Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 55

< Wikipedia talk:Vital articles‎ | Level/4
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Thi
Archive 50 ← Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 → Archive 60
PASSED
Removed/added, 6–0 --Thi (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Kamal Haasan, Add Guru Dutt

Kamal Haasan isn't in the top 20 let alone top five figures in the Indian film industry. He's popular in same way that Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp are popular but he's not vital.

Guru Dutt has received global critical recognition as a film director and actor. He is ranked as one of the greatest ever by Time, Sight & Sound and CNN and his movies are still watched fervently in Europe and Asia. Dutt was known for bringing realism and poetry to life into film as well as his innovative lighting and shadowing techniques.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Yeah he's definitely not vital. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support —J947( c ) (m) 21:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom.GuzzyG (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • Should not this be Kamal Haasan the actor and director, rather than Kamal Hassan the academic? Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes that was a typo sorry. I've fixed it now. Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 23 November 2017 (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, 5-5. --Thi (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 María Félix and Dolores del Río

Two icons of the Golden Age of Mexican cinema, they are the most important actresses in Mexican history.

Both would go in the "Actresses" section. Mexico is underrepresented if not absent in that section, so these additions would be a great way to increase diversity.

I was originally planning to suggest just Félix, but through research I found out about del Río, who is also extremely well-known in the Spanish speaking world. Both are more than worthy of being in Vital 4, and may be worthy of Vital 3. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Major figures in 20th-century film. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support as per nom—both were quite influential figures in their time. I don't think L3 would be appropriate though, as L3 is mainly for the household names, and these don't quite make the cut in my opinion. However, that is a topic for WT:VA—which I don't frequent. I'd expect a forecast of snow at L3, as a heads up. :) J947 (contribs · mail) 04:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support great suggestions. Gizza (t)(c) 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Although they are all vital in cinema of Mexico, they are no doubt not vital at this level, since cinema of Mexico is not currently (and should not) included in the Level 4 list, and the number of articles now in the people sublist already exceeds the quota, despite the fact that the sublist still lacks some vital people (e.g. Hiram Maxim, who was mentioned in LIFE magazine list of the 100 people who made the Millennium).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  07:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose If we're going to add more actors we need some pre film stage actors or some silent film ones, all our actors listed are golden age era or from the 70s. GuzzyG (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose There are already way too many modern actors and actresses on this list. What is "vital" should be determined by long-term historical significance, not by whatever happens to have been popular within the past century. I have not counted, but, from looking at the names, I am certain that over half of the people on this whole list lived within the past 150 years, which I think is an egregiously undue emphasis on recent history while older history has been neglected. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2018 (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
No consensus, 3-1. --Thi (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Frederic Remington, add Edward Hopper

Remington is known for his historical scenes about old American west. Hopper is more famous, he is called the most important realist painter of twentieth-century America. Remington seems to me more suitable for level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    (Moved to neutral)Support —J947( c ) (m) 23:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. (Moved from support) Marking here for a moment as I'm split for opinion between Thi and Jusdafax. Support for Hopper. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Comparing apples and oranges here. Different eras, different styles, and saying one is more famous doesn’t work, because it depends on who you ask. Both are iconic, so getting rid of one to add the other doesn’t work for me either. I’d support a nomination for Hopper gladly, but not at the expense of Remington. Jusdafax (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Currently 5–0 on addition and 3–1–1 on removal. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 4-2. --Thi (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Thomas Carlyle

Highly influential polymath, influential in philosophy, history, mathematics and public speaking.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Influential historian. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support – Being somewhat influential in many different fields is an indicator of vitality to me. J947( c ) (m) 05:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose not convinced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2017 (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
1-2. --Thi (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jurists to this subcategory

Rename this subcategory Philosophers, historians, jurists, political, and social scientists. (With the serial comma, of course.) Legal theorists, judges, and attorneys have a profound affect on the arc of human history. We list many in other contexts e.g., Plato and Maimonides, however there's arguably (no pun intended) room for others such as William Blackstone and Jean Baptiste Colbert and moving others to this subcategory, such as John Marshall.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think jurists really fits that well with philosophers and historians. Just create a separate subcategory for jurists and criminologists. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Unnecessary additions. Jean-Baptiste Colbert is better known as a politician and an economist. He spend over 20 years as Chief minister of France (1661-1683) and is associated with the height of Mercantilism in economic theory. William Blackstone was a British Member of Parliament (MP) (terms 1761-1770) and can be listed with his fellow politicians. His article mentions that he was primarily associated with the Tories and denied lucrative appointments while the Whigs were in power. Why would we list them as jurists? Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

As an aside, the Architect of the Capitol lists the 23 relief portraits of lawgivers depicting historical figures noted for their work in establishing the principles that underlie American law.[1] This could serve as a good starting point for potential nominations. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally think that doing what we did at VA5 would be better. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to say something: Yes for the serial comma! :) J947 (contribs · mail) 21:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 4-2. --Thi (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Stamford Raffles

The fact that he founded Singapore and contributed to the rise of the British Empire substantially means that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support as has high historical significance. J947( c ) (m) 04:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose disagree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Maunus: In what respect? J947( c ) (m) 05:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    Founding Singapore does not make him vital. Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • This has been open for over 6 months. Can we get another opinion so we can close this? I wouldn't like to close this as NC as it looks likely to pass. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Téwodros II and Menelik II

Emperors of Ethiopia. Major conquerors, renowned in Ethiopia. Téwodros is known especially for unification efforts, and Menelik is especially known for waging war against Italy and winning. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Tewodros II is credited with the centralization of the Ethiopian Empire and passing a number of reforms which brought it to a modern era. He sought and failed to secure an alliance with the British Empire, fought against the British during the British Expedition to Abyssinia, and committed suicide following his defeat. Menelik II was an empire builder who expanded the Ethiopian Empire to its maximum extend, personally led his army to victory in the First Italo-Ethiopian War, and further modernized the state. Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support though political leaders may be a better section than military. Military is reserved for e.g. war generals. Menelik was both an emperor and leader of troops into battle though we tend to include leaders like that in political too (see Abraham Lincoln). Gizza (t)(c) 21:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support in politicians per Gizza. As always it is good to reduce western bias here and Ethiopia is in the 9 digits in population. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (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
No consensus, 4-4. --Thi (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Owain Glyndŵr

Last native prince of Wales, led a last major unsuccessful revolt against the English rule of Wales, highly influential and important in the study of UK history.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. In the late 19th century he was recreated as the father of Welsh nationalism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Weak support Britain may be overrepresented, but Wales certainly isn't. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose There were lots of rebels in medieval Europe and I'm not convinced that Glyndŵr stands out unless one is being British-centric. Neljack (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose there are more significant resistance leaders that have become national heroes, for example Lapu-Lapu (and the Philippines is a bigger English-speaking nation than Wales if that's relevant). Gizza (t)(c) 23:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose after 2 months of on and off thought. Also, Wales may seem underrepresented but to be honest Wales is only a tiny bit population-wise of the UK. I have a bunch of other thoughts but I don't need to do what I did at #Add Sacramento, California, do I? J947 (contribs · mail) 21:15, 8 January 2018 (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
No consensus, 4-2. --Thi (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cayley

Father of aeronautics, without him we would not have air-flight and he is thus, vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support According to his article he was a prolific engineer, inventor, and politician. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. About 100 years ago, an Englishman, Sir George Cayley, carried the science of flight to a point which it had never reached before and which it scarcely reached again during the last century (— Wilbur Wright, 1909; from here) Yep. J947( c ) (m) 05:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose discovering something vital does not mean that discoverer is vital too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I'd prefer the Montgolfier brothers being included before Cayley as far as pioneers in aviation go. Gizza (t)(c) 02:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

For something as big and important as aviation i do not see how we cannot have both. GuzzyG (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2017 (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
Removal 6+5. --Thi (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Miguel Induráin for Lance Armstrong

Lance had significantly more international renown and prominence in cycling then Miguel. Lance was removed when the doping got confirmed but i think it was a knee jerk reaction. The doping only improves his vitalness as now not only is he the biggest cycling star he is also the clear personage of doping in sport and thus if you were to write the history of sport and you were to include cycling the fallout from the Armstrong scandal is what you'd write about before you got to Miguel.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I have to agree. His infamy over the doping scandal only adds to his notability. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC
  3. Support You cannot be a reasonably educated person and now know of Lance Armstrong. You can be one and not know of Miguel Indurain.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Lance Armstrong is well above the threshold. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Lance Armstrong is vital enough to warrant inclusion. I also support the swap. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support He has much greater long-term historical notability, in a large part due to the scandal. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Support removal
  1. Support Removal --Thi (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support removal ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support removal Neither Lance Armstrong nor Miguel Indurian is of a profile to be on a list that's devoid of so many other influential people. pbp 20:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support removal as well said above. J947( c ) (m) 04:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support removal Cobblet (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2017 (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.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Peru

Long and distinguished history. We are underrepresented in history articles for South America. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support though we are over quota. I'll try to find some low-hanging fruit. Gizza (t)(c) 23:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Mainly due to the local remains of the Inca Empire. Dimadick (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - Incas are vital. Jusdafax (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

History of Colombia is also on my mind. The thought of adding Peru and/or Colombia to level 3 vital 1000 comes to me too.  Carlwev  10:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No opinion on History of Colombia until we get rid of all the bloat here that's causing this to overflow. Yeah, Peru to L3 sounds like a good proposal. J947 (c), at 02:49, 27 January 2018 (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 --Thi (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Solidarity (Polish trade union)

Not sure why a Polish trade union is listed when we don't have trade unions for any other country. As Template:Cold War shows, there are far more important articles about the Cold War not on the list than this union, which isn't linked in the template. That aside, modern Eastern Europe is already well represented, with more articles than any other region in the world in the modern history section. And we are significantly over quota.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Clearly not vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Explained nicely by Gizza. J947 (contribs · mail) 00:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Galobtter (pingó mió)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

It's not in the right location anyway. It should probably be placed alongside trade union itself if it was vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 3-1-3. --Thi (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Another island group that should be added. They are geographically unique as they are the only major islands in that part of the South Atlantic Ocean.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    Support, tentatively. J947( c ) (m) 03:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I'm unsure here. My blanket support for most known territories/islands does still push here but then again this island is barely ever talked about or featured. Gizza's comment urged me to rethink here. We should probably just close this as no consensus disobeying the guidelines because there are two sides here and one probably won't prevail. Thoughts on the closure? J947 (c · m) 04:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Why? Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose no significant history or anything else to speak of. Not even the next British Overseas Territory to consider. Barely inhabited. Quite close to the Falklands and the Antarctic Peninsula which are listed. Gizza (t)(c) 23:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per Gizza, who is convincing. Jusdafax (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2018 (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
No consensus, 3-1. --Thi (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pacific Islands

I'm surprised it isn't here!

