we can afford to keep one person to represent modern optics. Hard to say who should get the most credit for inventing the laser though. Cobblet (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Add Ed Walsh

The pitcher who had the lowest ERA in the history of Major League Baseball.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too many baseball players as it is. pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Some Wikipedians claim that there are currently too many baseball players in the list, but I think that there are not enough ones in it, since though popularity of baseball is declining in Brazil, baseball is still becoming more and more popular in Israel and the Philippines, as professional baseball leagues were estalished in these two countries recently, thus popularity of baseball is not becoming less and less popular on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Tommy John

The first pitcher who received ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in the world.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too many baseball players as it is. pbp 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

On a side note, would the surgery itself be vital? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IMO, definitely not. A case could be made for sports medicine and possibly concussion. But look at the much more basic topics we're missing: elbow (and knee for that matter), tendon, and ligament are not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. This surgery is a bit too obscure to be added. I do think concussion should be added because it is one of the most common sports injuries and there is research into a concussion's effect on the brain right now. Sports medicine is more iffy to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
6-5, failed and not removed Gizza (t)(c) 01:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Thesaurus

If it isn't clear that textbooks or the other things I mentioned in the above discussion are vital, thesauri definitely aren't vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - GuzzyG (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support maybe this is just me but I expect an encyclopedia to have an article on synonyms before a reference work containing mainly synonyms. Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A Thesaurus may not be as important as a dictionary, but it is important enough that writers use them all the time in order to choose word choice. I have personally used thesauruses countless times when writing essays and other pieces of writing. That is why I think thesauruses are vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agree with PointsofNoReturn that they are vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I have to agree that a thesaurus qualifies as vital. As pointed out by User:DaGizza, synonyms are not counted in the list of vital articles. However, including the thesaurus, which is vital incidental to its use and prevalence in creative literature, would also obliquely include the concept of a synonym in the collection of vital articles. The thesaurus incorporates a number of concepts that are both notable and important in language and writing systems. Ergo Sum 04:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - per above Opposes. I'd call it a vital article without hesitation. Jusdafax 01:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Jut because writers use thesauri does not mean they are vital. People use rhyming dictionaries or bilingual dictionaries frequently; that does not make them vital. Nor is a desk or a writing desk vital. If frequency of use is all that matters than a cookbook is probably much more vital than a thesaurus. Not a single piece of information in the thesaurus article is vitally important for anyone to know. Cobblet (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

But thesauri are vital because they list synonyms of words and are vital to all forms of literature. Poet, novelists, and journalists alike all use thesauri. Desks are not necessarily used and are not necessarily vital (they might be, but that is a different discussion). Bilingual dictionaries are not as important because they are included in the article about dictionaries in a list and is simply a type of dictionary. Rhyming dictionaries are not as important because they are not used by as many writers and are again only a certain type of a dictionary. I voted to keep thesaurus because it is one of the most mainstream types of writing aides used by writers and everyday people worldwide. Thesaurus, dictionary, and encyclopedia sum up the list of writing aides well. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I repeat: not a single piece of information in the thesaurus article is vitally important for anyone to know. The question is not whether thesauri are frequently used, the question is whether anyone needs to look up this concept in an encyclopedia. Toilet paper is frequently used: that doesn't mean we have to include it on this list. Cobblet (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Then the article needs to be improved. That does not mean the article needs to be removed from the list. The article should describe it's importance and usage in all forms of literature and do a better job on it's history. But article quality is not a factor in determining whether an article should be included on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You know very well I'm not talking about the quality of the article – I didn't show up here yesterday. What notable facts are there concerning the history of the thesaurus? Why would anyone find it necessary (not merely interesting; otherwise everything in pop culture is interesting and therefore would be vital) to know such things? What do you even mean by "usage in all forms of literature"?
The Arts section is full. We could be listing a non-fictional genre of far greater significance like biography (which can also be regarded as a branch of history and could cover everything from hagiography to psychohistory). We could be listing genres that have served as important sources of information for historians like almanacs or diaries. We could be listing specific reference works of tremendous historical significance like Pliny's Natural History, the Etymologiae or the Yongle Encyclopedia. We could be listing literary elements like metre (poetry), irony or metaphor, genres of fiction like mystery fiction, or traditions of literary scholarship like comparative literature. But no, instead we have to list thesauri, even though the only thing one needs to know about them is what they are, and that's information that can be found in any dictionary entry. It's like toilet paper: you need to know what it is and what it's used for, but you don't need to read a Wikipedia featured article on toilet paper to consider yourself educated on issues of personal hygiene or household goods. Just because something has an important, common and frequent use doesn't make it vital.
I look at my bookshelf and I see cookbooks, travel guides, brochures, self-help books, coffee table books, sheet music, a style guide, ring binders containing notes, and notebooks. On my desk there are invoices and bank statements. All of these things are commonly used, and some of these things are definitely more notable than thesauri. For instance, when it comes to financial records, the invention of the double-entry bookkeeping system is considered a major milestone in the history of finance; some even say it's changed the world. Has anyone ever said the same of Roget's Thesaurus? Cobblet (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2015 (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.
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 stationery

No doubt it is crucial. Much more crucial than, say, paper clip.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it does not belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think we need to list this generic term – articles on the more notable stationery items are sufficient. Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add eraser, rubber band and envelope

No doubt they are all crucial, though not as crucial as stationery.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Envelope is slightly better than the others but I'd prefer listing packaging and labeling instead – the history of packaging would cover tin cans, shipping containers, vases, amphorae, folding cartons, jars, etc., along with paper envelopes. Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Ruler is more of a measuring instrument than a household item, and is the one thing here that might arguably be vital. Measuring length at with a high degree of accuracy and precision is an important, unappreciated aspect of civilization. Everything else is not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 09:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ruler would belong under Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Measurement in any event. Measuring_instrument, which is on the vital article's list, links to List of length, distance, or range measuring devices. The concepts of accuracy and precision are also already VAs. Rwessel (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I started moving measuring instruments under the physical quantities they measure (e.g. spectrometer under spectroscopy) since many of them were not listed there in the first place, e.g. clock or sextant. I don't know why I stopped. Ruler and calipers should go under length in math, for example. Cobblet (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've moved ruler to the measurement section.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added to Clothing and fashion Cobblet (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Nudity

Clothing is listed within the vital 100, then within the vital 10,000 we list many items of clothing, for that reason and more I think we should include the article about not wearing clothing; nudity. The article has relevance to social conventions for and against, eg western view of public nudity taboo almost, naturism, tribal and other cultures where nudity is either the norm, or at least widely accepted. As well as sexuality, pornography, art, including painting and film, and many other topics like showering/bathing imposed nudity and more....I am unsure of placement however, as it is relevant to more than one area, it could fit in clothing and fashion, social issues or sexuality. I am unsure, although leaning toward clothing and fashion, until someone can give a better argument to another section. The only things I can see that would cover this at all would be sexuality and clothing, but nudity isn't always sexual, and both clothing and sexuality sections contain many articles, so those articles don't make the topic redundant, any more than the other articles listed beneath them.  Carlwev  20:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm going to move "clothing and fashion" out of the household goods section (one encounters clothes outside the house as well; things like body piercing and swimsuit are not "household goods") and into their own section; then nudity clearly fits there as well. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Asian Games

Second largest multi-sport event in the world – bigger than even the Winter Olympics for instance. We have several sports leagues in North America and Europe: this event is the best choice to represent sport in Asia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  10:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support very good choice. Gizza (t)(c) 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Good way to increase the diversity of the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Seems very sensible, going since the 1950s. A very significant event that includes a huge chunk of the world, the biggest and most populous continent. We include several US/N American leagues, English and Spanish Football/Soccer leagues, not to mention many sports people like 14 tennis players and a few figure skaters. Any way, taking into account our coverage of sport, in the scheme of things, seems like a good idea to have this IMO.  Carlwev  10:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if any other multi-sport events could make it. The Commonwealth Games probably won't because the Commonwealth of Nations is already listed. Gizza (t)(c) 13:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. I think the Pan American Games are the next largest of these events (still consistently attracting twice the number of participants as the Winter Olympics) but nobody in North America at least pays any attention to it. Cobblet (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the Ancient Olympics has a shot. After we removed senet, I think gladiator and chaturanga may be the only historic games listed apart from sports still played today like running and wrestling. The Ancient Olympics is definitely more vital than chariot racing which nearly passed (5-3). Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to support this because there are a number of multi-sport events (Pan-Am Games being the first one that comes to mind; Commonwealth Games, Ancient Olympics and World Games being others) that are equally important as this, but not on this list. pbp 22:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
In the Americas, the Copa América, Copa Libertadores, college football and March Madness all matter more than the Pan Am Games. In Asia the AFC Asian Cup is definitely less important than the Asian Games; maybe the only league/event of comparable significance is the Indian Premier League but that hasn't been around for very long. Also it could probably be argued that Test cricket is more important than the Commonwealth Games. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2015 (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.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Match fixing

