Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The following discussion is closed. Please 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 impact on the environment

The title Human impact on the environment isn't as popular but, on a region to region basis, this type of article may have built from possible component parts: Deforestation , Desalination , Desertification , Environmental impact , of agriculture , of aviation , of biodiesel , of concrete , of electricity generation , of the energy industry , of fishing , of irrigation , of mining , of off-roading , of oil shale industry , of palm oil , of paper , of the petroleum industry , of reservoirs , of shipping , of war , Industrialisation , Land degradation , Land reclamation , Overconsumption , Pollution , Quarrying , Urbanization , Loss of green belts , Urban sprawl , Waste , Water scarcity , Overdrafting.

If you have pollution on the list, why not human impacts on the environment? Gregkaye (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Gregkaye (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

quote from above :) "I would also consider supporting the addition of Human impact on the environment to level 3. The list is not about popularity by the way, it's about vitality. We try to determine if an article is vital for an encycopedia. Those can be but aren't necessarily popular articles. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer a swap with environmentalism and/or pollution. Malerisch (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Eurocentrism and recentism in History

The current History section is too Eurocentric and recentist. I'll first provide evidence and then suggest ways to rectify this problem. Beginning with Eurocentrism:

• Why is Middle Ages included instead of post-classical history? Middle Ages refers to a period specific to medieval Europe, not to the entire world.
• A majority of the articles in the "Middle Ages" section deal with Europe. By my count, only Mongol Empire and Tang dynasty are firmly outside European history (Islamic Golden Age is debatable).
• Two articles are listed dealing with the history of Christianity: East–West Schism and Protestant Reformation. They're certainly intertwined with the history of Europe, but this still seems excessive. What about Hinduism or Buddhism?
• The bias toward European history is most evident in the "Renaissance to present" section. How many articles don't deal with European history? There is almost zero coverage on Indian or Chinese history.
• There are two articles dealing with French history in a very short period: French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. This is too detailed.

And a couple of notes on recentism:

• We place too much focus on modern history: the number of articles in prehistory, ancient history, and post-classical history combined only just beats the number for modern history.
• There's also a major bias toward the 20th century: we list an astounding 12 articles! That's more than all of post-classical history. Yes, we should cover the 20th century in more detail, but not by this much.

Next, some suggested additions:

• Zhou dynasty and Vedic period need to be added: they're major eras in Asian history. Vedic period will also improve coverage of Hinduism.
• Add Maurya Empire: it controlled almost half of the world's population, was a major empire in Indian history, and was one of the world's largest empires in its time.
• Add Abbasid Caliphate: it was a major Islamic caliphate and was where the Islamic Golden Age took place.
• Add Gupta Empire and Mughal Empire: two other major empires in Indian history.
• Add Song dynasty, Ming dynasty, and Qing dynasty: major dynasties in Chinese history.

And some suggested removals, in reverse chronological order:

• Remove Revolutions of 1989: is this really more vital than the Fall of the Western Roman Empire?
• Remove Korean War: Not even close to the most important war in history, and it's also covered in Cold War. South Korea isn't even listed, and I don't think it's more important than even the Vietnam War.
• Remove Arab–Israeli conflict: Not one of the most major conflicts in history. What makes this more vital than the Arab–Byzantine wars, the Manchu conquest of China, or the Taiping Rebellion?
• Remove Great Depression: I don't consider this vital enough to be on the list, particularly when many empires aren't listed.
• Remove French Revolution: We already list Napoleonic Wars. Is this more vital than the Muslim conquests or the Mongol invasions and conquests?
• Remove European colonization of the Americas: This is already covered by Age of Discovery.
• Remove East–West Schism: It's the less vital of the two Christianity articles.

Most events in history took place in Afro-Eurasia, so I didn't add any articles about the Americas or Oceania. I'm also not sure if any specific articles on Africa deserve to be included. Anyway, those are my suggestions, and I'd be interested to see what others think. Malerisch (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick read of what you wrote Malerisch. In general, I agree with your comments especially the recentist bias (I don't think the Eurocentric bias is as bad in comparison but will take a further look). At first glance, I will support removing Korean War (at most equal to Vietnam and part of the wider Cold War anyway) and adding the Maurya Empire. Not sure if I can support removing European colonization of the Americas. The Age of Discovery tends to focus on the exploration rather than colonial aspects. The former article covers the major portions of the Spanish Empire and Portuguese Empire. It wasn't just relevant for the people of Europe and Americas, it lead to the Atlantic Slave Trade which affected much of Western Africa. I will also need think about how many empires we should have vs non-empire articles. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to have 3 or 4 articles each on the Middle East, India and China (as well as many on Europe obviously) it might be a good idea to expand coverage of Pre-Colombian America. Currently there is only Mesoamerica. Perhaps replace that with or simply add Aztec Empire, Inca Empire and Maya civilization? Then there is also Southeast Asia to consider. Maybe History of Southeast Asia? Then again, Southeast Asia is not listed and neither is East Asia while we list History of East Asia. We also have the option of listing Silk Road which connected much of Eurasia as well as some of Africa. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I agree with the diagnosis, but disagree with the treatment. The suggestions seem to focus predominantly on formal political entities and recommends deletions of vital topics (Great Depression is more vital than any empire ever). Just because an empire had a lot of people does not translate into vitality in this list, in my opinion. Some of these changes, I would fully support (e.g. remove Korea War). However, on the whole, I would once again suggest moving away from a system where something is deemed vital because "it controlled almost half of the world's population" (a route which leads only to madness and false comparisons between things which are not comparable) and instead move to consider what vital niches a topic fills in a comprehensive list of vital history articles (I'd even suggest starting not with the topics themselves and comparing things which don't compare but start with what niches we would want filled, for example, 700-1400 East Asian Civilization, and then debating what is the most vital topic to fit in that position). One final note: While the suggestions may correct some bias, as noted by the nominator, it does this in a Eastward direction and does not include much of the Southern hemisphere or Western hemisphere. Worthy of attention. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

On the removals you propose, I get behind 1, 2, 3 and 7; not really so much on 4, 5 and 6. The Great Depression was a global phenomenon, one that was responsible for the Holocaust and World II more than any other event (with the possible exception of World War I). If I had to axe one of French Revolution or Napoleonic Wars, I'd axe the Napoleonic Wars. pbp 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(If we're going to refer to these by numbers then maybe we should go back and change them from bullets to numbered to make it easy. RJFJR (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC))

• I'll tell you another bias we have: there are a shitton of wars on this list. pbp 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that the fact we have many articles on recent history is to be unexpected or necessarily a problem. Which am I more likely to need to read to understand a news report: an article about events in the 20th century or an article about what happened over a thousand years ago? We don't want to be exclusively modern, or unduly about modern articles, but we don't want to ignore them just because they are recent. (Everything in its proper balance.) RJFJR (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with most of the suggestions made, but I don't think the obvious recentist Eurocentrism is a problem. I.e. I agree with the treatment, but not the diagnosis. Population exploded over the course of the existence of mankind, so naturally there is more and more history to write about with the population increasing and with the concentration of the human population in Europe for a large part of history. Concerning removals I agree with every point in Pbp's posting. Most of the adds proposed by Malerisch I would support, except for Abbasid Caliphate. I can't imagine swapping Middle Ages with post-classical history. I don't think two articles on Christian history are OTT, because they are so intertwined with politics. If there is anything comparable in Buddhism, yes, it should be added. Also I think Fall of the Western Roman Empire is a huge omission. It should be on level 3, obviously.--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I looked at the list after reading the suggestion of "Fall of the Western Roman Empire" and I noticed some things that made me think.

1. We do have Rome, Ancient Rome, Byzantine Empire (aka Eastern Roman Empire), Holy Roman Empire and Augustus and Julius Caesar
2. We don't have Fall of the Western Roman Empire, as pointed out, but we also don't have Western Roman Empire itself, nor even Roman Empire itself either, or Roman Republic.

I am aware there are overlaps, like Ancient Rome with Roman Empire, but Ancient Rome could overlap with well lots. Would we want The fall of the Western Roman Empire before the Western Roman Empire itself, or even the Roman Empire itself. If the Roman Empire is covered by Ancient Rome, then so too is the Fall of the Western Roman Empire and also Caesar and Augustus.....As I said before everything can be covered in part by something else, we have to decide which topics are still important enough on their own for inclusion in spite of that fact a parent topic of sorts may be there too. BTW Ancient Rome covers Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and The Fall of the Western Roman Empire and more within the article. If we were to add one more to this area I would probably add Roman Empire. As always I think more discussion and voting threads are needed to work through ideas and find consensus.  Carlwev  13:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments, everyone! Here are my responses:

• It seems like Great Depression and European colonization of the Americas are here to stay. That's okay, and I think your arguments make sense.
• I have no problem with adding some articles to Pre-Columbian history. In addition to the three empires that Gizza listed, Pre-Columbian era is worth considering as well, possibly as a swap with Mesoamerica. Silk Road is also worthy of consideration.
• I don't think the latitude bias is a problem: around 90% of the human population currently resides in the Northern Hemisphere (and probably more in the past), and I can't find any significant events/entities besides Inca Empire that deserve mention.
• I'm not sure whether French Revolution or Napoleonic Wars is more vital (my initial proposal suggested removing Napoleonic Wars instead); either one (or even both) is fine with me.
• To Melody Lavender specifically: I agree that that there is more to write about for recent history, but there is a line between balanced and excessive coverage of modern history. We will still have more events concentrated toward recent history, even with the removals.
• Roman Empire could also be added.
• We need to remain aware of how big the proposed net addition to History should be, especially since we're not removing Great Depression and European colonization of the Americas and probably adding some to the Americas. Would anyone support removing Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age instead? They are divisions of prehistory, but we don't list divisions of the other periods (e.g. Classical antiquity, High Middle Ages, or Early modern period).
• Honest question: what about removing The Holocaust? It is covered in World War II. I'll understand if people want to keep it though.

Does anyone else want to suggest possible removals? There are too many possible additions at the moment. Malerisch (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: an alternative to removing these history topics would be to start cutting people. To borrow a list that Carlwev proposed above, people like Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Frida Kahlo, and Sergei Eisenstein are not as vital as these history topics. Malerisch (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Napoleon himself is also listed, I support removing Napoleonic Wars and keeping French Revolution. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think the 'Latitude' comment was directed at my comments. I'll be clearer: A Sahel civilization should be included on any vital list. Non-Islamic Africa has only 'History of Africa' and 'Scramble for Africa' for vital articles in history. Ghana or Mali seem the most likely, but there are of course other possible additions. Such attention to capturing the diversity of human experience in a list and not simply attention to the most people bias is the best way to deal with eurocentric and recentist bias. A second comment below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment 2, If I were constructing the list in my imaginary dictatorship (a truly horrible place to visit): It would see the removal of the entire History by Regions section which should be captured by the rest of the list (8 free spots right there), Civilization can be removed, Sumer (wasn't the first city state in Mesopotamia (already covered) and then it gets hard to parse which city state was most vital), swap Achaemenid Empire with Maruya or something, Middle Ages: Byzantine Empire, Crusades, East-West Schism, Ottoman Empire, and Viking age--cut, cut, cut, cut. Modern era: one of French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars, Abolitionism (If Atlantic slave trade isn't vital, why would abolitionism be?), Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Women's Suffrage (prefer replaced with feminism or something), Arab-Israeli conflict, Korean War (looks already done), Movements for Civil Rights (replaced with either human rights or decolonization. I would neither support nor oppose removal of the Holocaust leaving that up to other editors. I like the History of other subjects section and would only do minor tinkering with it. But that's just me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting ideas in your imaginary dictatorship, escpecially about the history by region-section. Cutting Woman Suffrage or Movements for civil rights? I can't imagine. The latter is about much more than Decolonialization. Atlantic slave trade, currently on level 4, should be on level 3. And: No, I would not support removing The Holocaust and it's not covered by WWII. There are many aspects of this gigantic real life enactment of the Milgram experiment that go beyond the typical war-article-routine. Napoleonic wars are coverd by the French Revolution, they are part of it, the article confirms that.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

But aren't Sahel civilizations still above the Equator? Empire of Brazil is probably a better article to include if you want to reduce the Northern Hemisphere bias. Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the Inca Empire, Bantu expansion and Srivijaya Empire are major Southern Hemisphere events/entities. Not sure if either is vital but they are close. Srivijaya along with the Khmer Empire was one of the two big empires of Southeast Asia for more than 500 years. The Khmer is represented on the list via Angkor Wat. I don't think anything in particular from Oceania is near vital at this level. Possibly History of Oceania itself but again it depends on how many history of regions vs specific events and periods we want. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The current list and your proposed amendments privilege Europe, North America, the Middle East, India, Russia, and China. I apologize for using the "hemisphere" as a shorthand label, but it was just to draw the topics in a generally southern direction. We should get greater historical additions from Sub-Saharan Africa (Mali, Ghana, Zulu, Ashanti), Southeast Asia (Gizza makes fine suggestions), Latin America, and Oceania (if possible). I think that would be better than correcting the Euro-bias with additional Chinese and Indian civilizations. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

But those are the places where most humans have lived in the past; they are also the places with the best historical records; they have every reason to be privileged. I'm late to the party, but FTR here's what I think:

• The Zhou dynasty is worth adding and maybe the Song as well, but not the Ming or Qing.
• Would support the Gupta and Mughal Empires, maybe the Maurya (would also look into adding Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka) but probably not the Vedic period.
• Would keep Mesoamerica and add Pre-Columbian era and the Inca Empire (swap with Machu Picchu – architectural works remain overrepresented). Would swap Angkor for any larger topic in Southeast Asian history. Would swap Sumer for the Abbasid Caliphate.
• Would definitely swap Middle Ages for post-classical history. Would swap Russia's empire for Spain's. Would get rid of the East-West Schism – this plus the Reformation but not the Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam is undue weight toward Christianity.