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Geography's the most important thing to cover so i don't mind overlap here. GuzzyG (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose double coverage. Geography is not the most important thing to cover.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

My concern is the overlap. Oceania as a whole consists of Australasia, Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. We list all of these island groups separately. And the Pacific Islands refer to Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia collectively. It's pretty much Oceania minus Australia. I feel that this is a bit like adding British Overseas Territories (the UK minus the British Isles) or Territories of the United States. Gizza (t)(c) 21:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 4-2. --Thi (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Australasia

Often used term. J947( c ) (m) 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
    Support --Thi (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose why? That a term is often used does not mean we need to include it when the areas it covers are already separately included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too much of a vernacular geographic term for me. Also, the nominator is making a notability argument, not a vitality one. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    It depends. In my opinion terms for geographic regions generally have more layers to them than terms that are listed under 'Everyday life'. In this particular case Australasia is often used in terms of the continent Oceania which is at L3 and definitely vital. Also, being a NZ'er helps me understand how important this region is. It consists of the two southern hemispheric main English countries and they have very close relations. Also, 'often used term' is not a notability argument. Is that listed as one of the notability criteria at WP:GEOLAND? No. J947 (c), at 21:52, 18 January 2018 (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.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 --Thi (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Andalusia

Subject is an autonomous community in Spain. We already have Galicia, so why not Andalusia?

Spearheaded by its cultural centers Seville and Córdoba, Andalusia is the origin of many of the cultural traits and practices the world associates with Spain, especially flamenco and bullfighting. The crucial historical event in Andalusia is the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, which left behind a deep tradition of Islam in Spain, especially in Andalusia. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Strong support as nominator. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Andalusia is the southernmost area in the Iberian Peninsula and has been contested in warfare for over 2000 years, as the owner gains an advantageous position in the borders of Europe and Africa, and the entrance from the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. Among its most important cities are Almería, Cádiz (an old Phoenician colony), Córdoba, Spain, Granada, Huelva, Jaén, Spain, Málaga, and Seville. The remains of the ancient city of Tartessos are also located in this area, thought its identification with modern settlements is disputed. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support still think that regions is the most underrepresented section within geography, much more so than islands or cities. Gizza (t)(c) 22:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support for the barrier. An influential region with a distinct culture is more than enough for me. J947 (c), at 21:38, 18 January 2018 (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.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 --Thi (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Nantes

Highest populated city in France not on the list. France is underrepresented comparing to Germany, the UK, and Italy. J947( c ) (m) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2017 (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.
PASSED
Added, 7–0 --Thi (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Da Nang

There are a few Southeast Asian countries that are underrepresented in the cities section. Thailand and Vietnam for instance only have two cities each. Da Nang is the political, financial culture centre of Central Vietnam and is the third largest city after Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) and Hanoi by urbanization and economy. Gizza (t)(c) 23:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  02:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. There are clearly bias issues here. J947( c ) (m) 03:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I think Vietnam deserves at least 3 cities, outside China, Japan and Korea, the rest of East Asia seems a little underrepresented, this city has 1.3 million people and over 1000 years history.  Carlwev  02:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 --Thi (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Enugu

As the most important city in southeastern Nigeria and where coal in Nigeria was first discovered.

Support
  1. Support as per nom. Stanleytux (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support Africa is underrepresented and we are significantly under quota although our coverage of Nigeria is OK. It's also the cultural capital of Igboland and the former Biafran state. However, there are bigger holes as far as African cities go. Gizza (t)(c) 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support – As Nigeria has a pretty large population and this being culturally significant, I believe this should be added. I'm going to find more African cities to nominate. J947( c ) (m) 04:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (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.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 --Thi (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sacramento, California

Canberra just passed addition as a VA/4 article. California has more people than Australia (by more than 10 million), but has one fewer city on the VA/4 list (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Canberra vs. LA, San Fran, San Jose and San Diego). Sacramento is a bigger metro area than Canberra (a lot bigger, actually: 2 million vs. about half a million). Both are capitals. Both places speak English. pbp 00:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 00:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support The article has a long history section and the city apparently played a key role in the 19th century development of California. It is currently overshadowed by Los Angeles and San Francisco, but still ranks among the top cities in its region. Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Weak support as per the nominator and Dimadick. I do think though that 3 cities in the same area in Northern California compared with 2 around the bigger coastal Southern California area may be unfairly represented. Also which is more important: California vs Australia? Surprisingly marginally Australia. Which government is more important? Easily Australia. Thus, Canberra is more important federally/politically. I'm not an American so I can't judge Sacramento's importance economically and socially well, but from prior knowledge I don't imagine that Sacramento has a major or even mediocre influence within California on those two sectors. Also, my main reason for supporting Canberra was that the capital of a G20 member has a major influence. But then California as duly noted by pbp has a larger population. But Canada has a smaller population than Tokyo (and California), and I don't think anyone in their right mind could conclude that Tokyo is of greater importance than Canada. But the Japanese might interpret that as western bias even though they are basically Western too (or are they?). Getting back to the point California has arguably a greater impact on popular culture and the twenty-first century (well the servers of Wikimedia (us) would be different for one (and Google for that matter)). But then again I might be trying to be too anti-Australian as a New Zealander or being a perpetrator of recentism. Then the whole issue of western bias comes in fully: should we have either of them? Dimadick here I don't completely agree with: The article has a long history section is just natural bias issues coming into play and that it still ranks among the top cities in its region does not help the cause much (then that would be an argument for putting in tiny Whitehorse, for example) and the top 5 it only barely makes the cut (or perhaps not). It is currently overshadowed by Los Angeles and San Francisco implies that it takes 3rd place in California. It just doesn't. In response to the city apparently played a key role in the 19th century development of California: I doubt that and even with that key in this case probably means reasonable which then means about 3rd in that era. These days it is around 7th. I'm just going back and forth here with a load of thoughts with little impact. In conclusion we can always remove it from the list if this section gets over-quota (though it would require someone to remember), and its case is very marginal, and I do not know which way I would go if this was proposed while the 'Geography' section was one below quota. I might stay at Neutral or lean over extremely marginally one way (i.e. 'Very weak oppose'). However, we are not one below quota; we are 25 below quota here and that won't change much with the current proposals. Bias issues still prevail: is my position in the Pacific (NZ) encouraging me, one way or the other? Page views are not very useful here but here we go: [1]. That was some interesting results that show that despite our high American readership Canberra still trumps Sacramento. Sacramento is without doubt the next city in California at least ([2]). Being a capital (and an inland one not close to the centre of population at that) of a major state signifies importance in the 19th century in comparison with Canberra (which was built in preparation for being a capital in the 1910s) and that would be a reason why the low viewership. But then again just having the status of being a capital will trigger views... Sorry for the essay about it. J947 (c · m) 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support- Capital of California, sufficiently notable at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2018 (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.

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

Is Aladdin a character?

I think the section of "Fictional characters" is confusing. It includes Aladdin, but technically, Aladdin is not an article about a fictional character "Aladdin" but about a folk tale featuring Aladdin. Cinderella is also an article about a certain type of folk tale, not focusing on a fictional character. Judging from other entries in "Fictional characters", however, it seems that the articles about fictional characters themselves are required - for example, we need the article of Peter Pan separate from Peter and Wendy (the literary work in which Peter Pan appears) and that of Superman separate from Superman (comic book). I think the categorisation is confusing ... How about making a category about folk tales and moving Aladdin and Cinderella to it? --saebou (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

All Disney 'characters' are based on folk tales, so is an incredible amount of literature considering. I'm not sure it's worth changing, since modern perception treats the character as being synonymous with the story, eg if I mention 'little red riding hood', one can hardly separate the character from the story, as they are basically the same thing, a fusion. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I will say if one does not know how the lists work, how they are arranged, one may get the impression an important topic is missing when it is not. In literature, lists of novels, books, works of fiction you will not find Tarzan, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter Count Dracula or Aladdin (or their authors in people either). If you look at video games you will see Tetris, Pokemon and Pong, but not Mario. One may think these are missing, but they not. For Aladdin, I suppose we do list One Thousand and One Nights also in literature. Count Dracula and Mario, could perhaps appear as Dracula and Super Mario in literature and video games instead. For something like Harry Potter, that main overview of the whole topic article at that title does appear to be the best one, the article about the whole franchise in all mediums and its impact on real world culture. It is listed in characters, and there is also Harry Potter (character) that exists, which woulds make more logical sense to list under characters, as one is about the character and the other the franchise, but the main overview article is obviously more vital. One could simply list Mario or Super Mario under video games next to Pokemon, they both have information on the franchise outside of vedeogames like Toys and TV shows. But for something like Count Dracula, Peter Pan, Aladdin, Cinderella, I suppose they originated in literature but the franchise, for want of a better word, spreads across several different mediums, like movies, TV shows, toys, stage, games, and the articles cover much of this, they could be listed in literature, but some may not like it...One more thing I believe in general when the topics have been split into different articles, the articles on the overall franchise eg Harry Potter is better than the article on the one character eg Harry Potter (character). Information on what has been released in the real world, and its design, creation and impact in the real world is normally more important than a fictional biography that tells you where a character's fictional birth took place etc. A good overview would contain the basics of the fictional biography anyhow, plus any important side characters that a fictional biography of the single character should not cover.  Carlwev  05:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus Gizza (t) (c) 02:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 concept

Support
  1. As nom. No doubt it is a vital term in philosophy of language.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support – Just from reading this: Concepts are the fundamental building blocks of our thoughts and beliefs. Perhaps even level 3! J947( c ) (m) 01:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. 'oppose Per User:Maunus/Vitality. There is no significant literature about this term to my knowledge, and the concept of concept is not something that is a major discussion or topic in philosophy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed to add it before, however later the proposal failed (cf. /Archive_46#Add_concept).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2017 (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.