Undoubtedly crucial. Match fixing often causes people to distrust a particular professional sports league. For instance, the Black Eagles Incident caused many people stop attending CPBL games. And it is no less important than doping in sport, maybe more important since doping in sport, unlike match fixing, is less likely to cause people to distrust a sports league.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Essentially this is just one type of fraud. Various forms of counterfeiting (e.g. counterfeit money, counterfeit consumer goods or forgery) are more vital. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. This isn't a bad proposal but there are articles that should be come before it. Bribery, an act that is often the first stage of match fixing is more vital too. Gizza (t)(c) 09:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

We didn't add Cheating, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_30#Add_Cheating. Or Regulation Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_37#Add_regulation. We removed Regulation of sport, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_33#Remove_Regulation_of_sport. However we did add doping in sport, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_28#Swap:_Remove_Lance_Armstrong.2C_Add_Doping_in_sport.  Carlwev  19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Bribery and counterfeit should be added to the list. This does not mean that match fixing should not be included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I've moved this proposal from the Law section to the Sports and recreation section, since both match fixing and doping in sports are related to sports and law, and the latter currently belongs to the Sports and recreation section.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2015 (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.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 04:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Anno Domini

The most widely used labels for years in the Gregorian and Julian (the Gregorian calendar is already listed and doesn't really cover this) calendars. Used for the Julian calendar since around approximately the 9th century, and for the Gregorian calendar after its invention in the sixteenth century. Other terms are used interchangeably today such as Common Era (the most common variant), which came into use in the mid-nineteenth century. It's the same system, merely renamed. It is also covered within the Anno Domini article. This article also covers the fact that their isn't a "year 0" within the dating system.

Support
  1. Support as nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Calendar era seems like a better choice to me; it covers how years are numbered in other calendar traditions as well. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 09:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

The label is also mentioned very briefly at Year, which is already listed.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The nominator had made some spelling mistakes, which I corrected later.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 11:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC) fixed a little
The discussion above is closed. 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 and not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Georgetown University

It's the oldest Catholic institution of higher learning in the United States and played an integral role in the evolution of the American university. It also is historically significant for the manner in which it shaped and was involved in the history of the capital District of Columbia, particularly the historic district of Georgetown (Washington, D.C.). Additionally, it created the first school dedicated to international affairs in the United States (Walsh School of Foreign Service), which contributed to the formation of the US State Department's Foreign Service and is considered among the top in the world (ranked as the top by several publications). Its law school is frequently cited among the oldest and best in the United States. The Georgetown University campus contains several historic and functional buildings (e.g. Healy Hall). Lastly, its alumni include numerous prominent political leaders and royalty from the United States and around the world (see aforementioned link for list).

Support
Oppose
  1. Opppose already a large proportion of universities listed is US based (16/47). It might be ok to replace one, but I would object to adding yet another US university. Arnoutf (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Arnoutf. Gizza (t)(c) 06:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Opppose --Thi (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 grapheme

A grapheme is the smallest unit used in describing the writing system of a language, originally coined by analogy with the phoneme of spoken languages. A grapheme may or may not carry meaning by itself, and may or may not correspond to a single phoneme. Graphemes include alphabetic letters, typographic ligatures, Chinese characters, numerical digits, punctuation marks, and other individual symbols of any of the world's writing systems.

Support
  1. As nom. It is as crucial as phoneme and morpheme, however it currently does not belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No, it isn't. We already list many articles on types of graphemes, all of which are more useful to most readers than the technical concept, which is also already covered by writing system and orthography. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 language change

A definitely crucial article.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Redundant with historical linguistics. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Not redundant with historical linguistic at all, since morpheme to morphology is like language change to historical linguistics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Then let's remove morpheme. Cobblet (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There is arguably a parallel between language change and evolution, and between historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. We list one of each at the moment (historical linguistics and evolution). If anything, a second article on biological evolution seems more vital than a second on linguistic evolution although both are important. Gizza (t)(c) 14:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, both phonemes and morphemes are crucial concepts, thus both of them should be kept in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
But User:RekishiEJ, I have never seen you refer to something as not being a crucial concept, so I have no idea what you mean by that. Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (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 to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 stress (linguistics)

No doubt it is a crucial term in linguistics, along with prosody (linguistics) and intonation (linguistics).

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per above. Cobblet (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 lexicography

Now that there are learned societies dedicated to lexicography, and it is an important field, it should be included in this list. Besides, the Linguistics WikiProject has rated it Top-Importance.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by dictionary. Cobblet (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 lingua franca

No doubt it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Again covered by sociolinguistics. Cobblet (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. 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 Gizza (t)(c) 04:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 diacritic

Many written languages use diacritics, hence it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Should be covered by orthography. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose just as non-vital as punctuation. Gizza (t)(c) 05:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose They are very unimportant in English, and this is the English Wikipedia's list of vital articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Behavior, Add Human behavior

The article on behaviour is currently a grab-bag of four unrelated concepts that happen to share the word "behaviour" in their names. Since it's listed in the Psychology section, and human behaviour is a central object of study in psychology, I think this is a straightforward swap.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Human behaviour is something I'd like to add to the level 3 list. In fact I think there are several aspects of it and things that influence it (perception, learning, bonding or interpersonal relationships, motivation, personality, social norm, memory) that ought to be vital if, say, six types of writing scripts or political ideologies are vital. Cobblet (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 House sparrow

Very common bird, often as an introduced species. According to article "Its intentional or accidental introductions to many regions, including parts of Australia, Africa, and the Americas, make it the most widely distributed wild bird." Lives in many habitats including urban, and is prey to many animals too.  Carlwev  12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We include sparrow a group of bird species some may think that's enough, but we seem to be moving away from groups of species. Eurasian tree sparrow is also quite significant and not listed. However we do already list a few species in addition their family already, we list Old World flycatcher, then European robin and Common nightingale beneath it; plus Common raven underneath Corvus, then Corvus and Eurasian magpie under Corvidae. There may be more I'm not aware of because I don't know them well and they not indented? That being said the most widely distributed non domestic bird might still deserve a place.  Carlwev  12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Prosimian

Another obsolete taxon, superseded by Strepsirrhini which is listed. The other former prosimians, the tarsiers, are listed too.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dipodidae and Spermophilus

The dipodids aren't vital. The ground squirrels used to include the marmot and prairie dog but have been recently split up, and the species that still remain in Spermophilus don't look vital to me. We already list the marmot; I'll let you decide whether we should include the prairie dog as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

To my temperate northern hemisphere eyes, these two northern temperate groups look a little out of place in a list of rodents that is already mostly northern temperate. I can't come up with anything off the top of my head from the tropics or southern hemisphere to add, but the importance of Mongolian gerbils and golden hamsters as pets and in research seems higher than anything for Dipodidae and Spermophilus. Add house mouse, black rat, or brown rat? I'm not sure what the rodent listing should look like, but including Dipodiidae and Spermophilus isn't very compelling. Look to important rodents in other parts of the world or rodents that have a closer relationship to humans to fill out the vital list. Plantdrew (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the house mouse and brown rat ought to be very good choices for the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Talpidae

Most of the mole family is covered by Mole (animal) and the species that aren't (desmans and shrew moles) don't look too important, and are at any rate covered in the order Soricomorpha.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Guernsey cattle and Standardbred

Neither animal breed looks vital to me. Removing the standardbred horse has been brought up before.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Ulmaceae and Juglandaceae

Both relatively small families (<100 species if I'm not mistaken) as plant families go. We already list their most notable representatives, elm, walnut, pecan and hickory.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I've worked to add a few of the largest and most widely distributed plant families to the vital list, but haven't looked into removing smaller families before. Juglandaceae and Ulmaceae should go. The logic in including these seems to be that plants in these families are the major components of forests in the US and UK. But the genera comprising the forests in these areas are listed as well, so the families are kind of redundant. And following the logic that seems to have been operating previously, I'm not surprised to see that Fagaceae is on the vital list. That should go too; beech and oak cover the US/UK species. Plantdrew (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Portulaca oleracea