Cobblet (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) The Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam would be a good addition to Level 4. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Remove East–West Schism

Protestant Reformation is already listed, and it's excessive to list two articles on the history of Christianity when significant historical events from other religions are not listed. Where are the Succession to Muhammad and (as Cobblet pointed out) the Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam? Or the Silk Road transmission of Buddhism? Vedic period isn't listed, either. Malerisch (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support It's not like there isn't coverage of this in Eastern Orthodox Church. Meanwhile the immediate political consequences of the Protestant Reformation were much more severe. Cobblet (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Covered by Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Convinced by nom and Gizza. AbstractIllusions (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Machine?

We have simple machine, Mechanical engineering, tool, Wheel and several machines dotted about like several engines, vehicles, weapons, and electronic, media, communication devices. We don't have Machine. Also we don't have Mechanics at lev3 but we have Classical mechanics and Quantum mechanics. I would have thought machine is at least lev 3 material anyone else agree?.  Carlwev  14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Machine seems like a good add. I think classical mechanics and quantum mechanics are more important than the general mechanics article, though. Malerisch (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely vital. Swap with Simple machine. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Simple machine is also vital. (Note: simple machine does not mean a machine that is simple, it refers to a specific class of basic devices that are components of other machines.) RJFJR (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Machine

I'll open this for the reasons stated above, several others appear to like it. Someone else can suggest removing simple machine if they want to, I'm not sure on that. Machine like tool is a basic and vital tech article and wouldn't be that out of place in the vital 100, we list several machines already as I said above.  Carlwev  22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think tool can cover this concept (as far as I can tell, machines are tools that require some sort of energy input) – IMO, adding this is less of an improvement than adding something like cement, turbine or air conditioning. BTW, I just noticed Wikipedia has both machine and machine (mechanical). Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Thailand

Other than the fact that one has white English-speaking people and one doesn't, I'm not sure how Canada gets in ahead of Thailand. Red Slash 04:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple takes on this. One consideration that I believe was taken in account when the list of countries was being compiled was continental diversity. This explains why Australia is on the list but not Canada since North America is well represented with the United States and Mexico. The other as you say, is a preference towards native English-speaking countries. There is also the fact that Canada in terms of area is huge. Most information on countries is about it's people but some of it is about its territory, climate and wildlife and those aspects, Canada is quite vital.

Having said that, I still think Thailand should be on the list. Maybe Vietnam, Ethiopia and Argentina too? The number of countries can be bumped up a little. We're under the limit and even if we have to make cuts, there are many sections that can be cut. Inside geography, the ratio of cities to countries should probably go down. There are not many cities that are as vital as the major countries of the world. It is often just the cpital or biggest city of the same listed countries anyway so there is overlap. Very few of the cities are from countries not on the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's my take on your question: the only major statistic where Thailand beats Canada is population (67 million vs. 35 million). Other than that, the following statistics show that Canada is more vital than Thailand:

• Canada is a much larger and more interesting country geographically (10 million km² vs. 500,000 km²)
• Canada has a much higher GDP, either PPP or nominal (GDP (PPP) per capita: $45,000 vs $10,000)
  • Canada is a G-20 economy
• Canada is a member of the G8
• Toronto is arguably more vital than Bangkok based on global city rankings

That being said, there have been proposals to add more countries. I don't think that the language a country speaks should be taken into account, though. Malerisch (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The only vital statistic where Earth beats the Antennae Galaxies is also population. While Canada is richer and bigger (and again, far better-represented on Wikipedia) it is far, far less important in the most crucial of all statistics. (Australia? It's really not listed for its status as a country; it's there for the same reason that Antarctica is.) Red Slash 03:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also not quite sure what Italy as a country has done to merit its placement here ahead of Thailand. It's a country that occupies the land that was made famous by the Romans, but... Red Slash 03:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If population is used as the single criterioon for inclusion of countries, then Vietnam and Ethiopia are more vital than Thailand. Replacing the current list of 24 countries with the 24 most populated countries will lead to including Vietnam, Ethiopia, Thailand and Burma and removing Canada, Spain, South Africa and Australia (possibly replaced with Australia (continent) although Oceania is already listed). Italy will stay using this method. The difference between the populations of Thailand and Italy is only about 4 million anyway. And Italy has been politically and culturally influential beyond its borders far more than Thailand has. Not just the Romans but the Catholic Church, Maritime Republics, Marco Polo, Renaissance, Pasta, Pizza, Mussolini, Sicilian Mafia, Ferrari, Giorgio Armani and other brands. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

India currently has a population of around 1.25 billion. The United States only has a population of around 320 million—just over a quarter of India's population. Is India more vital than the United States? Many people would say yes, and many others would say no. Either way, the debate wouldn't be as clear-cut as the population difference would have you believe; arguments on both sides would take into account not only population, but also economy, geography, history, and international relations, among other things. Population is not the deciding factor in this case.

Similar questions can be raised about other entities: is Russia (population 150 million) clearly less vital than Indonesia (population 250 million)? Is Germany (population 80 million) less vital than Bangladesh (population 160 million)? Why is the European Union (population 500 million) listed but not BRICS (population 3 billion)? The answers clearly lie beyond just their populations.

I have been trying to point out, though, that I am in favor of simply increasing the number of countries listed, which would make this whole discussion moot, and I'm clearly not the only one. Our country list isn't written in stone—as you pointed out, Thailand may have a case over Italy. You are welcome to propose a formal addition or a swap, and I believe constructive discussion will emerge out of that regarding the number of countries to include.

(If population is the deciding factor for you, why are advocating for Thailand instead of Vietnam, which has a population of 90 million?) Malerisch (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam is a better addition. Good call. I was reading about Thailand the same day I wrote it, I saw teensy-weensy Canada listed, and I thought, wait a second, that isn't right. Okay, will do. Red Slash 04:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ableism

Currently only racism and sexism are listed as subcategories of discrimination. Disabled people are one of the largest minorities at approximately 10% of the world population. In addition to size, ableism also covers a wide scope: There is a great diversity within the disabled population, since disability includes everything from injuries and illnesses to the various neurotypes. Muffinator (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No thoughts on ableism for now, but disability isn't on the list either. Shouldn't that article be more vital? Malerisch (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't realize that. Definitely agree that Disability itself is more vital than ableism. If these two topics fight for space, I would support relegating ableism to level 4, but currently there are only 989 listings, so replacement isn't yet an issue. Muffinator (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I will support disability at the moment and think about ableism. To compare it with similar topics, we list racism but not race, we list sexism, sex and gender (note that sex discusses the biological differences), we replaced homosexuality with sexual orientation some time ago and don't list sexualism/homophobia. At Level 4, both social class and class discrimination are listed (along with other class articles) although neither are listed here. Indigenous people is listed at Level 3 and some caste related articles are listed at Level 4. At no level do we list anything related to ageism, handedness or sizeism barring the aging process (the biological phenonmenon). Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that level 4 is a work-in-progress, so a topic not being included there (as is the case with ableism) is not necessarily an indication that it is not vital enough for level 3. I don't anticipate much disagreement about disability being level 3 vital or ableism being level 4 vital, but more discussion on whether ableism is level 3 vital would be very useful. Muffinator (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I will probably support ableism at level 4 too or at least more articles relating to disability. Every level on Vital Articles is a work-in-progress just like all of Wikipedia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support both Agism and Abelism on level 3. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Remove Semiconductor device

This nomination just failed on VA/E, so it should be removed from here as well. Malerisch (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Too much overlap with integrated circuits and transistors which are already listed. Cobblet (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose note that at level 4 they have semiconductor but not semiconductor device, level 3 does not have semiconductor so I oppose removing semiconductor device though would be willing to consider swapping semiconductor for semiconductor device. RJFJR (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd be okay with simply removing it without a vote as well. I'm not sure how this process is supposed to work. Malerisch (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus on what to do in this situation. It might be best to set up a discussion to create formal rules so we aren't left in limbo in the future. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just remove it. Most people think nesting is an established paradigm. And from what I recall from the recent discussion on this, AbstractIllusions (talk · contribs) had some doubts about nesting, but didn't want to open a discussion. So should we really discuss nesting now? --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I opened up a discussion on level 4 to hopefully resolve this issue. Malerisch (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap Canada out for Vietnam

Other than the fact that its population mostly speaks English, I'm not sure how Canada makes it onto this list. Its geography is well-covered in North America (or should be) and it's a fairly small country as far as population goes.

Vietnam has over double the souls living within its borders and has had a tremendous influence on regional culture and (within the last fifty years) on international levels. Its cuisine is well-known, its military fights are world-famous, and again, it has nearly triple the population of Canada. It's not as rich--who cares? Red Slash 04:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Red Slash 04:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I would rather add Vietnam without removing Canada. I'm not opposed to removal, just don't think Canada is the right choice. Muffinator (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

   I mean, I understand; Canada has a bunch of English speakers which means it's well-represented here. Red Slash 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

   No need to repeat concerns that were already addressed in the Thailand section above. Canada is a major economy and accounts for 5% of Earth's land mass, second only to Russia. Muffinator (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Insufficient reason given to remove Canada. RJFJR (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

As Cobblet and I have said before, I would prefer more countries, I would prefer Canada and Vietnam and Thailand too. I don't like to choose from Canada or Vietnam.  Carlwev  09:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. And I believe Gizza does too ("The number of countries can be bumped up a little" in the Thailand section). I think we're close to a consensus! Malerisch (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that both Vietnam and Thailand should be added, without removing Canada. I'd like to add that if "what to replace" is an issue then lakes, rivers, and cities would be better candidates. Muffinator (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Explosive material

Another fire-related removal - I'm suggesting to remove this as an alternative to burn. I don't think the impact of explosive material is big enough to make it vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I do. If there's one thing from the chemical technology section worth removing it's gasoline. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - Explosion is currently not listed, and is surely more vital than explosive material. Muffinator (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Gunpowder, a specific type of explosive material, though an important one, is also listed. Another option would be swapping it with bomb or explosive weapon, which are surely just as vital as the weapons already on the list like sword, firearm and bow and arrow. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap Explosive material out for Explosion

Parent category; clearly more vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Muffinator (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not at all clear. If explosion is a vital concept it is because throughout history, new artificial explosives have revolutionized engineering and warfare whenever they've been introduced. Cobblet (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Education

Would anyone kindly direct me to a prior discussion why the field of education is relegated to a single article, rather than a section of its own? If no prior discussion on this exists, I'd like to start it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any prior discussion on education for this list specifically. What other articles do you have in mind? Malerisch (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, let's add some education topics. The topic is lacking a lot, even on Expanded, which has an education section which is mostly a list of libraries, apart from that the following topics are listed:

• Education (level 2)
• College (level 4)
• Curriculum (level 4)
• Learning(level 4)
• Library(level 3)
• School (level 4)
• Boarding school (level 4)
• Teacher (level 4)
• University (level 4)
  • There is a whole list of topics that didn't even make it onto VA/Expanded at the time here: Vocational training, academic journal, peer review are the highlights from those which I'd support on level 4, some of them even on level 3
  • Some topics are spread out, like: Knowledge (level 2)
  • I'd support promoting to level 3: Learning for level 3 at least (was going to suggest that here along with human intelligence, if the proposal further up this page for human brain fails) and university
  • Interesting topics to consider are also:Autodidacticism, Academia, Problem solving (I'd prefer at level three, currently not on the list!), Academic degree, student. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it was me who added school to the 10,000 a long time ago, very odd that college and university where added but this left out, if any education articles are added to the 1000 school was the first I was thinking of, seems equal or higher than library at least, we have museum under art too next to library in level 3 which is kind of education related. College and or university have half a chance too. In level 4 I don't think we have Test (assessment) aka examination, that surely is vital to education at the 10'000 article limit, they are pretty much universal to everywhere all forms of education have them not to mention adult training for career positions, driving etc. Another topic I had in mind for level 4 is reading (process) which is mid ground between language/recreation/education, if language, linguistics, writing, literature and book make the vital 100, I'm sure reading is level 10,000.  Carlwev  15:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Support adding subsections of Learning, Library, School, Teacher and Reading (process). The rest of the articles mentioned here I think should stay at level 4. In particular I'd like to note that College, Curriculum, Boarding school, and University are all subcategories of School. Muffinator (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Support school. Don't see why both education and learning have to be listed at this level, or why any specific careers need to be listed. Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right about teacher. Professions are not vital at this level. Education and learning are distinct concepts, but may be too similar to warrant listing both. Muffinator (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I support school and am undecided about learning. The other articles mentioned either expand on education or school so I won't support them at this level. The coverage of education at Level 3 isn't as bare as it first seems since many related articles have been placed in other sections (knowledge, book, mind). There have also been suggestions to add intelligence to the 1,000. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza, Muffinator, Melody Lavender, Cobblet, Carlwev, and Malerisch: I am glad to see that school was added. My thoughts on the others are: keep college at 4, but bring university to 3 as a more universal term. Bring learning to 3 if not 2, and consider whether learning is not a wider concept than education with regard to level 2 (isn't education just formalized learning?, so a subcategory of it?). I'd remove boarding school from level 4 entirely, it is very specialized IMHO. Curriculum and teacher at level 4, with library at level 3, seem fine. I'd place museum at level 3 or 4. Test (assessment) should be level 4 if not 3. Same for reading (process). I'd consider adding primary education, secondary education, tertiary education, student, academia, peer review, academic journal, problem solving to level 4. I abstain on whether vocational training, academic degree and autotdidactism belong in level 4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Broadly agree with your suggestions, although I feel student is redundant to learning. As for learning vs. education, I think sometimes the more "formal" topic is the more vital one (compare ethics to morality or recreation to play (activity)). When we speak of education as an essential human right we mean something more specific than the ability to "learn" in a general sense. Cobblet (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add School

Education deserves better coverage. School is more vital than the currently listed library and museum.

Support

1. as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. was thinking about starting "add school" myself.  Carlwev  17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per nom and the "Education" discussion above. Muffinator (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
6. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Post-classical history and Modern history

There is currently a discussion at level 2 about including history by time periods. However, these two articles are not on the level 3 list, so they should be added here if they are being considered for level 2. Prehistory and ancient history are currently listed on level 3, and it seems illogical to include them but not these sections of history. While these four divisions of history may not be ideal for some areas of the world, they are what history of the world uses and are logical for most of the population. I will defer removing Middle Ages (the post-classical history of Europe) to another discussion. Malerisch (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Yep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Post-classical history is not perfect but it's better than Middle Ages. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Silk Road

In light of the recent removals, history articles that cover greater periods of time and greater areas of geography can now be added. The Silk Road for thousands of years connected the continents of Asia, Europe and Northern Africa. Its growth, decline and regrowth had dramatic consequences on the Old World and eventually, even on the New World as the Fall of Constantinople and the Ottomon control of the trade route was one the factors that led to the Age of Discovery . Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom and support further inclusion of historic processes. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I also think Atlantic slave trade should replace abolitionism. Abolitionism like Islamism, which was removed recently, is a specific ideology that doesn't fit in at this level. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Induct Frank Sinatra, remove Jimi Hendrix

Sinatra has had a decades-long career that began when there were hardly longplaying records. In its 2009 Michael Jackson commemorative issue, Time magazine wrote that Jackson is one of only four real icons by the definition that their music could not be ignored even by people who disliked it, the others being Sinatra, Presley and The Beatles. Hendrix released only four records during his life, while for Sinatra four records are barely enough to contain what are today his best known recordings. Both artists are admired today, but the admiration for and influence of Hendrix is severely limited to rock fans, whereas Sinatra's appeal is much more expansive. Both The Beatles and Hendrix are musicians emerging in the same period of time, the 1960s. While The Beatles are the obvious choice for that period, the inclusion of Hendrix is more debatable and opens the door for other equally significant candidates.MackyBeth (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Let me be the first to support this. Below User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· points out that Hendrix is of global significance. In the global rock world, that is. So Sinatra never wrote a single song. If that is a valid reason, please count how many songs Hendrix wrote and how many Bob Dylan or the Gershwins wrote, neither of whom are on the list.MackyBeth (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Frank Sinatra is a significant artist. In the great scheme of music history, Sinatra will long be remembered for his contribution to the artform. SliverOfLight (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support removal only, oppose addition  Carlwev  16:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose addition and Support removal. I agree with Cobblet that the level 3 VA list has too many musicians, as well as too many people in general (to the exclusion of countries). I find it hard to believe that we'd list Jimi Hendrix over Martin Luther King, Jr. and Frank Sinatra over Franklin D. Roosevelt, both figures who I would consider significantly more influential than these musicians. I'd also support a swap of Ravi Shankar with Ashoka. Malerisch (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose both add and removal. Jimi Hendrix invented a new style of music of global significance. Sinatra never wrote as much as a single song and has had no lasting influence though he represents a particular era and style of American music.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose addition and Support removal. Per Cobblet and Malerisch. If FDR, Ford or MLK Jr. isn't on this list, neither Hendrix nor Sinatra should be on this list. If this list is too small for FDR, Ford, or MLK Jr., it's too small for all but a handful of musicians. pbp 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose both. I see the problem of reconciling serious and popular musicians. However, I don't think adding Sinatra at the expense of Hendrix or anyone else is justified. —Ojorojo (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Frankly I think Michael Jackson or Madonna are better choices in terms of chronological diversity. I also think there are too many musicians in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree about removing Hendrix. He must be the least vital biography listed at this level. The archived discussion suggest he was kept possibly because of his Cherokee ancestry, which is a very weak reason. If demographic diversity is the aim, Madonna is a better choice as there are no women in the musicians' list. Michael Jackson is also a far better choice as the second Africa-American musician along with Duke Ellington if we need a second. Sinatra's career overlaps with Elvis Presley and the Beatles. I don't think we should have any more musicians from the 1950's-1970's. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Though Sinatra chronologically overlaps with Presley and Beatles, in terms of musical style he represents the pre-rock and roll era. It is difficult to establish exactly what the criteria should be, but a combination of artistic achievement and exposure to the population seems to me what the list should strive for. The innovative music of James Brown has no peer, yet his exposure was not as universal as Michael Jackson's, who is much less of a musical innovator. As for demographic diversity, Ravi Shankar is on the list, but he is just another Woodstock artist and friend of George Harrison, so his inclusion reflects not music from India but the flower power era. And look at the composers, we have one preceding Bach's time, Hildegard von Bingen. But is not Claudio Monteverdi the most notable pre-Bach composer? MackyBeth (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You make a fair point on Sinatra. The entire list of musicians could do with a makeover. With regards to Michael Jackson, he was an innovator in areas beyond music like dance and video. There isn't a separate section for performance artists and dancer. Ravi Shankar is indeed on the list because of he brought Indian music to the West, not due to his domestic popularity and influence which alone would not be enough to put him in such an elite group. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix single-handedly changed the sound of popular music. More music today bears his influence than many others that have been mentioned. Read some of the quotes from the article: "arguably the greatest instrumentalist in the history of rock music", "[Hendrix] created modern electric playing, without question", "[his first album] altered the syntax of the music ... in a way I compare to James Joyce's Ulysses", "completely changed notions of what a guitar could sound like, or indeed, what music could sound like", "[it would be difficult] to accurately measure the lasting impact [his live album and band] has made on rock, funk, R&B, and Hip-Hop". Jazz musicians Gil Evans, Miles Davis, and the jazz fusion movement were influenced, the list goes on. Although only four albums were released during his career, new albums (demos and live recordings) are constantly being released and appearing in the record charts (see Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography), making his body of work comparable to those mentioned. Forbes magazine noted that he earned just short of $5 million in 2012. His WP article is ranked #512 in traffic vs #1023 for Sinatra. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This comment is a bit off the mark. The point is not whether Hendrix was a great artist with an enormous influence, but if he is more important than Sinatra. Actually, your comment confirms what I said about him, which is that his enormous influence is restricted mostly to rock music. His WP article gets more traffic than Sinatra's, but let's not forget that the excellent article on Hendrix has FA status, while Sinatra has to make do with B-status. I think that traffic would increase with the ranking, especially since FA means that the article is, well, featured.MackyBeth (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If being a great artist and an enormous influence doesn't make a musician important, what does? I don't think that the idea that Sinatra has a wider appeal has merit. Hendrix's influence goes beyond rock to funk, R&B, Hip-Hop, jazz, etc. Sinatra was a crooner, a style that died before he did. He was an entertainer, backed by a conglomerate of composers, arrangers, producers, session musicians, promoters, publicists, etc. – he was basically the front man (and obviously a very good one). I don't think it's about numbers and I included these to dispel the notion that Hendrix is a forgotten fringe figure. But from what I can tell, most article hits are generated from name searches, not article quality searches (the stats don't show any change after the Hendrix article became a GA or FA). —Ojorojo (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in removing Hendrix, but wanted to point out that "greatest instrumentalist in the history of rock music" is not such a convincing argument to keep him when the greatest instrumentalist of Western classical music is also missing, and neither is "singlehandedly changed the sound of popular music" when other musicians can claim to have had just as transformational an impact on modern music. As for Hildegard of Bingen, she's not notable for just her music: her legacy should be assessed as a whole, and FWIW, she's listed as a writer on the Expanded list. (Though how she makes this list ahead of Joan of Arc is beyond me.) The most notable composer before Bach is either Monteverdi or Palestrina, but frankly I wouldn't consider either figure necessary to include on a list of 100-150 people. Cobblet (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I admire Ojorojo's enthusiastic defense of Hendrix, and I have a few suggestions to make his defense more effective. This vital article level 3 list can only encompass a total of 1,000 entries, some 13 of which are on individuals in the field of music. Many very important people are left out, from composers Telemann and Händel to songwriter Bob Dylan. If Hendrix leaves the list he will remain in good company because he should obviously be in the level 4 list. It would be a good idea not to forget that the list aims to avoid "recentism," which is the tendency to overestimate recent material and underestimate the importance of achievements past. The sentence that "Sinatra was a crooner, a style that died before he did" shows that you have some work to do here. The same goes for the reference to how many page views an article gets. Also, try to represent other people's views correct: "the notion that Hendrix is a forgotten fringe figure" is not what my postings say either explicitly or by implication. The highlight of Sinatra's recording career is a string of albums he made in the 1950s with conductor and arranger Nelson Riddle. These albums are a model not just for singing, but also for arranging, recording, song-selection, and even the then-new art of album-making itself, giving each album an identity of its own. There is something definitive about these recordings, and nobody claims that this was only Sinatra's doing.MackyBeth (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Phrases such as "the admiration for and influence of Hendrix is severely limited to rock fans", "Hendrix only released four records", "Ravi Shankar is on the list, but he is just another Woodstock artist" (Hendrix is the only other one being discussed) certainly appear to be an attempt to make Hendrix seem marginal or fringe. The idea that "Sinatra's appeal is much more expansive" is unsupported. His sound and approach was only briefly popular and today is more of a novelty; what Hendrix did has had a much deeper and longer lasting effect. In the history of music, replacing one popular musician with another both from the mid-twentieth century does not help avoid recentism or promote diversity. To successfully promote Sinatra, there is a lot to overcome. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

To successfully defend Hendrix there is a lot to overcome. Once again, saying that Sinatra's style "today is more of a novelty" is a sign that the concept of "recentism" has not been comprehended well enough, or else you would have understood that this is not a strong objection. But saying that Hendrix's influence is severly limited to rock music is a relevant point. So is saying that he only made four albums, because his body of work is by far the smallest of all the individuals listed, making his admittance look like an oddity. And for diversity's sake it does make sense to replace one person with another from the same time frame: Ravi Shankar, The Beatles, and Hendrix are all representatives of the Woodstock-generation's taste in music, and replacing them with contemporaries Sinatra, Arthur Rubinstein and Miles Davis is to add totally different musical universes. Not that I propose to do all that, it is only by way of example.MackyBeth (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