Islamic schools and branches?

We removed all lists, even substantial ones like list of chemical elements and list of sovereign states and more. Even though this article looks like it is quite substantial, is it just a fleshed out list? there is a category Category:Religious denominations where one can see similar articles. Why do single out the article on branches of Islam to include, but we do not list Christian denominations, Hindu denominations‎, Jewish religious movements‎, or Schools of Buddhism, etc, and I think we removed Religious denomination itself a long time ago. We listed Islamic schools and branches at the 1000 list but removed it there too for similar reasons see here. Should we remove it here too, or should we list the other religion's branches articles too to match, or leave as it is?  Carlwev  04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding the overview branch articles of other major religions would adding four more articles, which is doable as the section is under quota. The other option as you say is removing this, but I would like another Islamic branch or two in its place then. Probably either Ibadi or Ahmadiyya. Gizza (t)(c) 09:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Instead of removing Islamic schools and branches, Christian denominations, Hindu denominations, schools of Buddhism and Jewish religious movements should all be added. Ibadi and Ahmadiyya should be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (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.
2-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 03:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 tea

Widespread consumption and significant scholarly study make this subject an excellent addition to the "Hot drinks" section. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Since Tea is included in the Lv3 list, it's both acceptable and desirable to add some types of tea.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I am torn for opinion.
    On one hand:
    • Green tea has been subject to significant scholarly study, which I believe.
    • I generally support the L4 addition of sub-articles of L3s.
    • Green tea is well known and reasonably common.
    • We are under quota here.
    On the other hand:
    • Listing different types of tea is pointlessly redundant
    • The list will be bloated if we start adding all these sub-articles.
      Partial rebuttal: This is probably the best argument here. Green tea is IMO the major one of these and we only need to add this one.
    • Black tea is more common than green tea by far.
    • Green tea is just another type of tea (this argument can be used in vitality discussions as well).
    All in all, I just can't find my side. J947 (contribs · mail) 03:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think listing "tea" at this level is enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree with Rreagan007. Tea is already listed and listing different types of tea would just be pointlessly redundant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose redundant per above. And if there was a type of tea to be added it would be black tea which is still far more common. Note if we add this, using similar reasoning we would have to add major types of coffee, wine, beer, etc. bloating the list at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Agree “tea” is enough for level 4. Jusdafax (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 --Thi (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 ten-pin bowling

It's odd that the most popular type of bowling is missing in the world while less popular versions like bocce and bowls are listed. Gizza (t)(c) 21:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support as it is a known sport. J947( c ) (m) 06:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2017 (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.
PASSED
Added, 7–0 --Thi (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Swimming

We list Swimming (sport), but most people who swim do not do it whist competing in a professional sport, they do it for general recreation or fitness, and to a lesser degree some jobs and military tasks, not to mention basic locomotion and survival when in the water. We list other things in duplication where two similar articles exist like sailing in addition to sailing (sport), and cycling in addition to cycling (sport). I believe swimming is one of the oldest and most widespread of activities, a very large proportion of people in most parts of the world swim, and they have done since prehistoric times, it's much more important compared to many things we list in recreation. To not list it because we list the professional sport would be like removing the car because we list Auto racing, or removing running, sailing or cycling and saying they are redundant to 100m, sailing sport and Tour De France. The article on the sport does not cover non-sport information like prehistoric people believed to have swam, children learning to swim, military uses, or job uses like pearl diving. We also list 2 swimmers, swimming pool, diving, underwater diving, scuba diving, rowing, canoeing and more water sports too. If we can have 3 articles for types and diving and individual swimmers, I'm sure we should list the basic article on swimming. The basic swimming article appears in about double the language wikis compared to the sport article at about 45 for swimming sport and 90 for swimming; the sport article has more page views though however.

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  13:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support —J947 (c · m) 20:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support - A vital subject in my book. Jusdafax (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2017 (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.

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

Discuss The 32 ethnic groups in here appear very random. We have seven indigenous American tribes, but no European Americans. We have Hmong people but no Japanese people. And there are no South American people at all! There should be some overarching logic agreed for this section, such as "inclusion of the 30 largest primary ethnic groups, plus 10 other particularly notable groups". Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I am very interested in this section, Myself and others tried to improve it in the past, and we can try to improve it again. I would like to point out what our rough aims where in editing that area, it is not quite as simple as one may first think, although some points you raised are relevant and could be addressed.
    • In Europe and much of Asia for example, many, although not all, of the traditional "peoples" have their own nation which we of course list. Although not an exact rule we tried to move away from a long list of peoples if we already have a long list of nations covering by and large the same culture/people in question. It was deemed not necessary for example to list French people, Japanese people, Thai people, Ethiopian people, Turkish people etc when we already list the countries France, Japan etc.
    • Other cultures who are more known historically have an article in the history section, like Celts, Romans, Ottomans, Prussia, Persians
    • The ehnology area kind of tries to list significant races/peoples but tries to avoid simply duplicating the nation list, and to a lesser degree tries avoiding duplicating the historical empire/nation list.
    • Perhaps we also avoid listing "Asian people" and "European people" and "African people" as redundant to the articles on the continents too?
    • In the USA there is one nation covering over 300 million people. Most of these are European Americans, so I'm not sure adding this adds a lot. The USA population also covers all the indigenous people who have no nation of their own today. We have decided those peoples are significant enough to be listed, the article on the people themselves seems to be the most appropriate in these cases. There may be no modern nation to list, any proposed nation, or historic empire/nation may be a poor unknown article which seems second to the article on the people themselves, or may simply not exist.
    • We still list some races that are truly enormous like Han Chinese at well over a billion. But this is over 90% of China and we don't list some other huge races that are similar to nations, we don't list Bengalis or Hindustani. We can discus this further.
    • Much but not all of the ethnology list are people who are significant in culture and population size but do not have a nation or state/region of their own listed or at all that we could list, and sometimes do not have a past/historic nation/empire we could list, or the historic nation is considered less significant than the people (eg the Zulu empire existed for less than a century but the Zulu people existed before and after, and still exist today, so that could be argued it is better to list the people over the past empire/nation in that case)
    • Some people have a nation and several historic nation/empires as well, when other people have no current nation or region to list, and a historic nation may either not exist, or may be quite obscure, these people would only be covered slightly in overview articles of nations where they reside or history of nations where they did exist.
    • For these reasons we list Kurds and Hmong as they have no nation, but not Japanese or Turkish.
    • We also list people who exist across many nations and have a similar unifying cultural identity to one another, like Arabs and Jews.
    • That was just my idea of it, other people have agreed with some of those points in the past, and it can all be discussed more than once if necessary and altered if we wish. Sorry for long comment  Carlwev  10:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Carlwev: Great comment, thank you. I have done a lot in the field of ethnic groups, so am keen to discuss this.
One quick question on a tangential point: do you know whether the agreed "rationale" or "inclusion criteria" for each of the subsegments can be added to the project page? It would be much more useful than having it dispersed throughout the archives.
On the rationale set out in your comment, that makes sense to me. I think it needs to be taken to a level of further detail if it is going to hold though. I will set out some examples:
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not have any descriptions of inclusion criteria within the actual lists that I'm aware of, or maybe there is but very minimal. We can discus that option if we wish. Any description could be regular text, tiny text, collapsible text. We could have a description on the page itself or link to the talk page where it's discussed. My main fear is it would be a time consuming job, and at this time there are over 50 talk page archives, discussion about a whole section could be spread out across different archives from different times, and discussion about individual articles in a section, which sometimes brings up important points about the section it's in, are going to be even more spread out across multiple archives, so linking to them or reading through them to write a summary would be tricky. Many areas, many interesting and decent ideas have been bought up for criteria for inclusion, but I'm not sure they are all universally agreed upon; some probably are more than others. Most criteria are rough guides with some exceptions rather than hard rules. I'm not necessarily against the idea, I think it would be difficult and time consuming to put in place and the rules would have to be agreed upon by all or most. Most lists have been discussed on a case by case basis, there has been some discussion about whole section criteria but I think that is relatively rarer.... Also Slavs are included I believe. Turkic peoples have been brought up, but we don't list them. We used to list Turkish people but removed it, primarily as redundant to Turkey. I think Turkic people are at least worth discussing, I would need to think about it, but I think I would support it. You are right about Jews. There are several definitions of the meaning "Jews" but it normally means more than just a follower of Judaism, and is combination of ethno cultural religious linguistic meanings together, or Ethnoreligious group as you said. We listed Muslim but removed it primarily as redundant to Islam, I am sure we do not or would not list Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc as they redundant to the article on the religion. We list Race at level 4, Ethnic group is listed at level 2 (where even gender is not listed). List of ethnic groups or List of Diasporas.... We have a kind of rule, that list articles are not allowed, there are many lists we could include. Listing individual diaspora articles, you could bring it up, we would need to discus each, and include only the most significant, as there are loads, and a list of them here could soon get huge, but we manage to hold a "History of nation" section for the most significant nations without much trouble. I don't think we list any diasporas other than Bantu expansion, and Diaspora itself, which I think was my idea.