Purslane seems like an odd choice for a leafy vegetable. Watercress seems more vital for instance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jerusalem artichoke

Again a rather strange choice. Jicama and Xanthosoma (one of the genera also known as the cocoyam) are New World root vegetables with more widespread usage in global cuisine. If we look at "root vegetables" more broadly, shallot, wasabi or turmeric aren't listed either.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Legume

The legume family Fabaceae is already listed, and so is bean.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support redundant Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Nothofagus

Is this really the best choice for a tree from the Southern Hemisphere? Wouldn't acacia or Araucaria be better choices?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm really tempted to add acacia for a Southern/tropical plant (it was #109 for plant page views last month), but the botanical definition is a little divorced from common usage these days, and Wikipedia's acacia article waffles around about the definition. I'd learned that giraffes eat acacias as a child, but if there are no acacias in Africa, I'm less sure that they are vital. Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2015 (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.
Quotas changed per proposal 8-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Tweaking the science quotas

Latest comment: 8 years ago474 comments21 people in discussion

The earth science section is now the only part of the list that's over its quota (by four articles). I've proposed some removals over the last few months to try to solve this, with mixed success. At this point I can only think of things that to add to the list: from geology and mineralogy alone we're still missing two of the major rock-forming minerals (amphibole, also known as hornblende; and olivine), jade which I just nominated, potash, and two closely related sedimentary rocks, mudstone and shale. Maybe some of these are a bit technical and I'm not saying we have to add all of them, but really they're no more technical than Great Oxygenation Event which we agreed to add last year, or things on the list like alluvial fan or Hadley cell or thermohaline circulation. And again, those were just examples from geology and mineralogy. So I think we should try to raise the quota, even if only slightly.

I will say though that the quota for the physical sciences looks generous compared to the humanities and social sciences: the Arts, History and Society sections are all very close to full and we're only just getting around to adding topics as basic as literary criticism, radiocarbon dating and homelessness. Meanwhile in the physical sciences we have topics as specialized and advanced as H II region, organosulfur compounds and supersymmetry. So I don't think we should raise the quota for the entire sublist as a whole. Rather I propose rearranging the quotas for chemistry, earth sciences and physics as follows:

Topic Current article count Current quota Proposed quota
Chemistry 269 275 270
Earth science 254 250 260
Physics 263 275 270

That way all three sections are still under their quotas and the earth sciences get a little breathing room. It's a lot of fuss over a minor tweak, I know, but there's no point in having quotas if we don't follow them. Either we change the composition of the list, or we change the quotas.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Fine with me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This is reasonable. Another possible area to cut is biology. I have my doubts on whether the general reduction in organisms will be compensated by a corresponding increase in the non-organism sections but I may be wrong. Looking to other sections, social sciences is almost full and it seems that most addition proposals in the section pass. It could go over quota soon. Arts is close to the limit but while there are parts that could be expanded there are other sections that are excessive. Gizza (t)(c) 11:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We could cut biology (although I'm not sure by how much – at the moment I don't see us listing fewer than 900 organisms) but even so I don't think the physical sciences quota should be increased. Cobblet (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably a move in the right direction, Earth science is an area I can think of many interesting absent articles. I could probably think of more than one decent missing chemistry article though. But we can always revisit quotas and of course remove things.  Carlwev  07:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The chemistry section does need some help, but there are some fairly obvious candidates for removal (organic/inorganic compound are redundant to their branches of chemistry; I don't think we need the conjugate bases of the mineral acids; tannic acid isn't vital; we could probably get by without dispersion or vapor) so I'd like to see how far we can get with swaps first. Cobblet (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2015 (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.

Berry and Berry (botany)

The "Berry" page has been split, with the colloquial and horticultural use of the term now at Berry and the botanical/scientific use of the term at Berry (botany). I suspect that only the latter should be listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences. Certainly it's the one that belongs under "Plant morphology and anatomy". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Cobblet (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, as no-one has dissented, I'll do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Rupert Murdoch added, Ted Turner not removed Gizza (t)(c) 00:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ted Turner, Add Rupert Murdoch

Another controversial move but i think Murdoch arguably had a bigger impact on the media and in all fields of it then cable news. Especially considering he pulled off the Fourth television network which people thought was unfathomable at the time. Also had impact on three continents (UK, US and Australia) GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Rupert Murdoch should be added since he is now a media tycoon.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rupert Murdoch per above. In terms of print, Murdoch only owns media in three countries but when it comes to film and television, he owns assets in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Much of the world. Neutral on Ted Turner for the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 09:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support addition Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support addition, Oppose removal. Ted Turner pioneered Cable news and created CNN. He is vital for that reason. Rupert Murdoch is also vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Ted Turner should be kept since he is the man who created the world's first TV news channel, which made television station owners think that TV news can make profit, hence TV news became less informative and more recreational.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ted Turner should remain on this list. Considering the effect of cable TV on the media landscape, he needs to be on there. Rupert Murdoch has his thumbs in a lot of pots, but he's not particularly innovative. He may belong on this list, but not at the expense of Turner. pbp 01:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I strongly urge the retention of Turner, per the above Opposes. Jusdafax 01:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  • We mention the fourth television network. I don't think we have people from each of the first three. pbp 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Both NBC and ABC were companies originally owned by Sarnoff. CBS is represented by Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cobblet:, Well, that's assuming Sarnoff passes. I'm inclined to say that Turner's more significant than Sarnoff. I'm also inclined to say that a single television exec (if Sarnoff fails) or two television execs (if Sarnoff passes) is low. Really low when you compare it to the number of film directors and producers we have. And especially low when you remember that Murdock (if swapped) draws a great deal of notoriety from his publishing interests, not his television stations. And with CBS only being represented by anchormen (and late night hosts) and the other two networks sharing a figure, the "fourth network" argument still seems weak. pbp 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
That Murdoch's activities in both the publishing and TV industries were notable makes him more vital, not less. In light of the prominent businesspeople we're missing, two TV execs is plenty. Where's Jack Welch? Alfred P. Sloan? Thomas Watson Jr.? Estée Lauder? Henry Luce? Henry J. Kaiser? Sakichi Toyoda? Richard Arkwright? Josiah Wedgwood? Todar Mal? Marcus Licinius Crassus? Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Some of those people should be on this list. Some of them have been either removed, or been failed add proposals. Awhile back, I proposed Sloan and it failed. pbp 15:44, 5 August 2015 (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.
2 passes - Velcro removed 5-0 and Diaper added 6-0

The following discussion is closed. 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 Diaper

This has been mentioned by several people before. It certainly seems more vital to me than baby transport.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support important thing for younger children. GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support per Cobblet, GuzzyG and Carlwev. Gizza (t)(c) 10:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Pram, pushchair and buggy are covered in baby transport, more widely used than the wheelchair which we have too. Everyone was a baby once, not everyone needs a wheelchair. I think there's room for both anyway.  Carlwev  18:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Velcro

The article actually talks about the manufacturing company, not hook and loop fasteners. It's clearly not a vital company. And hook and loop fasteners are not as vital as the unlisted buckle (button and zipper are on the list). Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support This is like listing YKK Group instead of zipper. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2015 (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.
Economic growth added, no consensus to add economic system Gizza (t)(c) 01:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 system and economic growth

Undoubtedly crucial concepts.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support economic growth. Gizza (t)(c) 13:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support economic growth. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I had proposed it here before, but my proposal was not passed (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_38#Add_economic_system.2C_economic_growth.2C_Gini_coefficient.2C_Misery_index_.28economics.29_and_Human_Development_Index).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Economics is a tricky area. It seems a bit too much to include both economic growth and GDP, and say recession or economic cycle. Economic system likewise is an informative article when you read it but how unique is it when most of the systems are listed? Gizza (t)(c) 12:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed Sápmi and Creole people - Added Sami people and Iroquis - All 5-0 support, 15 day min

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sápmi, Add Sami people

Sápmi (also known as Lapland) is a cultural region only notable for the indigenous Sami people that live there. The region is not defined politically. There is nothing else that Northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and Northwestern Russia have in common. And the people are not notable enough to have their region listed as well unlike say Tibet/Tibetan people and Kurds/Kurdistan. We don't list both Inuit people (also known as Eskimos) and Nunavut, the more famous Arctic culture.