One more note on what I said somewhere above, that the inclusion of Hendrix is opening the doors to nominate other musicians who can be claimed to be just as innovative. James Brown was so innovative that he can be said to have invented the genre funk. For more than a decade (ca. 1966-1976) he kept turning out several albums a year, each year developing the style further into something unique. His exposure was mostly limited to an audience of soul/funk lovers, just as Hendrix and the rock audience. Therefore I say: if recording artists are to be included at all, then only those whose music was aired so universally that nobody could avoid being exposed.MackyBeth (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Induct Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, remove Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The list of writers currently has no Germans on it (though Kafka wrote in the language), and it also has an emptiness between the birthdate of Miguel de Cervantes (1547) and Edgar Allan Poe (1809). Goethe (born 1749) is the obvious choice to fill both gaps simultaneously. Since this list is extremely restricted, no literary movement can be represented by more than one writer. One of the great nineteenth century Russians, either Leo Tolstoy or Fyodor Dostoyevsky, must go. Both are giants, but Tolstoy is perhaps a bit more the archetypical Great Russian Writer.MackyBeth (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. oppose. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Although IMO the inclusion of four modernist writers is even more egregious than having the two Russians. Coverage of Romanticism could also be achieved by adding Jane Austen in place of Virginia Woolf, for example. Goethe is undoubtedly also a very good choice but like you said, Kafka also wrote in German. In contrast we have no French writers at all: somebody like Voltaire could represent both French literature and the Enlightenment. Cobblet (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The occurrence of four modernists bothered me as well, but I felt like one nomination would be enough for the moment. The list starts out pretty canonical (as it should), with Homer an Sophocles, but then it becomes less representative. The list should, I think, strive for presenting the most obvious choice for each literary movement. For modernism that is James Joyce, and for naturalism Emile Zola. That is, if naturalism itself should be important enough to be represented and that issue should be settled first. Voltaire and Jane Austen are terrific choices.MackyBeth (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So if the list would drop one Russian and three of the four modernists, the last eight entries could look like this:

• 9. Voltaire
• 10. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
• 11. Jane Austen
• 12. Edgar Allan Poe
• 13. Leo Tolstoy
• 14. James Joyce
• 15. Kahlil Gibran
• 16. Vladimir Nabokov

MackyBeth (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Goethe is much more important to German literature than Kafka. I can't imagine cutting Dostoyevsky or even Tolstoy in a swap. Goethe should be an obvious add, so I'm proposing a straight addition. I think Voltaire is a similar case. And I'd also support swapping Austen and Woolf, as well as adding Joyce and Zola. Nabokov? No way, I think he is shaky even on the expanded list. I'm wondering if we should cut Edgar Allen Poe? --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not to cut Poe is a matter of what criterion should lead. If influence is one, then Poe should be on the list. He invented the detective story and you can even hear an interview with Arthur Conan Doyle on YouTube in which he calls Poe's three stories the model for all time. So the whole detective genre is indebted to Poe. But then, if your criterion is the greatness of the whole body of work, then Poe may have to be replaced by Henry James or Charles Dickens, to restrict the replacements to writers in English of the period.MackyBeth (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The omission of Goethe is very much like leaving out Shakespeare. Goethe was the most important German writer ever.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support because, yes, Goethe's stature is indeed peerless. It is the one obvious name to come up if you are asking who was the German answer to Shakespeare.MackyBeth (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support famous classic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

"Composers" only: Add Claudio Monteverdi, George Frideric Handel, Joseph Haydn, Thelonious Monk, remove Presley, Ravi Shankar, Beatles and Hendrix

If the recent discussion above about Sinatra versus Hendrix has revealed anything, it is that Wikipedians are unhappy with the overall make-up of the list. And with good reason: do the fourteen albums by The Beatles really belong in the same list with Bach and Beethoven? My proposal here is that "Composers and Musicians" should contain only artists known as composers rather than recording artists, so that the contributions of the individuals can more easily be identified as comparable. It is not a coincidence that the articles for the latter category currently included are all rated FA, because if one is motivated enough to do such excellent work on Elvis, Beatles, and Hendrix, then one will also be motivated to nominate these artists for the list. Eventually, the list will only make sense if it reflects the actual artistic importance of the individuals. My suggestions for replacements are these 4:

1. Monteverdi - pre-Bach music is underrepresented and Monteverdi is the obvious addition.
2. Handel - a contemporary of Bach, Handel was an immensely productive artist who produced works of great variety.
3. Haydn - living before and after Mozart, Haydn almost single-handedly developed the format of the symphony: to listen to his 104 symphonies in chronological order is to hear how the genre evolves from hardly defined to what we today still think of when we use the term. In addition to this, Haydn's other major contribution is developing the string quartet genre into a staple of chamber music.
4. Monk - American popular music is based on the European song structure and therefore not very innovative. The only truly new musical styles are jazz and hiphop. The latter form is even so recent that it seems hard to choose who is the most important artist - it may well be an artist who is producing his best work today and tomorrow. Jazz music, on the other hand, has a distinctive history that may be important enough to warrant the inclusion of one other name besides Ellington. The top three jazz composers are, in order: Ellington, Charles Mingus, and Monk. Mingus was so Ellington-influenced that perhaps the best choice is Monk.MackyBeth (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. I don't see why we should be prejudiced in favour of "composers" vs. "recording artists" and the distinction between the two is not always so clear. Even as someone who is far more familiar with Western classical than other genres of music, I'd be content including only five such composers on the list – my choices would be Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and Debussy. Any more than that risks over-representing Western music at the expense of not just other musical traditions, but also other areas of culture in general. It should also be noted that Monk is not even on the Expanded list. Cobblet (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think there should be fewer musical artists, but more importantly a further shift away from Europe would be a good thing for capturing full musical experience in the world. We currently have 1 person from outside the Western music tradition on the list (and 5 of the 13 from one country and this suggestion to further skew it). Haci Arif Bey, Yatsuhashi Kengyo (you know, only one of the masters of the oldest orchestral music in the world), or even Selena/Jose Iglesias, Ali Farka Toure, Seo Taiji, Ladysmith Black Mambazo or Miriam Makeba replacing classical musicians would be much better additions for a comprehensive list. Judging artists from the criteria of impact on western music tradition produces a very biased list, as this proposal shows. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Would support adding Monk. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose addition of Monk or Monteverdi' When the list is only 130 or so people, there's no way Monk or Monteverdi should be on the list. I am ambivalent to the remainder of the proposal. pbp 20:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• An alternative hinted by many is to reduce the list. My proposal is that we cut down to a few artists that highlight the key categories rather than trying to weigh impact, genius, productivity, etc of the individual composers/artists. That would mean something like one individual from Baroque classical, one from Symphonic classical (or Classical period in the Wikipedia organization), one from Romantic classical, one from non-Western orchestral tradition, one from Jazz, one from Rock and Roll, and one from Pop. Will important musicians be excluded? Yes, but that will always be the case. And this change may save us regular debates about the "influence" and genius of different musicians (a difficult and contested aspect to measure). Maybe one or two additions if we deem that a 'type' of music deserves it (I'd say one additional symphonic classical and one Rock and Roll addition could be justified), rather than whether an individual musician deserves it. The result would look something like: Bach, Mozart, Chopin, non-Western orchestral person, Ellington, the Beatles, Pop musician. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you want to do, but defining types of music that "deserve" representation is no less difficult (why specifically "non-Western orchestral traditions"?); also many musicians defy simple categorization. And when it comes to picking a person to represent a genre, you're still going to have to debate the relative value of several plausible candidates. I'll briefly explain my choices for the classical musicians: if you want only three they have to be Bach, Mozart and Beethoven – that's a fairly conventional opinion. I'd argue that the revolution that took place in Western art music at the end of the 19th century is no less important than the revolution at the end of the 18th century, and that Wagner and Debussy are therefore no less important than Mozart and Beethoven. Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is an awful big jump, removing 4 and adding 4 all at the same time. I'd prefer to discuss them on an individual basis (being able to discuss adding just Handel without having to discuss the others at the same time.) RJFJR (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That is indeed a better way of handling things. What I basically wanted to get across is that the current list includes achievements that are incompatible. The presence of Presley, Beatles, Hendrix, Shankar all owe something to the state of media technology at the time, and therefore these musicians are not included purely for musical reasons.MackyBeth (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "owes something to the state of media technology at the time" applies only to these figures, and why such "non-musical" reasons shouldn't be taken into account when considering a musician's vitality. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is surprising to see someone who argues for non-musical reasons for inclusion in a list called "Composers and Musicians." What should count above all is the contribution to music.MackyBeth (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No what should count is how vitally important it is to include them in an encyclopedia. That is a factor of how likely people are to look for them in an encyclopedia, and what educational function we want the encyclopedia to fulfill. It is an entirely subjective judgment who is more important for music - that is not the criteria that should be used.

Keep in mind these categories are to some extent arbitrary. Hildegard of Bingen is definitely not vital if you look solely at her musical contributions and ignore everything else she did. Also, you miss the bigger picture if you refuse to look at a person's overall impact on society. If we're analyzing composers based on "purely musical reasons", it's conceivable that Léonin and Pérotin should become the most important composers of the Western classical tradition. Cobblet (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I find that you are actually right about that. Encyclopedic criteria are indeed not exactly the same as a musical canon. Taking that into account, I think that at least Handel and Haydn are entitled for inclusion more than Ravi Shankar.MackyBeth (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• It seems odd to me that this discussion is taking place in the absence of identification of the list you are talking about. There is no page called Composers and musicians, neither is there a List of composers and musicians. Lists of composers is a list of lists. You are also talking about a selected list, presumably to highlight those that are most prominent in some fashion. Lists such as these are everywhere, more now than ever - but what purpose do they serve? Music history shows repeatedly that composers fall into and out of favor. The times were that Johannes Brahms was out of favor and J. S. Bach was unheard of. Furthermore, this discussion receives input on the opinions of WP editors rather than WP:RSes! Would someone please give a rationale for this discussion, and for this "list" as well? Currently, I see no value here to WP. Evensteven (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Vietnam and Ethiopia

The discussions started by User:Red Slash above seem to indicate that there's interest in adding more countries, which are unquestionably some of Wikipedia's most important and highly viewed articles. Vietnam and Ethiopia are the 13th and 14th most populous countries in the world; the rest of the top 20 are already on the list. These additions also redress some issues concerning the geographic balance of the list (no countries from the Southeast Asian mainland vs. two in the Malay Archipelago, even though the significance of the two areas is similar; DRC but not Ethiopia even though the latter is much more culturally and historically notable).

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support strongly, supported and/or discussed nations before including these. Possibly a few more later?  Carlwev  15:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support both. Would support making the list simply the 25 most populous countries (good riddance to Spain, Canada, Australia). A pretty good set of geographically diverse, economically diverse states. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose neither as important to the world's history as Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sergei Eisenstein

To have him on the list but leave off Lenin or Peter the Great is insane; it shows just how overrepresented the filmmakers are.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I've had this removal in mind for a while now. Malerisch (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support my first reaction was "who?" So I read the article, now my reactions "what?" May have been a pioneering film theorist but we don't have film theory as vital. RJFJR (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support had my eye on this for removal.  Carlwev  15:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Not in favor of removing all filmmakers (or comparing filmmakers with conquerors), but this one is justified. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lenin and Peter the great are not in the same category. Just because they are russians that does not mean that they go in the "same quota". A 21st century encyclopedia that didnt have any major filmmakers would be a sorry excuse for an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Frankly, I don't think this list should have any filmmakers. There's no way that Akira Kurosawa is more vital than Oda Nobunaga, and neither of the two American filmmakers are more vital than Thomas Jefferson. Malerisch (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin might be legitimately regarded as one of the 100-150 most vital biography articles to have; the others not so much, IMO. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, although if we're expanding the countries section, cuts need to be made somewhere. Malerisch (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Greek mythology

I just saw that many religions are listed and Confucianism is listed as an Eastern philosophy school, but nothing on mythology. So, I think that Greek mythology deserves to be in this list. Of course, this will lead inevitably discuss if other mythologies deserve to occupy a place in this list, but even if that's the case, Greek mythology is, well, vital.--Armot (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Armot (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, vital enough for level 3. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The inclusion of Mythology on the list is sufficient for coverage of mythologies. No need to disaggregate non-contemporary religions (and particularly not if it further exacerbates bias on the list, as this would). AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Link to what's on level 4 in mythology.