I wonder how many articles of similar vein could come to mind. We have "history of x", a few "cuisine of x", "music of x" literature of x" "economy of x" we do not list any "religion of x", "culture of x", "geography of x", "climate of x", and many many more, and other than Bantu expansion, no "diaspora of x" (which way round the words are is not normally relevant eg. presuming African Music and Music of Africa etc etc to mean the same). Some articles like Culture of India and others are quite significant topics and articles. If we start considering Armenian Diaspora, why not culture of India, Religion in China, Climate of Europe, Languages of Pakistan. Not saying we can't. A while back there where no literature of x articles, no literature of nation/language/region/people/religion I started discussion on Literature of..., and got articles like English literature, Chinese literature, Spanish literature and several others added one by one, discussing each one at a time, now we have a list of the most significant "literature" by language/culture, so it can work. If you wish to start thinking about discussing diaspora go ahead. I would suggest looking for the most significant first, and writing a good argument. I would suspect people would reply saying if we include Armenian Diaspora, why not Jewish, Arab, Chinese, Swedish, Irish, Sri Lankan etc etc I imagine there are loads of regions with several million emigrants, the ones we include would need careful discussion as to which we want and which we don't, we have managed it with history of nation, and ethnic groups, so it could work in theory, but I would predict some opposition.

Multiracial or something similar may be worth discussing.  Carlwev  16:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As discussed above, our selection method has been fairly ad hoc and on a case-by-case basis rather than being derived methodically. We have made the ethnic groups section a place to add well known minority/indigenous peoples or very large pan-national peoples (Han, Slavs, Arabs, fit in the latter). Take Aboriginal Australians for example. There is no other article that can adequately discuss the culture apart from the ethnic group article itself. The Australia article doesn't discuss them in much detail as they are now only a small minority of the country. Groups that are a majority in a single country tend not to be listed as they are redundant to the country, nor are pan-national groups added if there is a broader region listed (Latin American overlaps with Latin America). Having said that, we are not consistent and don't believe Slavs should be listed when we have Slavic languages. Slavs in modern times aren't politically connected to one another in the same way Arabs are. At the moment, we have one South American group (Quechua people) but we could add a few more. I have thought about the Aymara people, Tupi people, Guarani people, Mapuche people or something broader like Mestizo are possible additions. Thinking more laterally, there is Afro-Brazilian though we would also have to consider African American. Gizza (t)(c) 23:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I come from two recognised ethnic minorities - neither are listed (yet basques are!). Nor is the other half of my ancestors, how are there no representation for Anglo-saxons (British & American caucasian) or Scandinavian groups? Imagine an exterrestrial came and read this, what opinion would it get of humanity? (I always consider how an ET would consider things, it helps get an overview). A Guy into Books (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully the ET won't look at the ethnic groups section in isolation but in conjunction with geography and history (and for that matter every other section), as we have been doing. Anglo-Saxons is actually listed but is in another section. So is Scandinavia. Ultimately, where the articles are here doesn't really matter. All that matters is whether the article is vital. It is just for our convenience and to make the list look organized and easy to navigate. Gizza (t)(c) 02:48, 28 September 2017 (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
Populism added, 6-0 (elitism 4-0). --Thi (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 populism and elitism

Nowadays populist political parties and politicians play a vital role in Europe and the U.S.

Support
  1. Support as nom. I think that populism and its antonym, elitism should all be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support populism. --Thi (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support. Populism especially, as it is quite past the vital barrier and per Thi's comment below. Maybe up the social science recommendation to 925 and remove 25 from another one, perhaps physical sciences/Astronomy? J947( c ) (m) 05:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    So you support the addition of elitism?--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    Only just, covering elite (a failed proposal) as well. J947 (c · m) 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Populism only GuzzyG (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Isn't elitism another word for Oligarchy and populism a form of communication i.e., us-versus-them? They're undoubtedly important concepts in political rhetoric, however their inclusion on the vital articles list seems wanting. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlike elitism, populism is in everyday use in the news. The term has some concrete meaning, there have been Populist Party in the USA. Populism is in my old encyclopedia which has 5,000 articles. --Thi (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jaw

Important part of the human anatomy, and major turning point in animal evolution, a good article could be written on this topic if we find decent sources.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support —J947 (c · m) 04:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:56, 1 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 --Thi (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Venom

Numerous different species have evolved venom, among them snakes, lizards, some mammals, spiders, scorpions, jellyfish, fish, amphibians, centipedes, wasps, and more. different venom kills about 60,000 people a year combined, more vital than some individual insects and fish we list for example.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - I agree this is vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Vital as per nom. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Venom is a type of toxin, which in turn is a type of poison and we have both of those. I'll still think about venom though. Gizza (t)(c) 02:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 --Thi (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Saccharomyces cerevisiae

One of the most studied eukaryotic model organisms, and has been used for brewing and baking since ancient times.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Good find Gizza (t)(c) 20:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support - Should be included. Jusdafax (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
  • Baker's yeast might a better option, though it does encompass less ground. Thoughts? J947 (c · m) 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mycosis

A fungal infection in animals, including humans. Subject is wide and deep. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support A common source for skin diseases. Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support as it is a common infection. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:32, 31 January 2018 (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.
PASSED
Added, 8-0. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Water vapor

I've withdrawn my previous nomination of steam in favor of this nomination. The article on water vapor is more well-developed. And since steam is just water vapor created through boiling water, the article on water vapor is the broader subject matter and should be the article that gets listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Obviously. A state of water is extremely important. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as per my comment at #Add Steam and the fact that I usually support sub-articles of water (e. g. #Add Properties of water). I think that we could include steam as well possibly. Thoughts? J947 (contribs · mail) 06:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  8. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Move Nylon and Polyester from Fibers to Chemicals, Add Polyethylene

Synthetic polymers - Nylon and Polyester - are currently at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Technology#Fabrics_and_fibers_(15_articles). However their articles are mostly about their chemistry, and both are used for much more than fibers - nylon is used for food packaging, polyester for bottles, films, tarpaulin, canoes, liquid crystal displays, holograms, filters, dielectric film for capacitors, film insulation for wire and insulating tapes. Polyethylene is literally the most common plastic and is yet somehow not here as far as I can tell.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Great explanation by Galobtter. This will help fulfill the quota. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support good find with polyethylene. Gizza (t)(c) 03:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Either that or have a section in technology about plastics. Definitely thinking that in a separate proposal to add many of the plastics at Plastic#Common_plastics, which are vital for modern life. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Nylon is rated as top-importance in wikiproject chemicals but isn't even classified in wikiproject technology. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0. --Thi (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Urea

Just important in general - first "living" compound synthesized. An important compound produced by a significant portion of living things etc. I'm currently just seeing about adding all the top-importance chemicals as per wikiproject chemicals..

Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I've always felt that the list was high in elements and low in compounds although it is more balanced now. Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support mainly as per Gizza. J947 (contribs · mail) 01:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support It is "the main nitrogen-containing substance in the urine of mammals". 15:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2018 (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.
PASSED
Added, 8-0. --Thi (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 pH

Add pH - obvious importance in being very widely used.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support big omission. Well spotted. Acid and base is not enough. Gizza (t)(c) 00:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support —J947 (contribs · mail) 01:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  7. pbp 02:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2018 (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.
PASSED
Passed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Fusion Power and Tokamak

Support
  1. As nom. Since it can be placed under Nuclear Power in the sub-category of Energy in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology. I also recommend removing Tokamak from Level 4 and moving it to Level 5 under wherever Fusion Power is kept since it is still one of many fusion power designs such as Stellarator, Z-pinch, Inertial confinement fusion etc. --User:Vctrbarbieri 17:02, 12 December 2017 (GMT)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Belated support for the barrier. As per nom. J947 (contribs · mail) 01:58, 13 January 2018 (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
No consensus, 1-0. --Thi (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 jerk (physics)

Support
  1. As nom. This concept is vital in manufacturing.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (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
No consensus, 1-0. --Thi (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Fictitious force

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    ...Rationale? From a quick skim I can find nothing and as this sub-section is only slightly under-quota I am leaning oppose. J947 (c · m) 19:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
    Courtesy ping. J947 (contribs · mail) 03:04, 5 January 2018 (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.
PASSED
Wheelbarrow added 5-0, sickle not removed 5-4. --Thi (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sickle, Add Wheelbarrow

We currently list both Scythe and Sickle. They are very similar tools used for similar purposes. The primary difference between the two seems to be that one is usually a 1-handed tool and the other is usually a 2-handed tool. I don't think we need to list both.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Supporting addition; neutral on removal
  1. Support the addition. Neutral on removal. Gizza (t)(c) 04:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Supporting removal; neutral on addition
  1. Support the removal. Neutral on addition. User:Vctrbarbieri 20:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Opposing removal
  1. The removal, since the sickle is used as part of the well-known symbol hammer and sickle, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose due to symbolic importance of the sickle. Dimadick (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
    Do you oppose the addition of wheelbarrow?--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    No, but I find it less important. How many flags with wheelbarrows have you seen? Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    We don't list swastika and that was on flags too. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    I would support adding the swastika. An important religious symbol for millennia. Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal due to the symbolic importance of sickles. Wheelbarrows are vital as well, and perhaps more so. J947( c ) (m) 01:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Jclemens: Do you support the addition? J947 (contribs · mail) 05:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    Undecided. If I decide to support or oppose that aspect of the proposal, I'll weigh in. Jclemens (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

So let's just get the tally straight: 8–0 for addition; 4–3–1 on removal. Will do another check in 5 days. J947( c ) (m) 04:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  • No changes after a week. Will check again sometime. Removal is actually 4–3–2. J947( c ) (m) 03:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Removal is actually 4–3–1. J947( c ) (m) 05:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Now 5–3–1 on removal and 8–1–0 on addition. I suggest an appropriate closure would be no consensus on removal and consensus for addition in this complicated discussion wherein following rules may not be best. J947 (c · m) 19:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Now 4–1–4 on removal and 8–2–0 on addition. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Removal actually 5–1–4. J947 (contribs · mail) 03:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Flags are not the only thing that makes things important. With animals, eagles and dragons appear much more on flags than dogs, sheep, cattle or even humans, does this mean one is more important the other? Some symbols are just more popular to heraldry, probably simply because they look, cooler, for want of a better word. The sickle was used in the communist symbol, then copied across several flags in nations adopting that ideology, it wasn't used numerous times completely interdependently.  Carlwev  20:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I do agree with your first two sentences but being a major symbol definitely is a plus to vitality but perhaps not as much as some think. The communist symbol is a well known symbol and had a major influence in the 20th century and that is why there is opposition to this proposal, not merely being on flags. J947 (c · m) 19:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Scythe was created in May 2003; Wheelbarrow in June that year; and Sickle a year after Scythe. That was in the opposite order to what I expected. Could we remove the scythe instead as just a agricultural tool with no other meaning and less known than the wheelbarrow while still adding the latter? J947 (c · m) 19:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 2-1. --Thi (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mathematical problem

Let's get this quota to the exact figure and add this weirdly missing topic. J947( c ) (m) 03:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 03:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. I should have supported this proposal earlier......--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This seems like a somewhat artificial subject matter for an article rather than an actual mathematical concept. I don't think this is vital enough to list at this level. Feel free to stick in in at Level 5 though. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Anyone willing to comment here? J947 (contribs · mail) 00:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 1-2. --Thi (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Lengthen the voting period before nominations can be marked as FAILED or NO CONSENSUS.