Support
  1. As nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree it's better to list the Laplanders rather than Lapland. Transnational ethnic groups are better represented by the article on the people than the article on the area they inhabit. It's only when their homeland has political autonomy and can genuinely represent their interests that I prefer listing the area rather than the people. Cobblet (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Iroquois

User:PointsofNoReturn's excellent suggestion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Creole people

Redundant to creole language. Speaking a creole language does not unify creole people in any sort of way and it is pointless to have it listed when we could be listing another ethnic group. Even if a famous mixed-race people like Mestizo or Métis would be better. Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support This ethnic label is most frequently associated with the Spanish colonial caste system: we could add casta to cover this and other labels like mestizo or mulatto. Cobblet (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2015 (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.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 13:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 sports journalism

I believe that the best way to represent sportswriting is with this article, rather than a particular guy or publication

Support
  1. pbp 15:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 02:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

If this is the only genre of journalism we're adding, we're basically saying that sports journalism is the most vital form of journalism – more important than, say, investigative journalism. The Society section is essentially full under the current quota, pending passage of a couple of proposals with four !votes to none, so we should be careful deciding what to add next. Cobblet (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (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
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 12:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 color photography

No doubt this article is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If we had an article on colour reproduction that would be the obvious choice; alas, we don't. IMO colour photography by itself is not really vital: I think the coverage in Photography#Color, Photographic film#Color and Charge-coupled device#Color cameras suffices for our purposes. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose While technically interesting, it's conceptually a straight-forward enhancement of B&W photography. Rwessel (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. 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) 12:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 terrestrial television

This article is as crucial as cable television and satellite television.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per prior consensus. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed it before, however the proposal was rejected (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_36#Add_mechanical_television.2C_analog_television.2C_digital_television.2C_terrestrial_television.2C_pay_television_and_IPTV).--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (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 1-4 Gizza (t)(c) 12:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 color television

No doubt it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Colour TV was developed in the 60s; TV only became popular in the 50s. As such the appearance of colour TV hardly marks a new "era" in the history of television (monochrome television does not exist as an article) and Television#History ought to cover this in sufficient detail. Cobblet (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose It's a straightforward extension/enhancement of monochrome (B&W) TV. Rwessel (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. 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 votes in 30+ days, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 12:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 statistic

No doubt it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered in Statistics#Terminology and theory of inferential statistics. Cobblet (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sports statistics?

Anybody think we should have an article representing sports statistics in general, and, if so, which one? pbp 17:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actuarial science, bioinformatics, data mining, geographic information system and machine learning should all be higher priorities. You can get college degrees and do postgraduate research in those fields; I don't think that's true of sabermetrics. Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Provable security, Add Computer security

Whether an encryption method can be mathematically proven to be "secure" (and what that even means in the first place) is a topic for cryptography and P versus NP problem; I don't think it needs to be listed on its own. Far more vital is the notion of security as it applies generally to computer networks and data. Computer virus only describes one of the many means by which security might be compromised.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support this was on my list. GuzzyG (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We probably should have physical security too. And if encryption is vital cryptanalysis ought to be as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of the remove more than the addition, but it's still a good swap. We have security itself already, physical security, not sure about it, but it's worth considering at least. I was thinking about computer-ish topics more relevant to the everyday person. We have several operating systems in computing, several articles within computer software, and internet, programming and programming languages. The everyday person may not be effected much or at least aware of the influence of different programming languages, but things that use computers and telecommunications that are used by many people in the developed world are not included like, Automated teller machine for instance. Yes covered by banking I suppose, but all the computer articles would also be covered by a parent article too, but we go into detail there. For security type articles we could consider things like surveillance, authoritarianism. Are any of these less vital than say Berkeley Software Distribution, which we have in addition to Unix. Even things like vending machine or image scanner, or even barcode seem better than BSD.  Carlwev  16:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

I wasn't aware we already listed security. I'd consider swapping that out for physical security then. And maybe swap BSD for open source (although I just noticed we have open-source software). For security subtopics I'd consider surveillance and cyberwarfare. Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I think open source is worth considering, maybe cyberwarfare too, but I'm not as sure on that one.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Berkeley Software Distribution

It has been said several times computer section is bloated. This article I think stands out as less vital, it maybe important but it is simply not as notable as windows dos and mac. We have Unix and Open-source software which cover some of the same territory as this or at least are reasons for its notability. There are many information or computing articles missing, such as image scanner which I'm nominating below. An article like this may be of interest to specialist encyclopedias, but at the moment our Computing and information technology section has 80 articles which includes software and hardware, programming and languages, internet and network topics, data and cryptography topics, and general computer science topics. With all that to cram into 80 slots I don't think BSD is within the top 100 computer articles IMO. We have 7 articles under operating systems, which is nearly one in ten of all our computer and information tech articles. From websites we have removed fairly significant sites like Twitter and eBay, which are probably equal if not higher importance.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Unix and Linux are enough to cover this family of operating systems. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Unix is vital, but not a particular version thereof (with the probable exception of Linux, yes, I know Linux is not Unix, but it's pretty close). Rwessel (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Image scanner

Computer scanner, image scanner or just scanner. IMO as we include all the basic computer hardware, motherboard, keyboard, mouse, monitor, printer and more, this should be in too. Scanners are not really covered by anything other than basic hardware, but actually we don't list computer hardware anyway. In addition to many specific or specialist topics in computing, we include more similar articles of electronic devices and components under media and communication section and electronics section, and also optics. Many of the articles are more specific or specialized or are not as widely used as scanners. There are too many too mention, but we have things like 7 articles for operating systems, 12 for internet and networks, not including individual websites under another section, 12 articles under programming including languages. We list things like Fresnel lens, mobile device many of these seem less vital, plus many more things, I won't list them all. I think image scanner more vital than many articles in the tech list. I am looking for removals at the moment too.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Good find. I wonder if fax should be listed too. It is probably at the level of blackboard and just misses out. Gizza (t)(c) 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I would probably support fax, but I seem to like tech articles more than other users, I would support many tech articles suggested here and there on this talk page past and present; Except many software ones. I wanted to keep CD, but we removed it as redundant to optical disc, which does cover it. But to me it seems more vital than C++, Unix and Linux, but maybe its just me. I have a long list on my own talk page with suggestions, some of them are tech articles.  Carlwev  17:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's tricky to compare CD with programming languages. When you go to the information technology section of a library, you would find many more books on C++ and even obscure programming languages not listed here than books about the CD. That and the fact the CDs hardly lasted for a generation doesn't make it very vital in my opinion. Cassettes and floppy disks were popular before the CD and nowadays the CD has been replaced by the USB flash drive and digital storage. At least photographic film was around for a much longer time and vinyl record (which isn't listed) died out but is experiencing a modern revival. Gizza (t)(c) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (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.
1-6 after 15 days, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 09:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Windows 10

I believe that Windows 10 should be added as a subtopic under Microsoft Windows. Daylen (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Daylen
Oppose
  1. Oppose While Windows is vital due to its enormous user base, a particular version is not. Rwessel (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Rwessel. Gizza (t)(c) 11:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Recentism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Too soon, and no need to have this or any other specific version of Windows pbp 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2015 (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.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 06:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Container

A container is such a basic concept that its importance in allowing human civilization to exist is often overlooked. However, it was the container that allowed mankind to spread throughout the world (by enabling the carrying of more food than could be held in the hands alone), and almost everything we consume is now distributed in containers. bd2412 T 15:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. bd2412 T 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We've added bag and basket weaving recently; pottery and canning are listed; and other types of containers I can think of are usually covered by the article related to the material, e.g. an article that talks about the uses and history of glass must necessarily cover glass containers, and the making of wooden containers can be covered by woodworking. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 06:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. BD2412, you forgot to add a support vote.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer packaging and labeling to be listed first. I can't see container being more vital than box, bottle, jar,basket, canning and barrel. Gizza (t)(c) 11:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
All of those are kinds of container. A box is a square container; a bottle is a usually cylindrical glass container; a jar is another usually cylindrical glass container, etc. How can a topic be less vital than a collection of things that are subtopics of itself? bd2412 T 13:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This happens quite often. Cutting tool (which is a redirect) is less vital than knife or axe or scissors. Straightedge is less vital than ruler. Writing implement is less vital than pen or pencil. It all comes down to how people typically conceptualize things, how they organize their knowledge or research, and what they end up actually looking for in an encyclopedia. One can choose all manner of umbrella terms to compartmentalize an important subject like tools, but just because these umbrella terms are broader in scope does not mean that we must consider all of them high priorities for Wikipedia. Sometimes we have a choice: for example, let's compare "container" to "packaging". There's no "World Container Organization" or Journal of Containers that I'm aware of; but there is a World Packaging Organization, an Institute of Packaging Professionals, a food industry-funded research group called the Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging, and journals called Packaging Technology and Science, Packaging Research and Food Packaging and Shelf Life. Packaging and labeling gets four times as many page views as "container" itself.
When I look up "history of containers" the results I get are not histories that begin with something like Ötzi#Tools and equipment; rather they're all about containerization, i.e. container shipping. That's another example of a specific article in the container umbrella that receives over twice as many page views as "container", and is an article I'd be much more willing to add. The question is whether it's more significant than other modern technological innovations we don't list, e.g. electric car, catalytic converter, supersonic aircraft, desalination, center pivot irrigation, smartphone, engineered wood, etc. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2015 (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 to add 2-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 color printing