Mythology is on level 2, so I think there should be some specific mythologies on this level. Adding Greek mythology makes sense because it's a fairly influential mythology, forming the base for Roman mythology, for example. Hindu mythology, Norse mythology and Maya mythology might be worth considering, too.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand some mythologies like Greek and Roman seem OK to have, I would prefer those examples to say, Parthenon and Colosseum which are articles we have from the same civilizations.

Norse mythology? apart from Viking Age we have nothing from Scandinavia at all. I can't see Norse mythology being in an encyclopedia before, Scandinavia itself, any of it's countries, esp. main ones Sweden and Norway or the Vikings which may or may not be better than Viking Age.

Same with Mayan mythology, I would feel that that can't appear before articles we don't have such as Maya civilization itself or articles like Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Aztec/Aztec Empire, Inca Empire, Andean civilizations, Peru, Argentina. (Our coverage of Americas below the US includes Brazil, Mexico, São Paulo (I feel it odd Brazil and a Brazilian city gets in before any other S. American nation but it is the only S. Am. city and the largest in the whole Americas), History of North America, History of South America, Machu Picchu, Machu Picchu stands out as least vital and lower than many missing articles I quoted above.  Carlwev  17:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 English Quota for countries in FAQ

The Frequent Asked Question currently makes English language a secondary criteria for including countries on the "vital" list. It reads: "it accounts for English-language user base only secondarily, and with quotas: 1. top 10 countries by English-speaking population (includes non-native speakers) are included, as are 2. top 5 countries by natively English-language population." This guideline was in the original construction of the FAQ in 2008 and has not been changed since. Malerisch said on the RedSlash discussion above that: "I don't think that the language a country speaks should be taken into account, though." I agree. Language may be justified on some discussions, but there is no need for such a quota guideline. Support=remove the quoted portion above from the FAQ on countries. Oppose=leave in the above secondary criteria for selecting what countries are most "vital." Changing this part of the FAQ should not automatically include or remove any countries. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom, also confusing and not well written. RJFJR (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. The top 5 English speaking countries still might be vital but an inflexible guideline like this shouldn't be in the FAQ. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Note: I don't think such a change needs the high level of consensus needed for adding entries to the list, but just regular consensus. If someone objects to this, please say so. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Franklin D. Roosevelt

FDR should be added for numerous reasons. Firstly, he is considered to be, in Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, in the top 3 of presidents of the United States all time. In American history, his importance is comparable to both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. He led the United States out of the Great Depression and through World War II. In addition, FDR is comparable to Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin in importance. There is a reason that the major leaders of the Allied Powers are called the Big 3 and not the Big 2. If you wish for a swap with another American, please say so, because FDR should definitely be on the list no matter what.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 20:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I think we should include a few more leaders. Neljack (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per this guideline in the FAQ. I consider Lenin and Sun Yat-Sen equally notable 20th-century leaders that are also not included (the former has even been removed by consensus), and six out of 25 is already a lot of 20th-century politicians to begin with – contrast the 750-year gap between Augustus and Charlemagne. Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose We have to prioritize the number of American leaders.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet and Maunus. American political leaders have not had the same global reach as Americans in other pursuits like film and music, probably due to their democratic and federal form of government. Totalitarian and revolutionary leaders by their very nature change their nation and its sphere of influence more fundamentally than democratic leaders and are more likely to be vital. Henry Ford represents 20th century America and the West far better than a third president. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussions about adding Roosevelt have failed due to concerns of having 3 American leaders in a list of 25 (12%), but it doesn't seem like anyone's concerned about having 3 American musicians in a list of 13 (23%), 2 American filmmakers in a list of 5 (40%; soon to be 50%), or 3 American inventors and scientists in a list of 21 (14%). I'm all for diversifying the list, but I don't think it's acceptable to exclude figures who would definitely be more than notable enough for the list when considered in isolation (per nom, is Roosevelt really less vital than Churchill?). There are so many Americans I would cut first—why is Roosevelt less vital than Alfred Hitchcock, Walt Disney, Jimi Hendrix, Duke Ellington, Ernest Hemingway, Elvis Presley, and J. Robert Oppenheimer?

Furthermore, it's definitely possible to argue that if one 20th-century American is vital, it's Roosevelt; both the Time 100 and The Atlantic consider that to be true.

If people are still concerned about the percentage of American leaders listed, another possible solution would be to add some more leaders instead of removing Roosevelt: Emperor Wu of Han, Ashoka, Timur, Henry VIII of England, Oda Nobunaga, Otto von Bismarck, and Che Guevara are all good candidates. Maybe Vladimir Lenin should be re-added as well. Malerisch (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually all those things bother me: but as long as we're adamant on keeping the 25-person limit for political leaders per the FAQ, I think the best way to rectify these imbalances is to include fewer people, not more. (I'm totally comfortable with removing all the Americans you mentioned except for the Duke and Elvis.) If the Expanded list has fewer than 500 politicians in a list of 2000 people, there should be no more than 100 people on this list if only 25 of them can be politicians. Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cobblet: If you think that FDR is not vital, than neither is Winston Churchill. Roosevelt is important to the US as Churchill is important to the UK. Again, there is a reason that its the Big 3 and not the Big 2. 3 American leaders is fair. If you really want to, remove a few other Americans, but adding one of the most important Americans is extremely important. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to do away with the limit of 25 political leaders. pbp 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: I agree, but you can pair up many people on the list with somebody not on the list and make the same argument for the second person. At some point, you have to admit "OK, we can't really say A is more vital than B, but we only have space for one" and then you have to make a hard choice. If you don't want to make it between FDR and Churchill, you might have to make it between MLK and Mandela. Cobblet (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cobblet: Would you support the addition if the list of leaders was expanded? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@PointsofNoReturn: Depends on how many biography articles we want in general. Three US presidents on a list of 125 seems too much when I expect no other country or civilization will have that many – it's essentially saying that the USA is the most important country in the political history of the world. If we expand the list to 200 people, it's a different story. Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Malerisch brought up the point below that the leaders don't necessarily have to scale between the level 3 and level 4 lists. I absolutely agree, but here's the thing: there are a number of rather obscure people (to me, anyway) that remain on the level 4 list of leaders. This is natural, because now that we've agreed that geographical diversity is desirable and we want to include people from across the spectrum of history, usually the best person to pick from a less-generally-appreciated civilization is their leader. (Writers tend to be the next best choice.) But doesn't that imply that if anything, the ratio of people on the level 4 list should favour politicians more heavily than on level 3? It seems impossible to me to have say 40% of the level 3 people be leaders and make that proportion drop to 25% on the Expanded list if the Expanded list has to include figures like Burebista and Sultan Agung of Mataram. Am I making sense? Cobblet (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason the proportion is low on VA/E is that we've been happy to control additions to political leaders (we even went at political leaders with a meat-axe last year when we got rid of Clinton and Monroe and Jeff Davis), but we haven't yet reined in other sections such as writers or entertainers. It seems perfectly acceptable to me to let leaders get up to 600 on VA/E (~30%) if we shrink other sections by about that much. There's also the issue that we separate military leaders from political leaders on VA/E. pbp 16:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Good points. Fair enough. Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• @DaGizza:, in my mind there are two 20th century Americans. One is Ford. The other is FDR. In regards to your global impact argument, there's the point that FDR had a greater impact outside the US than Lincoln or Washington (after all, he was the world leader who brought the US around to entering WWII), and that some of the non-Americans on the list did not have a large global impact. As for Ford, it seems to me the reason he hasn't been added is because he fits poorly in the existing categories. The VA bios aren't exactly teeming with engineers-turned-multimillionaire businessmen. pbp 9:14 am, Today (UTC−7)

I would choose MLK, Elvis or Muhammad Ali over Ford and FDR anyday when it comes to global recognizability and cultural and historical impact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Of those three, MLK is the only one anywhere close to FDR and Ford. The other two are primarily pop-culture icons. They didn't put a car in every garage (therefore severely impacting urban planning) or create the American welfare state. pbp 21:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont share your distaste for pop culture. I also dont share your concept of vitality, having caused something vital does not necessarily cause vitality. That depends on whether the person who caused it is vital. World War I is vital, Gavrilo Princip is not. Cars are vital, Ford is not (as much). The American welfare state (if such a thing ever existed, which I doubt) might be vital, but not necessarily the guy who signed it into legislation. Elvis and Ali are vital because people all over the world are more likely to know them than Ford and FDR, and consequently to look for them in an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

For starters, I'm waiting for a source on people being more likely to know Elvis' name than FDR's. For second, we need to divorce the VA from what is known or hit: it should be people who are important, regardless of hit count. Being well-known for singing a few songs you didn't write shouldn't get you on this list in the way altering the course of American history should. pbp 22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I can support a swap of Roosevelt with Washington or Lincoln. I just think that the United States, being the preeminent capitalist nation in the world since the early 20th century should have a businessman before having three presidents. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Britain could not have won WWII without the US and the US could not have won WWII without Britain. How is having a third American President not called for here? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That looks non sequitur to me. What does that syllogism have to do with the proposed addition of FDR? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Winston Churchill is on the list but FDR is not. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Churchill isn't necessarily vital either. Adding Roosevelt will mean there are four WWII leaders out of 26 in total and six leaders who were prominent in the 1940's. Bear in mind that the list should reflect all of history. The 1940's may have been a pivotal decade but not that pivotal. We could add Charles de Gaulle and Chiang Kai Shek as well if WWII Allied leaders are so vital. At least Stalin's vitality goes beyond his wartime leadership. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Duke Ellington

I have a hard time believing that Duke Ellington is one of the 130 most significant people in World History. When push comes to shove, I have a hard time believing he's one of the 130 most significant people in American History. He's not really even the most significant jazz musician in history (Louis Armstrong?), and I'm not sure jazz needs to be represented on this list anyway. pbp 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  18:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Not as famous as Armstrong, and fame (degree of notability) is what matters here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Yes, Jazz needs to be represented on this list. And yes Ellington is more significant for the history of JAzz than Armstrong, who mostly popularized it with white audiences. In contrast Ellington contributed significantly to the genres development and repertoire.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Major figure in cultural imperialism of the world by the US. Push shouldn't come to shove yet - we're still under quota, right? --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jazz music is an essentially different type of music from what existed previously. And Ellington being the greatest jazz composer, he is the obvious choice. Nothing against Satchmo, though, who indeed would make a reasonable replacement if a performer should rank higher than a composer.MackyBeth (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I do think Jazz needs to be represented and is even under-represented.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Underrepresented? We're talking about one genre of music (itself a small part of art, in turn a small part of this list) that has only existed for ~100 years, and primarily only in a handful of countries. One article seems more than enough. pbp 18:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Henry Ford

There's been talk about having a businessman on the list. Henry Ford is as good a candidate as any: thanks to his efforts, a car was put in every American garage, and urban planning was altered to reflect that. pbp 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Giving employees a high wage and mass producing affordable cars elevated consumerism and urbanisation to a new level and paved the way for the creation of a large middle class in the United States, a phenonmenon which eventually spread throughout the world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support probably a good addition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Went back and forth on this one but woke up today saying 'yep.' AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --Thi (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: I would rather have FDR on the list instead, but I guess Henry Ford is a pretty good addition too. I am still deciding on how I will vote. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Five Pillars of Islam

While very important, I'm not sure the 'Five Pillars' qualify as a vital article. Of all the Islamic articles, it has the fewest Google Scholar hits and fewer than many other aspects of the Muslim faith (although each of the five pillars could add to this). Ten Commandments isn't on the vital list level 3. Replacements could be things that are shared between various religions, i.e. Saints or something. (Yes, nominated on Eid. Apologies for any offense.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support both linked to and summarized nicely in the Islam article. RJFJR (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This will leave us with 3 subtopics on Islam, 5 on Christianity (with the fifth Protestant Reformation in the history section) and 3 each on Hinduism and Buddhism, which I guess is fair enough taking into account their size and histories. There would have been a strong bias towards Christianity if the East-West Schism was kept.