Sometimes, nominations will remain open over a year before they pass. It can take a long time for some proposals to "cook". Contributors to this page are usually pretty good about leaving them open after they could be closed if it looks like they have a chance of success, but it has always bothered me that anyone could come along at any time and shut the nomination down when if left open longer it could succeed. I propose changing to the following nomination closure rules to more accurately reflect the convention of letting nominations with a chance of success to continue to remain open long after they could have been closed.

"After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 4 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support; or it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 120 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally. After 60 180 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and two-thirds support. Please be patient with our process; we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable list."

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
Oppose
  1. 4-6 months is just way too long a minimum time to leave something open. pbp 20:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I could change my mind if the page becomes very inactive but considering the current boom the project is in, I don't think it makes sense to lengthen the timeframes now. I was strongly supportive of the last change in this area (making it faster to fail proposals that have no chance of success - see archive). From a practical perspective, we leave things for a longer time than what we say anyway. The only user who religiously followed the closing rules was User:Malerisch, who would close everything after exactly 15, 30 and 60 days. Also this will lead to old proposals where there is clear consensus one way or the other cluttering up the page. Gizza (t)(c) 22:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

Just to clarify, is that so many days from the day the nomination was proposed or the from the date of the last vote/discussion? I think in practice we do a good job of keeping nominations open when active discussions take place, so it seems like this is more of a codified guidance than a hard-and-fast rule. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This wording is literally the same wording used in the current voting rules at the top of this page, with the proposed changes marked with strikethroughs and bolding. The 30 and 180 day period is from the date of nomination, just like it is now, and the 120 day is from the last vote, just as it is now. This is essentially modifying the rules to be closer to what we do anyway, leaving nominations open if it looks like they have a chance of passing if given more time. Nominations still would not have to be closed after the 120 or 180 days, but could be just like now. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

On a related matter, should we specify how soon someone can renominate an article whose previous nomination failed or gained no consensus? Perhaps 180 days? ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd prefer to address that question in a separate nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 1-2. --Thi (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Archive nominations using red/green/blue templates

Moving forward, let's use {{Archive top red}} to indicate nominations which did not pass, {{Archive top green}} for nominations which pass, and the blue default {{Archive top}} for nominations which do not garner consensus. All other parameters remain the same.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We've been using blue for passes and red for failed/no consensus for quite some time, and changing this convention would make looking through the archives more confusing. I'm not sure what advantage this change would give as "failed" and "no consensus" are functionally equivalent. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Usually color codes are not the main point in web usability. --Thi (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (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.

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

Polite reminder

Polite reminder, when a proposal has been correctly closed and archived, which several have earlier today, one should probably complete the process or things will get forgotten and start to be incorrect, things appear to have been forgotten or overlooked. One should add or remove the VA template on said article's talk page; add the article the the relevant list, or remove it, and adjust the count numbers of the section headers that have changed in the list. It can be time consuming and easy to forget some of it, but I'm sure myself or other users can help with it if it's a little tricky. ...But I don't have a lot of spare time today. If one is unsure ask for help or mimic what other user's have done when closing threads in the past  Carlwev  17:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I want to second this. Anyone who closes a nomination should go through the entire process of adding (or removing) the article to the list and tagging (or removing) the article's talk page with the Vital Articles template and updating the counts. This list is simply too big to not be properly maintained. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I will fix tomorrow if no one else does, got work now. I see the geography articles have been processed, but several have still been missed. Taxidermy, Prose poetry, humanism, Falun Gong, Mexican Cuisine, Economic policy, Order of operations.  Carlwev  22:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I have a bot that should clean up the talk page templates. A few (Taungoo Dynasty) are redirects that should be fixed here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's make a checklist after which the archive template can wrap around the topic to imply completion. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Something akin to WP:AFD/AI ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2017 (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.

About Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/Nav bar

I noticed that all subpages of WP:VA/E transclude this page (with {{Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/Nav bar}}), however the people and physical sciences subpages, unlike other ones, do not show the link to the Level 5 subpage at all. Can other Wikipedians explain why?--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

They should once somebody does a "?action=purge" request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 15 November 2017 (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.

Question

The article previously at Indochina was renamed to Mainland Southeast Asia last year, and the current Indochina article is now specifically about the term rather than the geographical region. The bot recently moved the vital article tag to the new Indochina article. Is this the intended outcome, or should the list be updated to follow the page moves? Does this require a formal discussion above? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I think a formal discussion is needed. I have no idea which one should be on the list. I might vote against having either one on the list, Southeast Asia is possibly enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 20 November 2017 (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.

Please, please, please

Put the archive templates inside the section header. It is really messing up my archiving. Thanks. J947 (contribs · mail) 03:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed the mistake.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I said inside not outside. I changed some of them already so that's why they were like that. J947 (c), at 20:14, 1 February 2018 (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
6-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Robin Williams

Not a top ten comedian or actor, many more notable actors that are not on here then him. Highly famous but not influential, suited exactly for the level 5 list. This current generation of actors should be evaluated for this list in around 2060/2050.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support not at the same level as the others now that people like Seinfeld have been removed. Gizza (t)(c) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - per DaGizza. Jusdafax (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
7-0, added. --Thi (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Attenborough

"One of the most widely respected TV broadcasters and has become known as the face and voice of natural history documentaries." (Biographyonline) According to BBC, "Sir David helped invent the natural history documentary as we know it today." [3] See also Archive 32#Add David Attenborough.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Highly influential and the stand out name in his field. GuzzyG (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Hey, I was going to nominate him! :) J947 (c), at 22:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - Clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Besides serving as a major figure in the documentary genre, Attenborough used to be the controller of BBC Two. He commissioned several important programmes such as Monty Python's Flying Circus, The Ascent of Man, and America: A Personal History of the United States. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
5+1 - 0, swapped. --Thi (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Diana Ross for The Supremes

Diana Ross is mainly and chiefly notable for being apart of The Supremes, her solo career does not compare to John Lennon who we removed. It's almost unlikely a band member would also be notable for something outside of their band. This raises an issue for this list Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Buddy Holly and Bob Marley's recordings are almost entirely apart of a band but the frontperson is listed, we are giving them an exception to the rule kinda.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support the removal only. --Thi (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support both parts. Gizza (t)(c) 04:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as a swap. 12 US number-one hits and the premier act of Motown Records during the 1960s power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Several other significant women singers were members of the Supremes during their 18-year run (1959-1977). Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
7-0, added. --Thi (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Blackbeard

The most notable pirate who has become apart of folklore, had a major impact on shipping and trade (thus the economy) in his time and area. We lack crime figures other then Guy Fawkes and Al Capone and he is more notable and vital then both. Majority of people if they had to name one pirate it would be him, i think all dominant household names of a field should be listed. He has 48 different language articles on wikidata. I also think Jack the Ripper, Pablo Escobar, Lucky Luciano and Charles Manson are notable enough in the field of crime, but i will start here as Blackbeard has had more effect on history than just crime.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support "inspiration for an archetypal pirate in works of fiction across many genres"; per nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. The most known pirate should definitely have a place on this list. J947 (c), at 03:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per above and previous discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Relatively short career as a pirate, only 2 years (1716-1718), but major impact. Nothing is known about his early life, but he is thought to have served as a British privateer in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). As a pirate, Blackbeard served under Benjamin Hornigold, and eventually succeeded him in leadership. Unlike Hornigold, he targeted British shipping. Blackbeard's last battle also caused a political incident. Forces from the Colony of Virginia hunted him down and killed him in areas than belonged to the Province of North Carolina. North Carolina protested about a Virginian "invasion", causing years of political conflict (1718-1722) and the eventual intervention of Prime Minister Robert Walpole.Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
6-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Henry Armstrong

Honestly, he's one of the least vital on this list (which is over the limit with more notable people left off). Boxing is not as vital as some sports with less (Cycling), and even if so there's way too many modern boxers and lighter weight class boxing has never really had a mainstream impact. Only 20 different language articles on wikidata. Not known worldwide. More insider technical boxing knowledge then something a general encyclopedia needs.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 03:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per Gizza. :) J947 (c), at 03:57, 5 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 the Mediterranean region