This technology is now quite widespread, and absolultely crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Colour printing is better since not only is printing more important than photography, but also we don't have anything that describes the CMYK process used in modern colour printing. I'd be OK with listing either colour printing or the CMYK model, but would prefer the latter since it's how basically all colour printing is done nowadays and I think the article on the modern technique is better to have – historical aspects of colour printing should be covered adequately in Printing#History. Also listing CMYK would make cyan and magenta obviously redundant (they have hardly any significance outside of printing) and we could remove those articles from the list. I'll point out that the reason color printing on a large scale is practical nowadays is because of the invention of offset printing, which is based on the technique of lithography – we should have something on those topics if we're going to include something on colour reproduction in printing. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2015 (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 to add 1-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sorting algorithm

Quicksort has been nominated before without success, but sorting algorithms as a whole are definitely vital – they're one of the most common encountered types of algorithms and they're taught in any introductory computer science class.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  1. Waffle - The only specific algorithm we have listed now is Numerical integration. I'm not really sure that any specific (or class of) algorithm is really vital at this level. Algorithm leads to all of those. Perhaps that's sufficient (and yes, I'm thinking Numerical integration probably should be moved to the Calculus section). And if we do include sorting, what about graph, tree, search, and a few dozen other classes, at least as vital as sorting? Rwessel (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much one can expect algorithm to say about specific types of algorithms since it's such a broad topic – it has to cover everything from the Euclidean algorithm to Shor's algorithm. Personally I'm OK with including a couple more basic types of algorithms or the types of problems they solve, say Dijkstra's algorithm/shortest path problem, tree traversal, or Monte Carlo method. These are highly-viewed CS articles, and I think many more people would benefit from reading high- quality articles on topics like these than topics like the Atiyah–Singer index theorem or homological algebra.
Numerical integration's definitely misplaced – I think it would fit best under numerical analysis. Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, sorting has the advantage of being a readily understandable concept (for non-specialists), while being a quite rich subject. Does that help make it vital? (That's a serious question, BTW.) And why exactly would we choose Dijkstra's algorithm (or the particular problem), rather than a more generic group like graph or tree traversal/search? Rwessel (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it has more to do with the fact that sorting and searching are both tasks with wide applicability in programming – algorithms for both are taught early on for that reason. It's their usefulness rather than their intuitiveness that makes them vital. Something like graph coloring is also pretty intuitive, but isn't quite as generally useful, so that seems less vital to me. (We list the four color theorem because it's famous, but for reasons that have nothing to do with its applicability.)
Sometimes there are common concepts that I think are actually more vital because they're less intuitive – for example I think recursion's a little more vital than iteration (although maybe both are still vital). Bottom line is, I think the usefulness and complexity of a concept are two of the reasons people look things up on Wikipedia; it's these topics, that many people need to know about and can't easily figure out on their own, that I think we should make a priority for our list.
I think you're absolutely right that Dijkstra's algorithm is too specific for our list in the same way quicksort's too specific. (I mentioned it just because it gets a lot of hits.) How about we just include sorting algorithm and search algorithm then? I suppose most of the common graph-traversing algorithms would fall into the second category. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2015 (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.
Biological classification removed since it redirects to the listed taxonomy (biology) Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 biological classification, add taxon taxonomic rank

The former was merged into taxonomy (biology), which now belongs to the list. The latter is by no doubt vital, however it currently does not belong to the list.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that taxonomic rank is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC) changes the proposal: The taxonomic terms, kingdom, genus and species are called taxonomic ranks rather than taxa.
  2. Support removal. Oppose addition. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

While obviously the redirect isn't vital, I think both taxon and taxonomic rank should be adequately covered by taxonomy. I would suggest adding cladistics instead, which is a specific modern approach to phylogenetic analysis, distinguishable from phenetics. Cobblet (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the cladistics article is that it and phylogenetics aren't scoped very clearly and defining the scope has been contentious. The phylogenetics article claims that "cladistics" is a term for the methodology employed by phylogeneticists, while cladistics article claims that "phylogenetics" is a term for the methodology employed by cladists. If the articles ever settle on a clear definition and scope, I do think cladistics would be worth including. I wrote a little more last time cladistics was nominated. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 27#Add Cladistics
We shouldn't keep biological classification if it's a redirect, but I'm do think the list needs some formatting. Right now all of the classification stuff is treated as subtopics of phylogenetics. That's not right. Biological classification would make a better header for organizing these topics. We do have headers in bold that aren't on the vital list themselves, so maybe we could use biological classification as the header here. Plantdrew (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Plant's header idea, I would just go ahead and alter it, if you think you need support I give mine. There are headers which are not articles themselves, I presume in an effort to be correct like this, within biology and probably elsewhere too. I know of many within organisms for example, at least one I created myself. I altered Dinosaurs header to prehistoric reptiles and dinosaurs, as the extinct flying and swimming reptiles we list are not technically dinosaurs although usually lumped with them and often thought to be so by some people. I didn't ask or inform on the talk page about it I just did it, as I saw the previous header as incorrect. Was it wrong? I don't think so, no one mentioned or complained at all, no articles were added or removed and I have seen other users make similar adjustments.
But on the other hand I suggested through a vote thread to alter the inventors list header to inventors and engineers as some of the inclusive listed people and candidates are usually described as engineers not inventors and may have technically invented little or nothing themselves. I though the change was simple, logical, and correct but not enough votes agreed, maybe we'll revisit? who knows? I'd still alter this one biological classification one though.  Carlwev  19:58, 31 July 2015 (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 votes or discussion in 30+ days, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 05:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Conservation biology

We have several nature parks in geography, I think the over view article about conservation in general is needed too. Of interest to experts and general readers, and obviously an international issue as well. There are several articles I looked at, this was the best one I could find. Others I looked at and considered were Conservation (ethic), nature reserve, protected area, Conservation movement. I was mostly looking at nature reserve, I would consider starting a thread for that too, but I'm conscious of the overlap with national park which we include already; although nature reserve includes small areas that are not actual national parks. Also the general idea of conservation, seems to be split across at least 2 articles, conservation biology and conservation (ethic), this concerns me a bit, but I still think this is the better article.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Conservation biology is the scientific study of biodiversity and ways to protect it, so it's redundant to biodiversity and wildlife conservation. If we want this sort of redundancy then our priorities should be to add cell biology, evolutionary biology, and possibly even some of the omics (especially genomics since we don't even have genome yet). If not, the next field of biology I'd add is biogeography. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Environmentalism is included here and in the 1000 list as well. I'm aware there is overlap, but I think environmentalism is a wider concept and conservation a bit more specific and it's not unusual to expand upon topics present at the 1000 level.  Carlwev  19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I missed that we have wildlife conservation, that only appears in 3 languages English, Esperanto and Ukranian, and has 16 references. Conservation biology is present in 32 languages and has over 3 times the content of wildlife conservation and has 140 references. They definitely overlap in content, and I can understand only wanting one, I suppose it just depends on which article or term one prefers. In English and other languages people seem to pay much more attention edit wise to Conservation biology. But on the flip side the opposite it true if one looks at page views, wildlife conservation gets more views, sometimes 2 or 3 times as many page views compared to conservation biology. So I don't know?  Carlwev  22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really care which one we list, but we don't need both. You might also want to see how environmental protection compares to those. Cobblet (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All removed 6-0/5-1 Cobblet (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Grebe, Mousebird, Sandgrouse, Tropicbird, Treeswift, Hamerkop, Spoonbill, Bee-eater and Jacamar