I personally think the weakest article among the specific religions is the Guru Granth Sahib. If Bahá'í Faith with a 170 year history and 7 million followers was removed, Sikhism with 25 million followers and a 500 year history should probably only have its main article and not its holy book. Judaism with 2 subtopics is also pushing it when Jainism, a religion with a similar history and influence over other religions albeit with less followers, have no subtopics at all (and is not represented in the biography section whereas Judaism has 2 there as well). Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We should have no subtopics to individual religions, they are part of culture that is not universal enough to warrant any subtopics, be it Pillars of Islam, Bible or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Poland

Poland is one of the "big EU countries" and the only one missing from the current list of European countries. Historically, it had been a major European power, as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was for over a century the largest and most populous European country (yes, larger than contemporary Russia, or Russian Empire, which is also present on the list). From modern history, Solidarity movement is quite well known (at least for people who were reading newspapers in the 80s). Also, our Vital list is marginalizing Eastern Europe; outside Russia there's no other country from Eastern Europe on the list, and Poland is the 2nd most significant. For a Western country, had more impact on history and culture than Canada, geopolitically it is more or less about as important (probably more, given as Canada has been just a US yes-men since WWII while Poland shows a bit more independence), has equal population to Canada, and economically, is catching up fast. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Supportper nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support - major country in Eastern/Central Europe, most successful post-communist economy, big impact on history. Etc. Volunteer Marek  05:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Plk (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Support per Volunteer Marek and Piotrus above. As a Pole I might be biased, but then again who isn't :) //Halibutt 08:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There should need to be a very special reason for increasing the eurocentric bias as this straight-add would do. Poland does not qualify. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per AbstractIllusions. I'm not convinced Eastern Europe being represented by one country - Russia - is unreasonable. Neljack (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose I would consider a swap of an Eastern for a Western European country.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The vital list is not intended to fight biases. But if you want to talk about bias, that bias is for Western Europe. Eastern Europe is clearly less represented than most other parts of the world, and as usual, is overshadowed by Western Europe. That, to me, is bias. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The vital article list is to capture the diversity of the human race and not to reduce all experiences to euro-centric ones. I would be all in favor of correcting the European distribution, but adding another European country to an already very, very skewed list is not making a more complete list of vital articles, it is putting on blinders to diverse world experiences. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Eastern Europe being represented by one country - Russia - is unreasonable. - uhh... Russia represents Russia. It does not represent Eastern or Central Europe. Apples and oranges. It's like saying that we should throw out Mexico, because United States is already "representing" North America (just in case someone misunderstands, I would very strongly oppose not including Mexico). Europe has 5 countries on the list - which given the history, isn't all that much. Piotr's right, if there's a bias it's towards Western Europe. Volunteer Marek  05:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting fed up with the nonsense references to 'history' as if it were a neutral indicator of vitality. History was written largely by one group of people who privileged their own history over that of others (is this really debatable?). Using a biased metric to say "Oh, Europe is historically more important than other areas" is just nonsense. Once again, the best way to proceed is just say: 25 most populous countries in the world today are the list, and fuck the rest. That avoids euro-centric bias, that ends these nationalist add proposals, and prevents us from trying to weight the historical importance of medieval kingdoms. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, everyone likes to write about their own history. What's your point? And actually that is sort of the point. If you're worried about bias then focus on the countries which actually did most of the conquering and ruling, i.e. Western, not Eastern, Europe. And Russia. Which you were just suggesting "represents Eastern Europe" (sic!) How about you check in your own prejudices at the door first, before you start accusing others. And choosing countries by population is just as arbitrary of a metric as some other. Why not the 25 countries with the highest GDP? Or 25 countries with the highest GDP per capita? Or the 25 countries with the highest Human Development Index? Or the 25 countries with the highest number of children under 7? Or the 25 countries with the highest mountains peaks? or the 25 countries with the deepest lakes? Or the countries with the most Wikipedia page views? Or the 25 countries with the most Wikipedia editors? And fuck the rest. Volunteer Marek  03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Abstractillusions. I am also not convinced that Poland would be the obvious choice for an Eastern European country, Hungary, Czech republic, Ukraine, or Croatia/Serbia could be equally significant additions. Better yet we could include some non-European countries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made my argument above. Population, most successful and largest post-communist economy, history, the Pope, Solidarity, former Prime Minister just became President of the EU, and ... kielbasa!  Volunteer Marek  03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

And actually, with a swap of WE for EE country, the choice also has to be made which one to drop. I'm guessing UK, France, Germany isn't gonna fly. So Spain or Italy? If you had to make a choice?  Volunteer Marek  03:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that would be a tough one no. I would consider Spains colonial history more important than anything Poland has been involved in historically, though arguably Spain is less significant than Poland today. Italy I would also consider less important than Poland today, but more important because of Roman history and arts impact. Poland is pretty borderline allround I think. Foe diversity I would prefer going farther afield if we are to include more countries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but then we're back to only Western European countries. So you got to make a choice - do we want to represent both EE and WE or do we focus on former Colonial powers, and Romans. Aren't Romans already a vital article?  Volunteer Marek  06:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd fix the problem by adding more nations that are not European, recently we already have with Ethiopia, Vietnam and almost either Korea or South Korea. People are suggesting breaking the preset number of leaders allowed; is there even a preset number of nations allowed? or are people presuming or preferring it has to stay about the same size? Myself and several other users agreed a short while ago that increasing nations would be good, if at the expense of people if anywhere, on the general idea that most nations are more vital than most people, although we're still under quota. Some truly great people are better than some tiny obscure nations, but in my opinion the people to nation ratio should not be 136 to 26 the people should decrease slightly and the nations increase, with each individual add and remove discussed separately. Part of me is surprized the thread for adding "the most important German writer ever" Goeth passed with no problem. We had no issue adding another European person, but some have an issue adding another European nation, although it has enough to be added anyway. I kind of understand the argument but I don't agree with it. I find it odd people are contemplating suggesting Spain for removal to offset Poland but 3/10 of our artists are Spanish I would be bemused that we could include 3 Spanish artists and that's OK for numbers and distribution but to include Spain itself is too Eurocentric or not enough room? Germany has several people now among writers scientists composers and leaders is the nation that much more vital than Poland that Poland gets nothing at all?  Carlwev  16:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Ukraine is an Eastern European country larger than Poland in terms of population and area. Ukraine also has a fair bit of history with Kievan Rus' and all. Poland has a larger economy than Ukraine but Poland's economy is smaller than Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and Canada, which you are proposing to remove. I could still support this. It depends on the total number of countries we agree upon and the history vs current issue. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine is larger and more populous, but it suffers from relative lack of geopolitical importance (as a player; as a victim it did gain some unfortunate notoriety recently). Regarding history, through it's a bit controversial to say so, I'll point out that Ukraine, as a state, doesn't have much history prior to modern era. It was never independent prior to 20th century (and even that lasted ~1 a year before the collapse of SU). Ukranians, as a nation, didn't exist until the 19th century Ukrainian National Revival. Of course, it didn't spring out of thin air, and we could trace Ukrainian history to Cossacks and Kievan' Rus, but it's not very distinct in comparison to nation-states with several centuries of estabilished statehood. Economy-wise, Poland is not a major player, but neither are the other countries you mention; they are all part of the semi-periphery (well, Canada is core, but it is also the US 52nd state as far as economy is concerned, so...). Anyway, to restate the reasons for Poland's inclusion: 1) history (not duplicated by other entries in the list, unlike Greece); modern geopolitical importance (including for EU); and because Eastern Europe deserves more than Russia (Western has 4 countries, South - 3; North - 1, but all other northern countries suffer from smaller size and little geopolitical importance). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I hear other comments, Poland may not be next in line on missing or included nations, but in a list of 1000 I would still have it. I don't really want to remove any nations though, I would prefer more, not same or less, I personally would not support most swaps or removals here. Poland probably less vital than France and Germany, but less vital than, Jakarta, Ravi Shankar, or Duke Ellington, I don't think so. It's history goes back over 1000 years too. I would probably sup Ukraine too, it has slightly more population, more area, longer history, as a stating point, although a smaller economy.  Carlwev  12:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Snow

An attempt to remove rain and add precipitation failed a while back, as we thought rain was better to have. I think snow is equal or higher importance than articles we have flood, Tornado, Tropical cyclone, glacier and not really less vital than say Earth quake, Volcano, Cloud. Some of those articles' topics are big and violent so may seem as having more impact and being more vital. Snow article isn't only about falling snow, but also ground snow. Snow covers about one fifth of Earth's land area, and I believe effects more people than glaciers and many natural disasters only in a less dramatic way. If we can have several articles that are kind of wind based eg Wind, Wind power, Tornado, Tropical cyclone, I think we can have 2 regarding the main forms of precipitation, eg rain and snow. Even from a geography point of view, when I took geography in college, snow was studied more than Lake Baikal which we have. And I really can't imagine why we would have glacier before snow. If anyone brings up other forms of precipitation as a counter argument, I am sure people agree snow is much more vital than the other forms from the expanded list such as dew, frost or hail etc.  Carlwev  13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Nom makes convincing arguments. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support agree that snow is better than glacier. Support removing the latter. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Snow is good.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support. --Thi (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Maunus is wrong, but still a good add. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Support but it can be pretty. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
9. Support. Basic concept.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
10. Support Malerisch (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Swap Automobile for Motor vehicle/Road transport

Greetings. I just discovered this remarkable page while reading the Sherlock Holmes talk page, and having recently observed that Automobile has been moved to Car (a correct move in my opinion), my eyes were drawn to the Transportation section, which currently lists 7 articles - Transport, Aircraft, Automobile, Bicycle, Rail transport, Ship. Looking at the last 6, it seems to me quite wrong to represent the entire mode of road transport with just a link to Car/Automobile. Using the FAQ as guidance ("difficult to discuss X without Y"), surely a broader topic like Motor vehicle (in comparison to Ship) or Road transport (in comparison to Rail transport), is more appropriate? If so, perhaps the choice of which should be guided by whether or not the 6 topics should be harmonized to focus on either the primary vehicles or the modes (Rail transport instead of Train being the obvious outlier). Patrol forty (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Motor vehicle seems a rather broad article, lacking in detail. I think I prefer the automobile article. RJFJR (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Patrol forty:, I agree with your concerns. We should be consistent in either having articles like road transport, maritime transport and transport or car, train and ship. Having a mix of the primary vehicle and modes doesn't look good. With regards to road transport however, there are two specific types listed. Having both car and bicycle may make road transport redundant. Motor vehicle is definitely not well-written right now but if it could be it might be a better choice than car. Then again ship itself is one type of watercraft. There doesn't seem to be a logical reason for why aircraft is listed and not aeroplane and helicopter while ship is listed and boat and watercraft are not. The whole section needs some rethinking. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Changes related to Education

In pursuant to Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_8#Education I have the following set of proposals.

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

---

Establish Education as a topic section

Education is a very generic concept that stands out from the less generic topics in "Social issues" section. It is no less major than "Politics and government" or "Business and economics". As a section, it would include School (just like sleep currently has dream). The only possible critique I have is this: perhaps it is not education that should be the heading but the even more general word "Learning". See also subsequent proposal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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.

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

---

Add Learning

How come the key concept of Learning is not here? It is even more basic than education, as education is formalized learning. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, absolutely vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose More "basic" != more vital. Ethics formalizes notions of morality and aesthetics formalizes notions of beauty; but it is the former topics that appear on the list, not the latter. Literature is less "basic" than writing but that does not make it any less vital. Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If we have to remove something, from social issues I'd pick Indigenous peoples and suicide as less vital, through please note this is not the subject of this vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Reading

We have writing and speech, but not Reading (process)? If we have to remove something, from social issues I'd pick Indigenous peoples and suicide as less vital. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support basic concept that is vital to most other topics, and I agree it's definitely more vital than suicide. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose because the comparison to writing and speech is imperfect. Those are forms of communication; reading is a cognitive process more along the lines of memory, perception and problem solving. I'd like to see a broader discussion of whether such mental processes should be considered vital at this level before I support this. Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Reading (process) is complementary not to writing but to writing process. Writing is about the technology, that is, one way you can store and preserve information. The process articles are about acquiring particular skills during the course of education to be used for the rest of one's life. Literacy is a better choice than reading or writing process (it covers the ability to do both). And it we're adding literary we would also have to add numeracy. WRT suicide and indigenous people, that seems to be an apple and oranges comparison. If both concepts are vital, they are vital for completely different reasons and it's very hard to compare them with one another. Although if there was a social issue to remove, IMO it would be abortion as it is not a controversial or taboo issue among both the conservative and liberal constituents in many countries of the world (but it is in the US, which is why it was added in the first place). Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Gizza's very nice summary. RJFJR (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The Reading (process) article seems to specialized on the 'process'. It discusses how we fixate and see the text and mechanics. I'm not seeing that these details are vital at least at the L3 level. RJFJR (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the current state of an article that makes it vital or not. By that thinking we'd have to remove all articles that are start-class. We have to think in a normative way - what should be on the list, what should the article cover? --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see both points of view here, and I do think reading is fairly vital, it was me who suggested it for the expanded list where I think it definitely belongs. For a this shorter list however we have writing, which should to some extent cover creating it and interpreting it or reading it. Reading is obviously the understanding/perception/interpretation, call it what you will, of writing.