I think this article is equal in vitality with other regional history artilces that we list such as History of the Caribbean, History of Scandinavia, and History of Southeast Asia. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support, though tentatively. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support It has been a crossroad of civilizations for millennia. Dimadick (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - The subject is vital, and after looking at the well-written article, I’m moved to support for this level. Jusdafax (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I think I'd prefer History of Southern Europe and History of North Africa separately. And maybe History of the ancient Levant. FWIW, we can have redlinks on the list (e.g. moiety used to be redlink). Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Mediterranean area is a very historically significant area and should be listed. Yes, there will be some overlap with History of North Africa, as there is some degree of overlap between it and the History of Africa article, but proposing the addition of History of Southern Europe which doesn't even exist, is rather absurd. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I am on Gizza's side on this one. History of Southern Europe sounds like a good add to me as we have so little history of [region] articles that are here but not at L3. All the bloat will have to go, though. J947 (c), at 02:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you offering to write that article? Because we don't have one on the history of Southern Europe.Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No, because I am not that good at writing content and it would be a big task. Southern Europe#History has a start if anyone wants to have a go at it. J947 (c), at 05:28, 31 January 2018 (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
Gaborone and Windhoek added 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Nampula, Soweto, Gaborone, and Windhoek

Southern Africa is under represented. Also, I would like to move Mozambique, Angola, Zambia, and Zimbabwe into that sub-section as it is too small for my liking. J947( c ) (m) 05:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 05:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Windhoek and Gaborone pbp 00:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Windhoek and Gaborone Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Gaborone and Windhoek Capital cities of significant states. Dimadick (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I think that any city/suburb with over 1 million people should be included, thus justifying Soweto. Definite support for Windhoek/Gaborone as there are no reps of Namibia/Botswana. Nampula I only have a weak support for, but still so for a rep of North Mozambique; as we have South and Central. J947( c ) (m) 19:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have withdrawn it. J947 (c · m) 04:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm withdrawing Soweto and Nampula. I am unsure about their inclusion (leaning oppose on both) but as no one has commented on them apart from me and they could probably be better discussed in a different proposal I am withdrawing them. I have also moved Gizza's comment to this section for clarity. J947 (c · m) 04:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Any comment on the sub-section proposal? J947 (contribs · mail) 04:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Any comments at all? J947 (c), at 07:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would only support Soweto. People who know about the history of Africa should know about the Soweto uprising, and therefore about Soweto. The other cities are not as culturally significant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dire Dawa

Ethiopia appears to be the only country with over a population of 100 million with only one city on the list (being the capital Addis Adaba). Dire Dawa is one of the two chartered cities in Ethiopia along with Addis Adaba, signifying its importance to the country. Every other part of Ethiopia is administered as a regional state.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Full support and trout whoever made this. :) J947( c ) (m) 05:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  19:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I think I would support Gondar as the second Ethiopian city. More populous and a former capital. pbp 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Dire Dawa has a larger metropolitan population although to be frank, as we're 36 articles under the current quota (and there are still some inconsequential seas and straits that could be removed or amalgamated) Gondar should be included too. Gizza (t)(c) 02:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've proposed it. J947( c ) (m) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (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
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gondar

Per above. Ethiopia is under-represented and has a high enough population in my opinion to automatically warrant three cities included. J947( c ) (m) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 16:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:39, 5 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
8-1, removed. --Thi (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 This Land Is Your Land

Not sure why we need a folk patriotic song of one country. It's not even the most popular patriotic song among Americans. The American national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, gets more than eight times the number of eyeballs. [4]. We could add national anthem if we want to cover this space though there are probably other genres that are more important.

Support
  1. Support as nom Gizza (t)(c) 22:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Per nom. --Thi (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. We need to remove the American bias here. J947 (c), at 06:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support I'd include God Bless America before this if we're discussing American patriotic songs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support My Country, 'Tis of Thee, America the Beautiful, The Stars and Stripes Forever, Battle Hymn of the Republic, and Dixie (song) are all more vital than this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Patriotic? It is a protest song by Woody Guthrie, "against the vast income inequalities that exist in the United States". With lyrics such as "Was a high wall there that tried to stop me/A sign was painted said: Private Property,/But on the back side it didn't say nothing" and "One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple/By the Relief Office I saw my people/As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering if", and the variant "In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple/By the relief office, I'd seen my people./As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,.Is this land made for you and me?", it is kind of hard to miss Guthrie's intent here. Guthrie was at various points a socialist and a communist, and was highly critical of social conditions in the United States. According to Guthrie, the song was written as his reply to an annoying song, God Bless America by Irving Berlin, whose lyrics Guthrie found "unrealistic and complacent". Dimadick (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
We should list protest song first, before we have an example of it in either case. 12:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)GuzzyG (talk)
Sure. I just don't get how a protest song (and one of my personal favourites) gets compared to national anthems and vapid "patriotic songs". Particularly The Star-Spangled Banner by hack writer Francis Scott Key. I find the lines "Praise the Power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!/Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,/And this be our motto—"In God is our Trust" to be both disturbing and rather disgusting. They sound medieval, a betrayal to the ideals of the Age of Enlightenment on which the United States were founded. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I'm with Dimadick on the characterization of the song. It is not patriotic in the least and not comparable to naitonal hymns. Its importance is cultural and political as a major example of a protest song, that had been adopted by anti-naitonalist movements across the world. Nevertheless, I don't think it is really vital. Probably very few songs are, certainly none of the ones mentioned above as more vital than this one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:45, 22 February 2018 (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
6-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pet Sounds

The Beach Boys, two American albums (What's Going On & Thriller) and Sgt. Pepper's are listed. Level 5 suits better for albums. --Thi (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support only a handful of songs and albums should be listed on Level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as I agree with Thi and Gizza that Level 5 suits better for albums and only a handful of songs and albums should be listed at Level 4. J947 (c), at 21:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I would remove "What's Going On" too. We removed people like Stevie Wonder, I don't see why Marvin Gaye should get an album in addition to himself.  Carlwev  20:36, 2 February 2018 (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
7-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 What's Going On (Marvin Gaye album)

See above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support only a handful of songs and albums should be listed on Level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support for the barrier – Albums and songs IMO on should be secondary to musicians here at L4. J947 (c), at 06:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Scheherazade (Rimsky-Korsakov)

The quota is over and we should probably make cuts also in the classical music section. Debussy's La mer is an example of orchestral work and there are other representatives of Romantic music on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak support – I don't think cuts in this sub-sub-section are as important as modern music as we are still slightly recentist here, but we are over quota here. For the barrier. J947 (c), at 06:34, 8 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 The Passion of Joan of Arc

Probably the least well-known of the listed historical films.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. I was going to oppose as this is a silent film and we are underrepresented in that film genre, but then I thought that we need space to add genres as they are more vital in my opinion than some specific films currently on the list. Thus, weak support. J947 (c), at 02:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support we have Battleship Potemkin and Birth of a Nation as silent films in that category. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Genre's should be listed over specific films too, there's a hierarchy in coverage of something. GuzzyG (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2018 (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.
1-9, failed and not removed Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Star Wars

Not vital in encyclopedia. At this level these (bad) films are pop culture bloat.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Due to its high impact, it should never be removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC) added the rationale 13:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per RekishiEJ. Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  15:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I'd expect an encyclopedia to contain articles on both critically acclaimed literature and pop culture literature/franchises. Surely if something has to go, it should be one of the superheroes and comics which is where the biggest pop culture bloat is. Gizza (t)(c) 20:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I will agree that the films are horrendously written and they have plot holes the size of Jupiter, but they are historically significant and have practically defined the scifi genre for over a generation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. I was going to give more consideration to this one but Carlwev, Gizza, and Katolophyromai have more than convinced me. This sci-fi movie series is the second/third most popular movie series ever and the most popular operating on the same characters. Star Wars' significance is huge. J947 (c), at 02:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Oppose though listing it in a "media franchises" section with Pokemon and Harry Potter instead of under films might be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. Oppose.Kevin Dewitt Always ping 03:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I think we shouldn't just have movies that have won several oscars had critical acclaim and are studied by art critics. Even if one could describe it as a bad movie, very few movies if any are as influential and have had as much impact on popular culture than this one. Movies/franchises don't generally get there own entries in encyclopedias, but if they did I'm sure this would be one of the first listed, if we are listing movies at all, which we are at the moment we should list both movies with artistic and cinematography brilliance and acclaim and movies with huge impact on popular culture. We already list many more movies important for artistic reasons than popularity. We also list other popular culture things which are big but probably have less impact on society like Mario, Pokemon, Harry Potter, Peanuts, X-Men and many more.  Carlwev  15:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Carlwev, this is not an article about a single film. This is the article of the entire 41-year-old franchise. Which I consider important to film history, even if it is not among my personal preferences. Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You are effectively arguing the same thing that he is. :) J947 (c), at 02:29, 5 February 2018 (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
7-0, added. --Thi (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Human sexual activity

This is listed in Category:Top-importance Sexuality articles ”This article is about sexual practices and related social aspects. For broader aspects of sexual behaviour, see Human sexuality.” Maybe these and Sexual intercourse are all vital, despite some overlap.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Universal, as well as very historically and culturally significant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sex education

This is also possibly a vital subject.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support quite a major omission. Gizza (t)(c) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  10:30, 7 February 2018 (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.
5-6, not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Brazilian jiu-jitsu

Century old major martial art. The most important one out of South America. Highly popular worldwide.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support for globalisation. We're under quota here. J947( c ) (m) 03:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Significantly influenced Brazilian culture and its image around the world. Also diverse, as there is a dearth of South American content here. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose of course not. Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Once again, I do not think this is sufficiently notable. We already have jujutsu on the list; I see no reason why we would want to include a newer, less universal form of it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose jujutsu and MMA cover this well enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Redundant to regular jujutsu at this level pbp 17:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I'd prefer a Brazilian art form that wasn't derived from something else listed like capoeira. Gizza (t)(c) 21:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • How different is this really to jujutsu? I cannot see it being distinct, just a regional variation of the (much older) eastern fighting style/sport. I realize that the rules may have been adapted, but the core style is the same, it founder was a Japanese jujutsu master who used a previously recognized form of Japanese jujutsu, there have been no obvious variations since, particularly as the sport is fairly young. Jujutsu has been adapted into numerous types of judo and other regional variations, so while an overall distinction can be made, i'm unsure of its importance. I note that Jujutsu itself is not a vital article, Is this topic really important enough to make it vital? A Guy into Books (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize jujutsu wasn't a vital article (it should be). The point of nominating BJJ was to diversify the list as it's the most influential South American Martial Art and it was a major influence on MMA (which we list). We're under quota so diversifying our list isn't that bad of a idea. GuzzyG (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2017 (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 failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 airsoft and paintball