I don't see any convincing reasons why these birds should be considered vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support removing treeswift, hamerkop, spoonbill, bee-eater and jacamar. Oppose/neutral on the first four for now (see below) Plantdrew (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Grebe, mousebird, sandgrouse and tropicbird correspond to orders (i.e. the major subdivisions of birds/class Aves). There are 33 extant orders listed at bird]. Not all are on the vital list, and while I think orders are fairly important for birds, I don't think the vital list should include all 33. I'm not quite sure of the logic for including particular orders at present, or where the cutoff should be. The vital list does include hoatzin, presumably because it is a well known enigmatic evolutionary relic at the family level. Well maybe not "well known", but I'd heard of them before. Mousebirds are an enigmatic evolutionary relic at the order level (that I personally hadn't heard of before). I'd keep them for now, but could become convinced to delete once the vital birds get cleaned up further. Plantdrew (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't considered the taxonomic levels particularly important since they're so fluid these days. For instance the tropicbirds weren't given their own order until a couple years ago. There are strong indications that the grebes are related to the flamingos although it's still common to classify them as two separate orders. I think it would be easy to find a dozen examples of well-known extinct species we should consider including (look at how few prehistoric reptiles or mammals we include; aurochs, thylacine and Megalodon are three species I've come very close to nominating in the past), so just being a living fossil on its own isn't enough to persuade me to keep a taxon. The hoatzin is a particularly good example of a living fossil though since its chicks have claws on their wings. I don't have any further plans to work on the list of organisms in the near future, except maybe the odd addition or two, e.g. I think it would make sense to add sea urchin and sea cucumber. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to cry if somebody else comes along with a 5th support for removing all 9 of the nominated articles. I'm just not quite ready to go quite that far myself. Plantdrew (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As always I look forward to reading your feedback. I realized my original rationale was a bit lacking and wanted to explain myself a little more. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 True owl and Barn-owl

I don't think we need to list the two owl families. Owl plus one notable species from each family is good enough.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

We now have both barn owl and barn-owl! Cobblet (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Callitrichidae, Cebidae, Night monkey and Atelidae, Add Spider monkey and Capuchin monkey

For the apes and Old World monkeys, we include notable genera and species like baboon or common chimpanzee, but not families like Cercopithecinae or even Hominidae. So I think we should do the same for the New World monkeys. I propose removing the four families we list and adding the two most notable genera, the spider and capuchin monkeys (although whether the latter should be one genus or two is currently controversial).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Colugo

The two species of flying lemurs make up their own order, but are they really more notable than the flying squirrels or the sugar glider, which are other gliding mammals we don't list?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Not all mammal orders are listed (treeshrew and elephant shrew are unlisted and have more species), and order status is about all colugo has going it for it vital article-wise. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Fagaceae

Per Plantdrew's comments above. Oak and beech are listed; other major members of the family are Lithocarpus and Castanopsis which occur in Asia, but there must be many better examples of Asian trees to include, say banyan, larch, sugi, ume or Osmanthus fragrans.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support as having suggested it. Plantdrew (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pine nut

Do we really need both pine and pine nuts? Pistachio gets more views and isn't listed. Sure, pine nuts are used in pesto, but we don't list capers or rosemary either and those are also important in Italian cuisine. Also, the pine sap-related products historically known as naval stores are at least as vital as pine nuts – things like turpentine, pitch (resin), pine tar and rosin were crucial during the Age of Sail and still retain specialty uses today. (The article on turpentine actually gets more views than the one on pine nuts.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pistachio is a better choice of nut. Gizza (t)(c) 09:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  20:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Henna

Used in much of the old world since ancient times.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support I can support adding a source of natural dye that's this culturally significant. Not sure if any more are necessary though. Cobblet (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Brown rat

Perhaps the most successful mammal (along with humans) in terms of its ubiquitous distribution. Fancy rats and lab rats are both descended from it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Alpaca

Somehow we have all the other South American camelids (llama, vicuña, guanaco) except for this one, which has been domesticated for its fur for thousands of years.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support I'm not sure that vicuna and guanaco should be listed. Alpaca should certainly be listed if vicuna and guanaco are. Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  17:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Atheriniformes

When it comes to mid-level taxa I think we should only be including those that are either comparatively large among their peers or have some sort of special significance. This is a relatively non-notable fish order of below-average size. (FishBase classifies about 33,000 species of fish into 62 orders.) We already list at least half a dozen other types of whitebait.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Stomiiformes

Another fish order with a below-average number of species. We list deep sea fish and have a specific example in anglerfish. Lanternfish might make a better choice due to sheer biomass. A concept such as bioluminescence would also be more vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sea urchin and Sea cucumber

We need more echinoderms besides starfish. Besides being just generally well-known, these animals also have culinary and economic importance in Asia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 09:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cigarette

One of the most widely consumed drugs/items. We have Smoking and tobacco, but for alcohol for example we have, alcoholic beverage, alcoholism, pub, bar and about 14 individual alcoholic drinks. Cigarettes are more widely consumed than Gin or something else like mustard. Although smoking is in, the article on the commercially manufactured item and it's history, design, advertising and influence on culture and health is not excessive compared to the alcohol topics we have (I don't necessarily want to remove any alcohol topics just making a comparison).

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I might start discussion on the 1000 talk page were it belongs, but whilst on the topic I am thinking about the inclusion of tobacco at the 1000 list, seems more vital than another crop like soybean, thoughts.  Carlwev  18:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

But we have smoking on the level 3 list. And I'm sorry, but there's no way I can support swapping soybeans for tobacco. That might be even worse then swapping cheese for opium. Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
OK fair enough, Soybean seams for vital than I realized too.  Carlwev  18:55, 15 September 2015 (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 to add 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 industrial organization and international economics

A typical beginners' economics textbook first covers microeconomics, then industrial organization, then macroeconomics, and finally international economics, therefore industrial organization and international economics are not less vital than microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose International economics is redundant to international trade, international relations and exchange rate. Industrial organization is redundant to microeconomics and the listed market structures (monopoly and perfect competition). Gizza (t)(c) 11:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed it here before, however my proposal din't get passed due to insuffient support (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_39#Add_industrial_organization_and_international_economics).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2015 (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.
Classical Arabic added 5-0; Biblical Hebrew not added 3-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Biblical Hebrew and Classical Arabic

The former is crucial since it is the language used in the Hebrew Bible. The latter is crucial as well since its modernized version, Modern Standard Arabic is currently the lingua franca among Arabs.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. As far as classical languages go, no doubt they are both up there in vitality. Gizza (t)(c) 14:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Classical Arabic, Oppose Biblical Hebrew. Per Edward Sapir: "There are just five languages that have had an overwhelming significance as carriers of culture. They are classical Chinese, Sanskrit, Arabic, Greek, and Latin. In comparison with these even such culturally important languages as Hebrew and French sink into a secondary position." (Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech, 1921.)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Arabic  Carlwev  17:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

On this subject, Vulgar Latin, also entered my thoughts as fairly important; although we have Latin itself, and Romance languages, which it led to...I am only thinking out loud as there are many forms of Latin seen here: Category:Forms of Latin  Carlwev  20:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

By my count, there are 11 extinct languages on the list. Two of them, Middle and Old English, are significant mainly because this is the English language Wikipedia. The remaining nine are Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Ancient Greek, Pali, Sanskrit, Latin, Old Church Slavonic and Classical Chinese. Hebrew language, which is listed, discusses the entire history of the language and not just the Biblical or Modern forms. Gizza (t)(c) 13:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 censorship

This article is absolutely vital. It is closely related to freedom of expression.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Carlwev  08:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

It may be too closely related to freedom of speech. I could support a swap. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (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 to add 1-1 Cobblet (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 counterfeit

This article is, in my opinion, no less crucial than fraud.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose A poorly focused topic. Besides, we need trademark before we start talking about trademark infringement. And even that might be too specific: maybe what we need before that is brand. Cobblet (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

You have a number of proposals on this page with three or more supporting !votes and the Society section will be over its quota if they all get added. I won't support any more of your proposed additions if you do not propose deletions or an increase in the quota. Cobblet (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Particular types of counterfeit, counterfeit money being the obvious one, are probably more vital than the broader unfocused topic. I wouldn't mind counterfeit money replacing one of the currencies we have. It is touched upon in banknote and coin but only ever so slightly. Gizza (t)(c) 05:14, 23 August 2015 (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 to add 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 bribery

This article is no less crucial than fraud.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by corruption. Cobblet (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 perjury

This article is, no doubt vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Should be covered by witness. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It's a small crime in the scheme of things. Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Domestic violence

An important social issue. Covers everything from economic abuse to honour killings.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Domestic violence is a unique issue of its own historically very distinct from non-domestic types of violence. There are more specific forms of violence included in the list nowhere near as important as domestic violence. Duel for instance. Gizza (t)(c) 11:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Though domestic violence is just a type of violence, it is still crucial since children are more likely to be harmed by domestic violence than other types of violence, e.g. school violence and legislative violence.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 03:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC) fixed
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Violence is already listed. Though violence could perhaps use some expansion, domestic violence could be adequately covered there, and is already to a certain extent.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I didn't realize duel was in, within the war and military section; that does seem less important. Among crimes there is also assault, battery, robbery, rape, torture, piracy, all violent crimes, most if not all of the time. We do list other things covered by violence in some way already. Completely different but, not to mention all the types of warfare and other military topics, from the war side of violence.  Carlwev  12:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 surrender (military)

Much like declaration of war which was removed awhile ago, surrender isn't really vital. Nobody needs to read an entire article on how armies raise a white flag. It is one of many laws of war, all of which are redundant to the main article.