One could argue that without Speech perception speech is useless, and that speech perception should also be vital. Or equally without listening, speech, music or even perhaps language itself would not be possible, so listening too could be considered vital. Speech perception or listening perceive speech or language, and reading perceives writing. I am on the fence with reading for this list, I think it's important but not sure for the 1000 list, there is overlap with writing which should cover it like I said (if it doesn't cover it well we should fix that). I haven't made my mind up, it does seem more vital than some other articles and we do have several languages, so maybe it fits, I don't know.  Carlwev  10:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

At what page can we discuss proposed changes to vital levels 3 and 4?

Query per heading. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This issue is as of yet unresolved, there's no policy on that. But in the recent discussion on nesting at the Expanded talkpage Purplebackpack89 mentioned an interesting idea: everything should be introduced at the lower level first, and after it is accepted there, re-nominate it at the next-higher level. I would support this idea now as a general guideline.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I watch this page. I don't watch the L4 page. (And I don't want to, even just to be able to discuss here.) RJFJR (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I object to requiring that L3 articles be L4. Suppose we add Korea to L3. L4 having more space decides to have both North Korea and South Korea as articles. Then the rule that L3s must be L4s means we CAN NOT have Korea even though we don't have enough space for both South Korea and North Korea. A rule that simple doesn't work, we need flexibility to decide lists on an individual basis. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Lemme just jump in here and point out that Korea is L4, in addition to N. and S. Korea being L4. pbp 14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My example was hypothetical; the second sentence began with 'suppose', which I meant to be implied in the 3rd sentence as well. RJFJR (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is you wouldn't want to check first on level 4 when you want to propose something on L3? --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Just like to add, we added a search bar on my request to the main 10'000 page, so it's easier than it used to be, to quickly search for a "cross topic" article that could feasibly be hiding in more than one sub page...We have for a while now always played this with the vote at least 5 supports and at least 2/3 support and at least 15 days, the rule seams to hold not only for adding and removing articles but for our general conduct/methods too. for example I didn't like too much the idea of automatic nesting, but enough users supported it and no one else opposed it so I was out numbered, and I accept that, it's not just my list or my rules, we all take part.

The idea of this nesting was kind of happening by itself as an unwritten rule before we decided to make it official. Not many big issues came up. When suggesting something to add, any logical, sensible, and clear/transparent way of doing it should be fine, like said above there's not official way. It is sensible to try lv4 befrore lv3 if a topic like ableism is missing completely, although it may take much longer to play out. It wouldn't be that silly at least in my eyes to open both at the same time on both levels, and just be clear on both threads that this is what you're doing. And finally because we have accepted automatic nesting, any odd anomalies or anything we miss doesn't matter as any article already on or added to a level has to be added to the others below it anyway, as long as we notice it. Anything odd like the hypothetical Korea problem would just have to be discussed out as the best way to follow our rules, or if consensus agrees change the rules.  Carlwev  18:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Greece, Korea and Poland, remove Canada, Bangladesh and Democratic Republic of the Congo

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

---

Add Greece

Greece had enormous historical influence on European culture and history, as witnessed by the inclusion of Greek philosophy, language and alphabet in the vital list already. The recent proposal of adding Greek mythology failed, but I do think that Greece influence is important enough to warrant a parent entry. Either this, or Greek culture - but I think the country is a better parent here. For a Western country, seems much more important than Canada, only loosing in population (1/3). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Now withdrawn after reading DaGizza's comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support this list contains less than 1000 articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Ancient Greece is listed. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet and Gizza. Plk (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Cobblet //Halibutt 08:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Cobblet and my earlier comments. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The current list of countries tends to have a focus on the current. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing. It may be worth mentioning that Ancient Greece is already on the list. Also many of Greece's contributions to the world such as Ancient Greek philosophy, Homer, Plato, Pythagoras and Alexander the Great are separately listed. Then again, Egypt and Italy are listed along with Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome but these nations are far more significant than Greece in modern times.

A lot of the countries could change if shifted our focus to the past as well as the present. I will need to think about this one. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I did miss the inclusion of Ancient Greece. Reconsidering that, I am no longer convinced that my argument is as strong as it was; modern Greece indeed doesn't have much of an impact on the world affairs; despite a bit of economic mishap recently. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Korea

Korea had a moderate impact on world's history, but larger in the 20th century, with Korean War being a world history famous event. Since then, the split into South and North Korea (in particular, the latter antics) has kept that country in near constant headlines. Korea has moderate impact on worlds politics, but it's economy is now very developed (think Samsung). Culture wise, in the past few years the Korean Wave phenomena has went global. At the very least, from Asian's countries rankings, IMHO it beats Bangladesh hands down as a clear "replace with". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support South Korea. I guess Korea is a second preference. Adding regions will lead to a slippery slope since we can easily add another 10 of them if not more. Although neither of them would make it at this level, I would prefer Republic of Ireland over Ireland for the sake of consistency with the rest of the list. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support South Korea (what Gizza wrote above). It's a huge industrial and scientific power, definitely needs to be there. //Halibutt 08:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm sticking to my proposal above that we simply make the 'vital' countries the 25 most populous countries in the world today. That provides a geographically diverse, economically diverse list of countries and a line that can give us some stable list of countries. According to the U.N.- South Korea is 26. Backlisting (including political entities of the past) is unlikely to avoid bias or provide stability to the list. (Also a reminder, that the list is 'Countries' not 'Nations') AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@AbstractIllusions: You are confusing Korea with South Korea. If you add North Korea to that, how is your ranking changing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. You appear to be confusing a 'Country' with a geographic space. 'Korea' in 2014 is at best a nation that spans two countries (the wikipedia article says in sentence 1 that it is a territory and does not define it as a country). You are talking about adding a country with this proposal and so our options are either South Korea or North Korea as the only two countries that exist. We can't just pretend that actual political boundaries don't exist. And I maintain, that adding medieval kingdoms (which may or may not be countries by a strict definition) would be unproductive. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose now that South Korea has been proposed separately. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I prefer adding South Korea. Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Malerisch (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a clear time when I wonder why we feel we MUST have 3 US presidents, or a Jazz musician, an Indian Musician, but something like this is forgotten, I believe it's simply vital, a big obstacle that may come up is "Korea or South Korea" which may be enough to make it fail, as enough people may want the topic but may disagree on which one they want.

From our POV the fact Korea recently split into 2 makes it less likely to be included in any way, first off, any editing and reading behavior and "hit counts", will be split between those 3 articles. If anyone uses or compares real encyclopaedias, especially old ones, as a reference to see what appears most often, and what is more vital, some may have just Korea and some just South Korea, or maybe some N and S Korea, or maybe some all 3. I am sure Wikipedia users pay more attention, in reading editing, and greater number of languages, to South Korea, although I haven't checked.

If we list South Korea we are listing a very young nation that is the bigger half of a cultural area, and the argument "We can't have S Korea, as we don't even have Korea" was mentioned in the past.

Korea on the other hand, has thousands of years of history culture etc, I got it added to the 10'000 list but even that took 2 or 3 attempts, with some people opposing, claiming it's redundant to N and S Korea. The thing with Korea is, although a country in some capacity for many many years, it's not a country now it's a "region" for want of a better word. There was a cull of regions mostly in the 10'000 but also here in the 1000, Caribbean was removed, although I'd like it back, an attempt to remove Middle East was opened although failed. The argument "if we start listing this notable region why not this one and this one etc", I imagine appearing, I think the only regions we have left that are just a "region" but not something else like a nation, sea, or continent, are Middle East and Arctic. All that being said, I think those arguments are weak, I though I'd mention them before someone else does, and although I'm not completely decided on whether South Korea or Korea is better, I lean very far to Korea.  Carlwev  12:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carlwev:, I'd lean the other way. Which seems more vital to you, Bangladesh or Bengal? Cobblet (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes put it that way I agree, and Oops, I thought it had passed, it was at passing point a few days ago but not now, I fear we may never get this topic aboard in any form at all now because of votes divided between Korea and South Korea, shame.  Carlwev  19:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please 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 Korea

Add South Korea instead of Korea (or swap if we add it before this thread ends). Korea has enough to be added, just I think. Like me, many people seem to want the culture to represented, and may support either, but some prefer to have South Korea, as it is an actual country, and Bangladesh is better than Bengal for a similar argument mentioned. For all the reasons already mentioned Add South Korea instead of Korea?

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  07:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. If we cannot have Korea, then this is second-best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support //Halibutt 13:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Bangladesh

What reason is for including Bangladesh here, other than it's size? It is not worldwide famous for it's history, and in the modern era it's neither economically nor politically important. And size-wise, it's just the 8th biggest country, and looking at the List_of_countries_by_population I don't think we need to care about size after the first five or so (i.e. after countries drop below 200 mil). If we want to preserve the South-East Asia's number of countries, I'd support inclusion of Vietnam from the older proposal on this page, as Vietnam's contributions to world's history and culture seem more significant (famous), even if it has only 2/3 of Bangladesh's population. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The Bangladesh Liberation War receives about the same number of page views each month as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. If we are at all concerned about the list reflecting the cultural diversity of the world, I think listing a large number of the world's most populous nations is a must. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Using history and historical importance as the standard is bound to introduce significant bias to the list. History is not neutral. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Major country in Asia, although "overshadowed" by the sheer size of two of its neighbors. Up and coming economy (fingers crosses), lots of importance in terms of 20th century politics. If China and India weren't its neighbors this one would be obvious. Volunteer Marek  05:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose. One of 10 most populous countries in the world, that ought to count. Also, per what Volunteer Marek wrote above. //Halibutt 08:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose per above. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Canada

With all due respect, Canada's contribution to world history or present day's politics and economy have always been overshadowed by it's big cousin, the US. Canadian history has always been regional. Culturally, Ireland or Scotland are much bigger . names in the English speaking world. Even Australia seems more distinctive (through it's presence in the country least cannot be defended outside it's being also its own continent, a saving grace that escapes Canada). Geo-politically and economically, when did Canada did something against US-wishes or policies? Outside 1) being one of two continental US neighbors and thus giving US citizens a bias in thinking of it as an "important country", and 2) of its geographical size, I don't think there's much going for Canada as far as the vital list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Agree with Cobblet, but sticking with my goal of ending the 'country' discussions by simply going with the 25 most populous countries to avoid bias with history, achieve geographic and economic diversity, etc. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Significant in economy and area. RJFJR (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose It is as gross an oversimplification to call Canada overshadowed by the US as it would be to call Poland overshadowed by Russia and Germany, or to call Korea overshadowed by China and Japan. I'm amused by the irony of a Pole wanting to know when "Canada did something against US-wishes or policies" when it was Poland rather than Canada that joined the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Canada and Australia are consistently among the top ten most viewed country pages and the top 200 most viewed Wikipedia articles. I am absolutely open to adding nations like Poland to the list but certainly not at Canada's expense. Cobblet (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. --Thi (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Canada has its own distinct history with Britain, France, and the US trying to take it over. Only recently has Canada been a close ally of the US. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Cobblet. Plk (talk)

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.