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Other
  1. Support Paintball Unique sport/game which is used in military training worldwide, subject to laws in most countries. Tournaments are in use and it's a relatively popular spectator sport. We're under quota quite a bit so i will support this. We can always swap it out again if we miss something when we hit the quota. GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak support paintball; oppose airsoft on the basis that it's not highly viewed. See here. J947( c ) (m) 02:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak support paintball. Gizza (t)(c) 21:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose airsoft. Very niche and obscure. We're only a little bit under quota and there are easily 10 more important articles relating to everyday life. Gizza (t)(c) 21:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. oppose Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I do not think these are especially significant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Just to note that it is currently 1–1–3 on airsoft and 4–1 on paintball. J947( c ) (m) 06:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Now 1–1–4 on airsoft and 4–2 on paintball. J947 (c · m) 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Now 1–1–5 on airsoft and 4–3 on paintball. J947 (c), at 05:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Sambo (martial art)

2-3, failed not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Support
  1. As nom. Now that it's included in the 27th Annual Summer Universiade, it's vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. We're under-quota here and as always it can be moved out later to accommodate more important topics. J947( c ) (m) 02:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Seriously? Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I do not think this one is sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

There are quite a few FISU sports that are not listed here link. It's a slightly strange rationale as there may be important sports missing that should be listed but aren't in the 27th Annual Summer Universiade. Gizza (t)(c) 10:29, 2 November 2017 (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
6-1, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Proverb

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support An important form of folklore. People have used proverbs in their everyday language more often when printed forms of communication and formal education were rare. --Thi (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. (Changed from neutral) Crazily, I have to change again. I still believe idioms encompass more ground, but the ground that proverbs cover is more dense with the historical importance that they convey and have. Thus, weak support. Hopefully I don't change again... J947( c ) (m) 05:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per J947. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
An idiom I think is slightly more important than a proverb and we don't need both, thus weak oppose. Would like to see other opinions on the matter, though. J947( c ) (m) 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
No, proverbs are as important as idioms, since proverbs convey traditional wisdom and reflect a country, region or ethnicity's values, and proverb is not synonymous with idiom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. This looks to go over quota even with my proposed change, so I'm thus neutral. J947( c ) (m) 02:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per J947. Proverbs and idioms aren't exactly the same but there is significant overlap. We can't include everything. Gizza (t)(c) 04:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. oppose there are many aspects of language use that are more important to include than either proverbs or idioms.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (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.
ALREADY LISTED
Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Race (human classification)

We have racism, but not race. Race is a controversial subject, with many competing definitions and perspectives - but probably everyone agrees that it is of extraordinary significance for understanding contemporary society.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

support
  1. Support As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  20:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
oppose
discussion

We have Ethnic group here and up to the level 2 100 list, but in a 10'000 strong list the overlap I think is acceptable, we should have race and ethnic group here.  Carlwev  20:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think those two topics are very different, and both clearly vital.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is already listed under Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Society_and_social_sciences#Social_status_(26_articles). Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Odd, I searched the list.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:17, 23 February 2018 (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
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Clydesdale horse

This is just an example of heavy horse and a Good article. There exists only 5,000 Clydesdales worldwide. Draft horse would be more vital article. See Archive 36#Restructure horse articles.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Draft horse is definitely the broader topic. Per also my comments at #So many organisms Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support mildly significant in Australia but there are far more vital Australian animals missing. Gizza (t)(c) 11:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support appearing in Budweiser commercials is not enough reason to include it here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 12 February 2018 (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.

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

Thurgood Marshall and Ralph Abernathy

These articles have been added without the normal discussion/voting, so it's right to just remove them, hey? Just checking. I'll probably be a bit busy so if anyone wants to do it they can, too. Make sure the talk page tags get removed too, as they were added aswell. GuzzyG (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Thi (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (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
2-4, not removed. --Thi (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care

An example of nonfiction literature. Probably not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support why was this ever included? Probably noone who is not in the field of history of educatio could be expected to know about this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since this book has been very influential since its publication (being one of the best-selling books of the 20th century), it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The book completely changed methods of raising children, by advocating that parents should pay attention to a child's emotional needs. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose never heard of it, but one of the best-selling books of the 20th century, and pretty influential. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose as pretty much what Galobtter said. It was vital in transforming childcare and that is enough in my opinion. I'm weak here because I think modern books and works in general are rarely themselves vital. J947 (c), at 06:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • I noticed we don't list the topic of the book "child care", nor do we list Child development should we list these instead or as well? Do people refer to this book because the want to study child care? Or do they study the book alone for it's literacy merit? But I admit it was influential and had high sales though. We do however list Pediatrics.  Carlwev  07:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would not oppose adding child care or child development to the list of vital articles. Benjamin Spock differed a lot from the mainstream of his era, as other experts advised parents to not pick up their children, not to kiss them, and not to hug them. Spock thought that showing affection to your children was important. Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2018 (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
2-4, not removed. --Thi (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Metropolis (1927 film)

Fritz Lang is listed in Peoples section. Three science fiction films on the list is much. In my opinion, we can list the general article Science fiction film.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    Agree per my comment at #Add Science fiction film. J947 (c), at 02:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
    Withdraw support as per Gizza. J947 (c), at 07:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. It's a German silent film. I'd rather remove 2001. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose agree with Power. Metropolis virtually created the sci-fi genre. If we are to have two sci-fi films, I'd have Stars Wars and Metropolis. Gizza (t)(c) 02:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, counterproposal is on my todo list here. J947 (c), at 07:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Very influential film.Kevin Dewitt Always ping 03:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Dystopian fiction, one of the earliest films to feature a robot, criticism on the effects of "industrialization and mass production", and high impact in its field. I would consider it the most important film in our category Category:1920s science fiction films. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2018 (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
3-4, not added. --Thi (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Science fiction film

One of the main film genres. "Science fiction often expresses the potential of technology to destroy humankind and easily overlaps with horror films".[5] I suggest adding both.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support; I've changed from oppose. Film genres are generally more vital than specific films in my opinion and there are already 3 SF films on the list. J947 (c), at 20:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we already have science fiction as a literary genre. This is a sub-article of that. I don't think this is more vital than science fiction comics, science fiction novels, science fiction television, etc. And then for balance you would have to add it for all other genres. Gizza (t)(c) 08:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'd prefer sacrificing a few films for film genres rather than not. Also, in my opinion comics are less vital than films and I'm guessing that SFC occupies a smaller proportion of comics revenue-wise than SFF and films. SFN is a redirect to a list and SFT has significant overlap with SFF and is (probably) less common. J947 (c), at 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. The number of articles currently included in the art sublist already exceeds the quota, and the sublist still lacks some vital articles (e.g. Iranian architecture). Film genres do not have to be included, as many of them are mere subtypes of a fiction genre (e.g. science fiction film and horror film).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'd question the addition of Persian architecture for pretty much the same reason as you have questioned this addition. J947 (c), at 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose mainly per Gizza and RekishiEJ, with my caveat above. A sub-article of an L4 article is not vital in my opinion when there are many similar articles that are not on L4. We're under quota here. If we were 4 under quota and Gizza's note was made then I'd investigate this further. But that is not the case. J947 (c), at 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Science fiction is already listed. There is no point in listing a more specific subcategory of it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yes there is if (in my opinion at least) it is top 2000. This is IMO. J947 (c), at 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose there's not enough room to add film genres here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    Then remove specific films as IMO they are better suited for L5. Which is more important, genres or films? J947 (c), at 04:43, 12 February 2018 (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
3-5, not added. --Thi (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Horror film

See above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support (changed from neutral) per my comment on the proposal above. J947 (c), at 20:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose horror is listed. Same reasons as above. Gizza (t)(c) 09:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    @DaGizza:, you absolutely meant horror fiction when you made a link to horror, right? Since the only article in the art sublist whose title contains "horror" is horror fiction. Be careful not to link to a disambiguation page when you want to indicate an article is listed. You can alter your user preference to make links to disambiguation pages orange ones (I discovered your mistake because I've changed my user preference so that all links to disambiguation pages become orange ones).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've enabled that preference as well. J947 (c), at 20:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    @RekishiEJ: yes horror fiction sorry. I'd prefer adding more overall genres like Fantasy, Western fiction and Thriller (genre) before adding these articles and others like Fantasy film and Fantasy comics. Gizza (t)(c) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. The same reason as above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Gizza. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for the same reasons as above. Horror fiction is already listed, so there is no benefit to listing a more specific subcategory of it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose there's not enough room to add film genres here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    Then remove specific films as IMO they are better suited for L5. Which is more important, genres or films? J947 (c), at 04:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Neutral currently; it is a common film genre. I'll think about this case more later. J947 (c), at 20:35, 3 February 2018 (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 removed. --Thi (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 MS-DOS

A discontinued operating system from the 1980s.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Although it is now discontinued, in the past it was extremely popular on earth. A software or website which is now unpopular or discontinued is still vital at this level if it was once extremely popular on earth or had substantial impact.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose From the article: "Ultimately it was the key product in Microsoft's growth from a programming language company to a diverse software development firm, providing the company with essential revenue and marketing resources. It was also the underlying basic operating system on which early versions of Windows ran as a GUI. " Ms-DOS was only discontinued in 2000. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per others, being discontinued doesn't mean it wasn't influential. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

The nominating statement is not stating anything other than a fact. Being discontinued doesn't mean it isn't vital. I'll still take this into account though; we are recentist in this section. J947 (c), at 03:35, 12 February 2018 (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.

Hasty closures?

No offense intended, but I think that some of the closures earlier today are questionable. They all conform to our closing guidelines, but they (especially the no consensus ones) are intended to be bare minimums.