Support
  1. As nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support We could be listing truly vital encyclopedic topics like mercenary, military use of children or jihad instead of words that people can just look up in the dictionary. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

FWIW, surrender is a disambiguation page. That usually means that the people who made the page thought that military surrender isn't important enough to be the primary topic. Gizza (t)(c) 10:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Combat

Redundant with war and violence.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support smaller scale combat is also redundant to martial arts. Gizza (t)(c) 01:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Offensive (military)

Redundant with invasion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support the articles cover the same ground. Beyond Vital Articles' scope but they could even be merged. Gizza (t)(c) 01:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Military campaign, Add Peacekeeping

"Military campaign" is redundant with war and military strategy. I propose replacing it with an important type of MOOTW.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support we already have the other main MOOTW in emergency management. Gizza (t)(c) 05:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

User:PointsofNoReturn, is that a support or oppose !vote? Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I did it again. Good catch. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gouda cheese

I'm not sure whether we should be including more cuisines or not, but there are certainly about a dozen cuisines I'd rather list before a semi-notable type of cheese like Gouda.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support I've always felt that there are too many cheeses on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 11:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Food is a very inconsistent section at the moment. We have hot dog in addition to sausage and sandwich but don't have kebab or barbecue, breakfast cereal but no toast or omelette, hamburger but no fried chicken, veal but no goat meat, turkey meat or duck (food), biscuits and potato chips but no doughnut, 13 articles on alcoholic drinks (including distilled beverage when we already have distillation and the prime examples of distilled beverages) but nothing on cigarettes. Even within alcoholic drinks, is there a reason why tequila is not listed while gin and sake are? Gizza (t)(c) 11:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree the section needs a rethink. I don't think there's anything wrong with listing gin and sake but I agree tequila's as notable as the other spirits on the list. How do you feel about listing tequila vs. Mexican cuisine or kebab vs. Middle Eastern cuisine? Cobblet (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The food section had a review a while back, we can review it again of course, I'm interested in that, I helped last time and would be happy to do so again. We had 10 types of cheese at one point, which was way too many, we removed many, this can go too, was nominated before but failed, this time it'll probably go. Many of the things you suggest are worth thinking about adding and removing, although one or two I don't like, but most sound good. Some cuisines are worth thinking about Mexican cuisine has been bought up twice but failed, although there was some support for it but not enough, but it still may have a chance. I think goat meat, cigarettes, kebab, Mexican cuisine, tequila, and more are worth thinking about. I'm not keen on fried chicken though, we have no other food by cooking method I believe, and we have chicken, chicken (food), and poultry but we don't have frying or Deep frying.  Carlwev  17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree fried chicken isn't vital while frying is a good choice (as is barbecue when it comes to techniques), but we do have french fries and potato chips which are both specific ways of preparing potatoes. I don't think any of the meats Gizza mentioned are vital, including veal, around which there's issues of animal cruelty but I'd argue foie gras and shark's fin are more notable in this respect. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Fried chicken happens to have the word fried in it but I don't think it is any more redundant to frying that pizza is to baking (pizza would sound more redundant if it was called baked tomato sauce and cheese bread). I think fried chicken is at a similar level to french fries though I don't necessarily believe it's vital. With the meats, I agree with removing veal rather than adding the articles I suggested. I don't think it should be a case of either Mexican cuisine or tequila when we have Japanese cuisine, sake and sushi. I still think hot dog is redundant to sausage and sandwich. At least with hamburger, patty isn't listed. I am a fan of adding more cooking methods though. Gizza (t)(c) 11:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No action taken Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Nordic Skiing?

I was thinking of suggesting removing this under the argument below, I'll still keep it as I took the time to write it, but I'm not sure, I noticed Nordic Skiing is a parent topic of other events as seen in the template, a main division of skiing as it were but it's been a stub for ages, and previously had a list of winners that were removed.

We have Skiing, and another 3 types in addition to this one. No offence to Nordic countries, this just doesn't seem that vital in my opinion, view the article. I can think of several sports or events that seem more vital and are missing, or been removed already. We removed the gymnastics events, the fencing events/swords, and a few more things here and there Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_10#Sport. We don't list things like 200 meters, Parkour. Also, I won't list them all, but if you view Template:Skiing and Category:Types_of_skiing it will show there are numerous 10-20 other types of skiing we don't have which are arguably the same importance or higher than Nordic Skiing. I'm not sure Nordic Skiing has a place here. What do others think.  Carlwev  19:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest swapping it for cross-country skiing which is the original form of skiing and probably more popular than ski jumping which is also listed. Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2015 (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.
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 free agent

A term definitely vital for athletes, sports fans and analysts.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The most vital article in similar territory is agency (law) but there are 20 other articles that should go into the law section before that. Gizza (t)(c) 11:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Julian calendar added 5-1; Buddhist calendar not added 1-3 Cobblet (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Julian calendar and Buddhist calendar

The former had been used widely in the Western world, until the 16th century. However in Russia it still had been used until the October Revolution. The latter was once used commonly in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Burma, but now only used in Theravada Buddhist festivals. Though both are either obsolete or only used in Buddhist festivals concerning their historical significance both should be added to the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Julian calendar. Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support The Julian Calendar. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support The Julian Calendar.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Julian calendar. Cobblet (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Buddhist calendar. The Hindu calendar upon which it is based is definitely more vital. Cobblet (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Buddhist per Cobblet. Also a more accurate description of the calendar would be Theravada Buddhist calendar, making it less vital than it originally sounds. Gizza (t)(c) 08:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 La Strada, Add Temple Mount

It's been noted before that we list the Kaaba in Mecca but none of the sacred sites in Jerusalem, and in a previous failed nomination of Dome of the Rock it was suggested that the article on the entire Temple Mount complex, which incorporates structures like the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall, might be the best one to include.

I've specifically chosen to swap it for a film to highlight the fact we list more films than we do architecture, which doesn't seem right to me – one form of art's been around for 100 years, the other's been around since the dawn of civilization and is experienced by people in a much more direct way. Fellini is the only filmmaker with more than two films on the list (odd, considering he's not among the four filmmakers we deemed vital enough for the Level 3 list) and out of 8½, La Dolce Vita and La Strada, the last seems just a little less significant than the other two.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  17:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support This still leaves three Italian films, which is plenty. Gizza (t)(c) 22:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support A good compromise to satisfy everyone. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Biography

There's more to non-fiction than reference works and this is a particularly good example – one can also speak of biography as a branch of history. From hagiography through to psychobiography there's much to be written about the development of this genre.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Carlwev (talk • contribs) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Bharata Natyam

The general move towards globalization on the list has not been felt by the dance section so far. At the moment there is only one truly non-Western dance form in belly dancing. To fix this, I propose adding one of the oldest and most popular forms of Indian dance.

I considered Indian classical dance instead. However, the umbrella term will inevitably focus on the politics of particular dance forms being recognized as "classical" by various academies and not describe any dance in sufficient detail. There is not much encyclopedic and educational value in listing it. Of the classical dances, Bharata Natyam, Kathak and Kathakali are the most popular while Bharata Natyam and Odissi have the oldest traceable histories. There are also famous "folk" dances like Bhangra and Garba but they surprisingly don't get as many page views. So I figured that Bharata Natyam would be the best choice.

This is in contrast to Indian classical music, of which there are two uncontroversial forms which means you could actually learn something substantial from the article about each form.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Indian dance undoubtedly deserves representation. This looks like a great choice to me. Cobblet (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I don't think every major country or cultural region needs representation for every single art form. For example, Indian comics or any Indian comic is not vital. The only vital comics would probably come from North America, Japan and Europe. OTOH, dance is an iconic part of India's culture famous throughout the world and not just within its own borders. As such it should be represented on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 12:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Bolshoi Ballet

We seem to dislike companies. This is a company, if it were listed under companies it probably wouldn't still be here. We removed the other dance company 2 years ago, not sure why we didn't remove both. We removed the only circus company we had, Barnum and Bailey. We don't have any theatres nor theatre companies or orchestras, no music companies, no fashion companies, no film companies, like Disney or 20th century Fox, outside of arts there are electronics companies like Nintendo Sony are missing and more.

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  01:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support We did replace the circus with P. T. Barnum. But I agree, film studios at the very least should be considered more important than ballet companies. Cobblet (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Performing arts is an area I've had my eye on for ages but haven't gotten around to propose anything. Gizza (t)(c) 10:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sunflowers (Van Gogh series) and Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series)

The Starry Night should stay, but it's excessive to have three entries on Van Gogh's art when no other post-Impressionist or early Modernist is represented at all. For instance, Cézanne's series on apples and Mont Sainte-Victoire are examples of still life and landscape painting from this period that are probably even more influential on the history of painting. Nothing by Gauguin (Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?) or Matisse (Le bonheur de vivre, Dance) is listed either.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support, I tried to remove Wheat fields a while back, this makes sense  Carlwev  18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. The Starry Night is definitely the most beautiful of the three Van Gogh paintings listed. Gizza (t)(c) 10:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ukiyo-e

A Japanese art movement that had an immense impact on the development of Western art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support More non- Western is a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support, prefer genres/movements to works, and sometimes even artists. This seems like a pretty significant style, and good for non-western representation.  Carlwev  18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Bayeux Tapestry

A piece of early medieval art (the only other example we have of this is the Book of Kells) of exceptional artistic and historical value. There are currently no examples of the textile arts on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)]
  5. Support pbp 16:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to swap 1-2 Cobblet (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Boyar, add Conquistador

Boyar does not appear in any other languages. It is a aristocracy rank of Bulgaria and surrounding regions. We don't list Tsar, we removed Pharaoh, we don't even list King or Queen. I think Conquistador and their actions are of historical importance. In my head I compare them to Knight, Samurai, Ninja, Mamluk all of which we list, a system or class of culture specific soldier, who's actions have been documented and are of importance. Although they are mentioned in other articles about the same time and events, we have overlap in other areas such as we have Knight along with Knights Templar, Crusades and Crusader states, but no one has tried to remove them so far.

Support
  1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Unlike knyaz which we removed earlier, it's more than just a rank: it was in fact the upper level of Slavic society and in that sense is similar to knights and samurai. I'm not sure why the Wikidata link doesn't show up on the English Wikipedia but the article definitely does exist in many languages. As I said to you in the earlier discussion, conquista redirects to Spanish colonization of the Americas (which is listed) and conquistadors are simply the people who carried it out. I think the two articles are largely redundant with each other. Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree with Cobblet. FWIW, Boyar exists in 44 languages and Conquistador in 62. This is not bad considering that Bulgaria has a lower internet access rate than Spain (See List of countries by number of Internet users. Gizza (t)(c) 00:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Also whilst on historic soldier people. We list Viking Age in the 1000 list and 10,000 but not Vikings anywhere. Arguments could be made for both but I've always wondered if we should have Vikings too/instead? It is what I would up first, and is the title of sections of history books I have. Much of the content is the same, but they are two articles, although arguments to merge them or keep them separate could be made.  Carlwev  20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There was a problem with Wikidata at the time, I should have guessed as much. Boyar does exist in other languages, appearing in 44 in total, as Gizza states. Pharaoh was kept too.  Carlwev  09:29, 8 August 2015 (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; Green Revolution moved to History Cobblet (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Post–World War II economic expansion

This article is, no less vital, if not more vital, than Financial crisis of 2007–08, since it documents a period of economic prosperity in the mid-20th century which occurred, following the end of World War II in 1945, and lasted until the early 1970s.

Support
  1. As nom. The fact that it only has seven language editions does not mean it is not vital, just like another article structure and agency, which only has four language editions and is still included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. This is a good example of a vital non-war modern history article. There have been comments made before saying that the history section is heavy on war and disasters and light on other things, especially positive events and periods like this. Gizza (t)(c) 13:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support A good spot - clearly of major importance. Neljack (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Green Revolution (another good modern history article not about war) is listed as vital but it's in technology. I think it should be moved to history. We don't put other technological breakthroughs like human control of fire, the Manhattan Project and industrial revolution in the technology section. Gizza (t)(c) 14:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right I'm sure Industrial Revolution and Agricultural Revolution or Neolithic Revolution rather are treated as history here and in most published books and in formal education, as comparison so yes I think I agree  Carlwev  05:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I've got no problem with the move. Cobblet (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That move is fine with me. Does it need to be put to a vote, or can we just do it? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Reference ellipsoid

Look at the article, doesn't seem like a top importance or vital geography topic as a stand alone article, a bit too fine grain. The general idea could be covered by many more general articles in some form that we have, like cartography, Geoid, GPS, globe but most of all the included article Geodesy covers this and more.

Support
  1. Suuport as nom.  Carlwev  22:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Redundant to the articles that Carlwev mentioned and many more like geographic coordinate system, longitude, latitude and elevation. Gizza (t)(c) 11:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2015 (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. pbp 13:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Eve Ensler

An American feminist playwright and performer who influences the world a lot.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Women are definitely underrepresented on the list, but there are much better choices when it comes to female writers and feminists. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. --Thi (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. She has been quite keen to put an end to violence against women in the world, doesn't it prove her vitality?--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I too am quite keen to put an end to violence against women in the world. Doesn't that prove my vitality? Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Auguste Comte

Since he was the founder of sociology and positivism, and some high school world history textbooks mention him, it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that the list contains Émile Durkheim, but not Comte, which is more crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Durkheim is probably the real founding father of sociology, but Comte is also interesting. --Thi (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support reading the article does provide a sense of his vitality though the second part of the nom is very weak. There would be 100,000 articles that "some high school world history textbooks mention". Gizza (t)(c) 23:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Comte was indeed highly influential, though I would regard Durkheim as equally important. Neljack (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Maria Montessori

This Italian female educator and physician best known for her educational philosophy and writings on pedagogy. Nowadays some private and public schools in the world adopt her educational method.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Perhaps her contributions to pedagogy and the philosophy of education may not have been as fundamentally influential as those of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Johann Friedrich Herbart or Friedrich Fröbel; but I suspect more people are aware of the Montessori education method than of the contributions of these other people. Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

User:GuzzyG mentioned Louis Braille in our conversation below, who is also worth thinking about in the context of education although we do list braille. Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Thomas Kuhn

We already list The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and I don't think Kuhn's really known for anything else. I think he's a weaker choice for the list than someone like James George Frazer (whose magnum opus The Golden Bough is listed but whose biography isn't) or Joseph Campbell (we have neither his biography nor The Hero with a Thousand Faces). There are at least half a dozen scientists I'd rather add in his place.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  11:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support I can think of a number of more important philosophers who aren't listed. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. He was influential, not only because of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but also because of the fact the English idiom paradigm shift was coined by him.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a term the book introduced. Cobblet (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Columba, Add Anselm of Canterbury

As the first philosopher to be associated with scholasticism, Anselm was far more influential as a theologian than Columba was as a missionary.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support the swap is an improvement. Gizza (t)(c) 09:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support At least remove Columba. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support' pbp 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support The satisfaction theory of atonement was undoubtedly very important, and I suppose the ontological argument for God's existence has also been influential, even if hardly anyone accepts it anymore. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Alfred Russel Wallace

Independently developed the idea of natural selection and founded the discipline of biogeography. The Wallace line, Wallace effect and aposematism are all concepts credited to him.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Casimir Funk

Christiaan Eijkman and Frederick Gowland Hopkins were the two most prominent biochemists who worked on figuring out the biological role of the compounds we now call vitamins, for which they shared the 1929 Nobel Prize in Medicine. Funk's only significant contribution was to coin the term "vitamin": when it came to actually performing chemistry, his only notable contribution was being the first to isolate niacin, although he mistakenly identified it as thiamine. He's by far the least noteworthy of the 200+ scientists we list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  15:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

A fairly comprehensive but non-technical overview of the discovery of vitamins, including a discussion of why Eijkman and Hopkins ended up sharing the Nobel, is on the Nobel Prize website. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_44&oldid=1137397645"