In particlular a closure I find annoying was that of /Archive 55#Add populism and elitism. No one had explicitly opposed the addition of Elitism, but only 4 people supported it. It needed just 1 more support to be added. This in my opinion just justifies why the extension of the no consensus closure guidelines is an excellent idea. That discussion was rather ironically closed and archived today as well.

Also, the closure of 4–2's where one more opinion either way would get a conclusive closure is also rather distressing. And don't let me get started on why closing and archiving in the space of 24 hours is a bad idea...

P. S. I am happy that the same person that did the closures made heaps more discussions along the way. :) J947 (c), at 07:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that archiving very quickly after closing is not ideal, especially when the page overall is not particularly large (it was less <200,000 bytes according to history at that stage which is manageable). Though I tend to agree with the closures themselves which were if anything a bit delayed. From above, anything that has failed to obtain 5 supports in 60 days can be closed as no consensus and that proposal was around for 108 days. Also if there are no votes or discussion at all for 30 days, it can be closed as no consensus. It was 96 days since the last vote/comment on the proposal. The discussion came to a standstill really. We could make an exception if the page goes through a period of inactivity but there were a reasonable number of people voting on other proposals during this time.
Also in this case, while nobody expressly "opposed", Aidan did question whether elitism would be suitable and so did Thi. Surely, one of the supporters of elitism (most probably the nominator) could reply to these comments and expand on their rationale of why they think it's vital? I definitely believe it would be unfair if a supporter gave their reasoning in the last few days or so and it was abruptly closed but here I think the discussion was dead long before the closure. On the bright side, the project hasn't yet agreed on any rules on when an article can be renominated so in theory it could be proposed again today (though as a matter of practice it would be good to wait awhile and ideally if it is nommed again, have a longer rationale in the nom). Gizza (t)(c) 08:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this closure to propose the addition of David Attenborough was probably the harshest that I have seen while being here. It was 4-0 support with no people expressing even a bit of doubt and it was closed right on 60 days. Somebody did express doubt about Attenborough though that was after the closure. There have been quite a few passes, fails and no consensuses that have just scraped through on the technical rules we have. That's the nature of the beast. We could adjust the guidelines and percentages and times but that would just move the goalposts and you would get new borderline cases. Gizza (t)(c) 08:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I recently proposed extending the voting time guidelines, but people didn't seem to like that idea. But I agree these closures go against our generally understood custom of leaving open nominations that have a good chance of success if given more time. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Extending the times for every proposal even when the vote is 7-0 or 1-6 won't be helpful. Most people here are smart enough to leave a close vote like 5-2, 6-3, 4-0, etc. open for a longer time than normal. If one support or oppose can technically change the result, I think it's common sense to wait for a little bit longer. Gizza (t)(c) 21:50, 21 February 2018 (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 removed. --Thi (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 George Carlin

Maybe we need only one stand-up comedian at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose if there was only two comedians to list it'd be him and Pryor. Some people rank him higher then Pryor. As for the rationale even if there should be one he'd go last, not first. GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per GuzzyG. He was a pioneer and standout in his field. Jusdafax (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

If we're removing stand up comedians these 3 are probably the last ones that need to go George Carlin is always rated number two or one (behind Richard Pryor), Lenny Bruce is the first historically important comedians of an older age (Along with Frank Fay) and Bill Cosby is the only black person listed and was also supremely important in television. GuzzyG (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The community also wanted to keep Carol Burnett. I withdraw the nominations. --Thi (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I know this is closed, but was Richard Pryor not black? we also have no Asian comedians despite Asia having over 50% of world population, is this a problem?  Carlwev  15:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I forgot Pryer but i still think Cosby's contributions to television and comedy qualify him for this list. Yes, actually. Zhu Shaowen, should be listed if we were being representative, certainly more then Robin Williams or Peter Cook. GuzzyG (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussions about Robin Williams and Peter Cook were started, so let's leave these open too. --Thi (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2018 (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 power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cook

He may have been voted number one in one poll but he is outdone by Monty Python, and he is not more significant then Frank Fay or Three Stooges who we do not list. He only has 17 different language articles on wikidata.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Peter who? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. What Maunus said. :) J947 (c), at 05:06, 5 March 2018 (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.
PASSED
Added, 8–0 power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Phidias

I noticed that this list does not have a single ancient Greek sculptor on it, which is really a glaring omission considering ancient Greek sculpture's extreme historical significance. (In fact, all the famous sculptors of the Renaissance, of which we have two listed, were deliberately imitating the sculptures of the ancient Greeks; Michelangelo even started out forging them.) The Greek sculptural tradition lasted for over a millennium, but I decided that you would probably not tolerate more than one representative of it, so I have chosen Phidias as a representative. He sculpted the Statue of Zeus at Olympia, which was revered as the greatest sculpture of the ancient world and was listed as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. He also sculpted the Athena Parthenos, which stood inside the Parthenon and was revered as one of the greatest sculptures on earth, and the Athena Promachos, which was an extremely influential work of outdoor colossal sculpture that provided the basic model for the Colossus of Rhodes, the Statue of Liberty, and almost every other Western colossal statue ever since. He was also partially responsible for designing the Parthenon itself, which is one of the most important monuments in world history. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 06:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support as per nom. J947 (c), at 05:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:32, 13 March 2018 (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.
FAILED
3-5, not removed. --Thi (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gilbert and Sullivan

We don't need it at this level anymore, we have Level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Although i can be convinced otherwise. GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Why were they ever here?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Certainly more vital than Grandmaster Flash pbp 02:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose They are a set of highly significant figures in the history of drama. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Notable writers of comic operas from 1871 to 1896, and humorists. They had a great influence on British comedy and some of their jokes are still being used. Or to quote the article: "The musical is not, of course, the only cultural form to show the influence of G&S. Even more direct heirs are those witty and satirical songwriters found on both sides of the Atlantic in the twentieth century like Michael Flanders and Donald Swann in the United Kingdom and Tom Lehrer in the United States. The influence of Gilbert is discernible in a vein of British comedy that runs through John Betjeman's verse via Monty Python and Private Eye to... television series like Yes, Minister... where the emphasis is on wit, irony, and poking fun at the establishment from within it in a way which manages to be both disrespectful of authority and yet cosily comfortable and urbane." Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per my comments below, Dimadick offering a good rationale with a lot of info, and completely agreeing with pbp here. They were already separated to save space and their creative partnership is more than vital. J947 (c), at 05:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Previous discussion at /Archive_9#Swap:_Remove_W._S._Gilbert_and_Arthur_Sullivan,_Add_Gilbert_and_Sullivan. J947 (c), at 04:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the nominating rationale. Level 5 in no way effects Level 4. J947 (c), at 04:12, 10 February 2018 (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
9-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Bill Monroe

We removed Bluegrass it self earlier, so we should have removed it's inventor too, bluegrass has had no impact on country arguably itself and certainly has not had vital impact on history or the world. Bill is known to a niche audience in America and considering we have removed the likes of Stevie Wonder, John Lennon, Nirvana (band) and Elton John it makes sense to say he's not on this list's level, he is suitable for level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Support, not that important. Though Bluegrass has had some impact on the world. For some reason it was very popular in communist Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic. There is a regional scene there since the 1960s (Czech bluegrass). Bluegrass music was popular with the activist students in the Prague Spring (1968), and was considered politically subversive by the communist regime. The Czech band Druhá Tráva has been performing Bluegrass since 1991. Dimadick (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 18:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support as a bluegrass lover I agree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support per above Gizza (t)(c) 20:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support as IMO the creator of something removed should have no place on this when there is no other major reason for vitality. J947 (c), at 05:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 24 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Arnold Palmer

The third-best American golfer when we only need two. pbp 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 13:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. support wise proposal.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support as we really need to remove this American bias. J947 (c), at 05:27, 28 February 2018 (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.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Detective fiction

In principle, Crime fiction is more general article, but this is probably the most essential.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Yep —J947 (c), at 05:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support addition. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Add it. Jusdafax (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 15 March 2018 (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.
FAILED
Withdrawn a bit early per WP:SNOW power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Keats's 1819 odes

Keats' most notable works, though Bright star, would I were steadfast as thou art might be more famous. John Keats is listed as a biography, that might be enough at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose the biography is enough.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Maunus. I'd rather we focus on genres/disciplines/topics than people, and people than works. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as Jclemens' philosophy here is pretty much the same as mine. J947 (c), at 05:58, 14 March 2018 (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.
NOT ADDED
1-4, not added. WP:SNOW close as the intended addition to the WP:VA5 list has been done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Game of the Goose

Game of the Goose is more significant than modern games like to Cluedo or Risk althought it has much fewer entires in wikidata Dawid2009 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support 16th century game. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose. No, not vital. We don't need to fill the quota, which seems to be too big anyway.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Seems more Lv. 5 material than Lv. 4 pbp 21:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. What pbp said. Nominator was misguided. J947 (c), at 05:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Is it more vital than Snakes and Ladders or Ludo (board game)? which are not listed.  Carlwev  19:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I nominate it for 5 level but I can't found disscussion for vital articles: 5 level. Where is it? Is it exist?BTW, Ludo is variant of Pachisi in this case it is much fewer vital than game of the goose which has significat in culture Dawid2009 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You just add it. There is no discussion yet. J947 (c), at 05:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 8–0 power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Hot air balloon

Seems an important topic we've missed. pbp 08:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 08:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Pioneering aircraft from the 18th century. Per History of military ballooning, they have been used for reconnaissance purposes in the French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802), the Second Italian War of Independence (1859), the American Civil War (1861-1865), the Paraguayan War (1864-1870), the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), and the Second Boer War (1899-1902). Dimadick (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - Good catch. Jusdafax (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Yep. J947 (c), at 02:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support add. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2018 (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. ^ "About Relief Portrait Plaques of Lawgivers". Architect of the Capitol | United States Capitol. Retrieved 2017-11-14.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_55&oldid=1137397531"