The following discussion is closed. 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 Democratic Republic of the Congo

What is Congo's contribution to world's history or modern politics, economy or culture? Unfortunately, all are comparatively insignificant. If we want to preserve the number of Arfican countries, add Ethiopia per the proposal earlier on this least instead, as it scores higher both on modern population and historical significance. The civil wars have gained a bit notoriety, subjectively speaking - much less than they should be - but objectively, they lose to Korean War hands down. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. (But would support adding an article if we don't already have one that discusses developed, developing and least developed status of countries.) RJFJR (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I repeat my comment from the proposal to remove Bangladesh: if we believe that Wikipedia should strive to be useful to anyone in the world, and if this list should therefore reflect the world's cultural diversity, I think listing a large number of the world's most populous nations is a must. Cobblet (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose The list needs to represent the actual diversity of the worlds different countries., not just the countries that are at the top of lists of different kinds.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Maunus. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per above. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Bangladesh and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are the only two least developed countries on the list. There should at least one representative of this group of 47 very poor nations in the world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why coming last in a race means someone is vital. Looking at the list, and taking your "modern bias preferred" argument into consideration, I'd say Afghanistan could be considered - it is much more of a notable name those days than the other two. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because it is not a race we are talking about? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Nigeria also on the list? If not, it certainly should be. Volunteer Marek  05:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And Ethiopia. Volunteer Marek  05:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: both Nigeria and Ethiopia are on the list on level 3 here: WP:VA. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, so Congo and Bangladesh aren't the only two least developed countries on the list. Volunteer Marek  15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Ethiopia was added to the list after Gizza posted that comment. Nigeria isn't considered a least developed country. Malerisch (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Usually Nigeria is considered LDC by most criteria but I guess the UN doesn't consider them that (probably because even though they're LDC they're populous and have political clout). Anyway. I'd actually even go with Mali or Ghana rather than DRC. Volunteer Marek  03:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're confusing Nigeria and Niger. Nigeria is an Emerging market, it is rich in natural resources (Oil) and has a climate that favors economic development. If it weren't for terrorism mainly by Boko Haram, Nigeria might already be one of the biggest economies on the planet. Goldman Sachs thinks they will be just that within a couple of decades and declares them part of the Next Eleven. Terrorism, flooding problems, lack of infrastructure, and political restrictions and limitations to foreign investment don't make it a LDC by any standards.--Melody Lavender (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Thales, Socrates and Raphael

All of them are crucial Western figures, and they are not less important than Plato and Michelangelo, thus they all should be added to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support for Raphael, oppose Thales and Socrates. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support for Socrates only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose First, I'm not convinced that's true; second, such vague comparisons to topics not listed could be done with just about any topic on the list and we could easily double its size if we really wanted to play such games. The better questions to ask are whether Greek philosophy or Western Renaissance art need more representation on the list. Cobblet (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Ancient greek thinkers are well represented. Socrates is redundant with Plato. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Thales and Socrates. --Thi (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose all. Greek philosophy is sufficiently covered. Rapael is not as vital as Michelangelo and Da Vinci. The artists' section is biased as it is with 8 out of the 10 coming from the West. Only Hokusai and to some extent Frida Kahlo are the exceptions. And unlike other areas such as scientists or explorers, the artists haven't necessarily had a global influence or left a global impact with their work. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

See Socratic Problem at the top of the Socrates article. Socrates was philosophically opposed to teaching through writing so only taught orally. What we know him is through his students, chiefly Plato, and Plato is a vital article. Not sure that adding Socrates as a vital article would add much for this reason. RJFJR (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we considering these as a group for a reason or should we split this into three individual add proposals? RJFJR (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

New real time list of missing articles

I suggest that you give a look to the Mix'n'match tool by Magnus Manske, and that you recommend it from this page. Thanks to Wikidata, it's able to tell you in real time what articles you're missing out of several reliable lists of relevant persons. --Nemo 17:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add sugar

Basic food. Should be added before any specific plant that is cultivated mostly for sugar.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  10:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support RJFJR (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support -- salt has already been added. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support. And chemical substance to boot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Cattle

Cattle are probably the most used and known food animal world wide. Used since prehistoric times their use spread across the globe later in history, I believe the cattle has had a huge impact on human society and history and is more important than some of the many food plants we have like soybean. We have many articles for food and drink which are either plant species or come from plants, we have rice, corn, wheat, bread, soybean, fruit, vegetable, potato, cereal, tea, coffee, beer and wine. We have no animal species used primarily for food, the only animal species we have are human, dog and horse, which are not primarily used for food. We have some animal product articles, meat, milk, egg, and cheese. We have loads of plant based food, but for meat, just meat, I think it would be good to have cattle, humans don't just eat plants which have huge representation. Also it could be seen as odd to have milk, and cheese but not the animal that it comes from most of the time; one could say the same about including egg but not the chicken.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  06:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per Carlwev above. Cattle is dear to most humans, I dare say it's more important than space exploration or metaphysics :) //Halibutt 08:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per above.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support personally I would support removing cheese. It's not necessarily the most important product made from milk. In many parts of the world butter, yogurt and kefir rank higher in importance. And it's not a staple food like most of the foods listed. I think its akin to something like sausage, a product made from meat of which there are many variations. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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: Remove the 25-person cap on Political leaders

The 25-person cap is a relic of a bygone age at WP:VA. It's becoming increasingly apparent that the cap is preventing very significant political leaders from being added, while allowing much less significant people from other fields. pbp 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I don't think the proportion of people in different fields needs to scale from level 3 to level 4 (25 to 100 vs. 500 to 2000). By that logic, we'd have 5 entertainers and 5 sports figures on the level 3 list. Malerisch (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I completely agree. Leaders are more important than other types of people. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I think Protonk's point is an important one to consider when deciding whether to add leaders and other biographical articles. We don't want them to dominate the list, but on the other hand I'm not convinced that an arbitrary cap on one group of people is helpful either. Neljack (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd rather not. Leaders are important throughout history but they're often covered more heavily in older sources (the focus on 'great men' vs. social history arguably being another form of systemic bias) and without a cap they'll crowd out other subjects that are probably more important for an encyclopedia with a thousand year view. Protonk (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I am open to increasing the quota to 30 at the most. I'm guessing that the cap was created to prevent the section of leaders from overruning the people section and the list more generally. Real life influence does not necessarily correlate to encyclopedic vitality. Obviously it's an important criterion but not the end all and be all. A filmmaker or musician does not have to transform society to the same extent that a politician or scientist does to be vital. And a person does not have to be as influential as a city or country to be on the list. Wikipedia is not a political encyclopedia or an atlas. It is an encyclopedia on everything including seemingly trivial topics. Just as we have been aiming for diversity in nationality, gender and periods of time, we should continue to have diversity of content. Also agree with User:Protonk that an excessive number of politicians creates a more top-down view of the world than the list in its current state. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd prefer to see either this quota get raised or a quota on people in general introduced. Otherwise I see a slippery slope in which more and more people get added. I suspect Shaka was added for reasons of "diversity", and nobody has questioned his presence on the list while the quota remains in place; but if we don't remove him quickly after lifting it, I think there are dozens of equally notable leaders who will be inevitably be nominated. Cobblet (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cobblet:, I think we had Shaka on this list before we added Mandela, so...yeah. It seems somewhat disingenuous to have a quota on political leaders when there aren't really quotas on anything else. That has allowed musicians to be extremely outsized relative to political leaders. If we kept the cap, we should cap musicians at about 8. pbp 23:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What would you like to see as a quota for all people then? How about 125? Ten more cuts of Ellingtonesque figures should not be hard to find. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I can live with 125. pbp 15:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• We need quotas for all the subgroups. Not having quotas leads to apple/oranges discussions of vitality.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Protonk:, I don't really think leaders are the biggest threat to systemic bias on this list. I think musicians and entertainers are at the moment. At this point, there are almost as many musicians and filmmakers on this list as there are political leaders. That doesn't seem right to me. pbp 15:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that's an argument to cap types of biographies at various levels, not to remove the cap on one category which will have a lot of well meaning and convincing individual claims to vitality. Protonk (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • But there aren't caps on the other types of biographies, and even if there were, the fact is that this cap is too restrictive because even a list of the 100 most important people in the history of the world should include more than 25 political/military leaders. If I may ask, Protonk, what is your ideal total biographical cap? pbp 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Like I said, that's why it's an argument for caps as a whole. I'm ok with capping leaders because I think there's a real historical bias toward covering them over arguably more important (and inchoate) topics in history. If in order to accomplish that we've got to cap biographies in general, then that's fine too. Just giving a rough guess I'd say a list of 1000 should at most contain 150-200 biographies, perhaps fewer. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add sugarcane

It is no less important than rice or wheat.

Support

1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, prefer sugar as nominated below, RJFJR (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per PJFJR. Sugar overrides this. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Sugarcane is still comparable to many of the crops listed. Switch to neutral (maybe some of them can be removed). Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Not bad idea, I was thinking about sugar myself earlier, would that be better? Also if we wanted to add another species/groups of species that is important to humans as a food, we have several plants already, rice, wheat, soybean, corn, potato I believe. Whilst sugar or sugarcane is fairly important, I still notice we have no animals that are primarily important for food, the only animals we have apart from human are dog and horse which are not primarily important for food, my own choice for next species/group in line would be cattle probably the most used food animal globally, and used since prehistoric times too.  Carlwev  12:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sugar would indeed be better, I'd consider both that and cattle vital. Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In terms of other food and drinks, there is cheese, beer, wine, milk, tea and coffee. The Salt article is about edible salt and was swapped in place of the chemistry salt article. Sugar should be in before many of these articles. Having sugar and cane will probably be excessive though. Wheat and bread are both included but they are both overall more vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that salt as a food should also be added. It's vital to the human organism and was once a currency.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The article we currently have, salt, is on table salt, it's just under chemistry. We could move it to the food section which might be more accurate. RJFJR (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That would indeed be a better place for it. Anyone else have an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Talmud, add Torah

The Talmud is a a group of rabbinical commentary about the Torah. It does not make any sense to have the Talmud instead of the Torah itself. The Torah is the most important book in Judaism. If anyone wants a straight addition, that is fine too, but the Torah should definitely join its counterparts (the Bible and the Quran) on the level 3 vital article list.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Torah is part of Tanakh which is already a vital article. (And Talmud is significant in its own right.) RJFJR (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The Torah is the Jewish holy book. The Tanakh is not mentioned nearly as much as the Torah. Adding Torah is not redundant. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd support removing without addition, per my comment above: not universal enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I'd like to see the Talmud stay at L3, would there be interest in replacing Tanakh with Torah? RJFJR (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That is fine with me. We already had Old Testament anyway. Its not redundant to have Tanakh on level 4, but it is a bit redundant to have it on level 3. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Israel

Birthplace of Abrahamic religions. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Actually no Abrahamic religion originated in israel. Judaism originated in Kanaan. Christianity originated in the Roman province of Palestine. And Islam originated in preislamic Arabia. The modern country of Israel however is vital because of its cultural and historical and political significance, which is of course not solely based on its place as the physical space in which three world religions originated, and which exceeds its statistical significance based on population, economy etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 October 2014‎ (UTC)
3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Conditional support - if we remove Tanakh and Talmud from the list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --^Melody _Lavender 06:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose : For the reason stated in discussion section. Logical1004 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

A good litmus test for where we stand on how many countries to include relative to other types of articles. For all its cultural and political importance, it's a small country; note that Jerusalem's also listed, while other significant countries in the Middle East like Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia are not (and neither is Mecca). On the other hand, does anyone seriously believe it's more important for Wikipedia to have well-written articles on the Tanakh and Talmud than to have a well-written article on Israel? Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that this was removed some time back in favor of DRC. But now that we're adding some more countries, and the list is anyway under quota, perhaps consensus will shift. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer the final question, I do. The 1000 vital articles list should be a diverse set of articles that captures as much of human experience as possible. It is more important for Wikipedia to have diverse strengths than to have 193 great pages on every country. I'd rather have most articles be good, then to have ornithological or countries really well covered. We should look at the list as a whole and in a holistic manner and make sure it is not privileging a few areas at the cost of including important aspects of human knowledge/experience. (No opinion on Israel right now.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AbstractIllusions' general comment that not only should the vital list be diverse in terms of geography and chronology (combating recentism), it should have diversity of content. If the articles are chosen on the basis of giving a person a well-rounded education, serious subjects like politics and science will be better covered than pop culture, but this has to be balanced against learning about a variety of areas of knowledge. Just to repeat what I've already said, a person doesn't have to be as influential as a country to be more vital nor does a vital musician or painter need to change the world to the same extent of an emperor. Then again it is hard to compare someone who made millions of people live in say, a independent nation with someone who made millions of people happy by giving them particular type of music. Hence "apples and oranges". Sometimes very common, generic, bigger or even powerful does not equal vital.

I haven't made a decision on Israel, Tanakh and Talmud yet. I don't think the Philosophy and Religion should get any smaller when we are overall under quota. It is a fundamental part of human life. There was a suggestion above that all subtopics of specific religions be removed because they are not "universal". But there are more than 25 times the number of Catholics and Sunni Muslims than the number of Poles in the world. Poland is nowhere near as "universal". Then there's the fact that not all religions are best expanded on in terms of denomination or sect (horses for courses) as in the case of Hinduism and Judaism. Hence their texts are on the list.

The billion plus nonreligious people should also get better representation than just atheism. Something like secularism or agnosticism can be added (I prefer the former). Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I will definitely support a swap of Israel with Jerusalem. There are other cities that a holy to three religions such as Varanasi if that's the reason for its inclusion. And Israel to a large extent subsumes Jerusalem. The section for cities heavily overlaps with the countries. Every city except for Jerusalem currently and Singapore (a sovereign city-state) is from a country also listed. In contrast, the biographies section represents different parts of the world. Genghis Khan, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Vasco da Gama are clearly vital while Mongolia, Netherlands, Austria and Portugal are clearly not. I could for this reason, somewhat support expanding countries at the expense of cities (which also a reflect an urban biased view of the world). Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Israel is much more important than Tanakh and Talmud. Let's add it, and remove those books, they are not "household" names, which I think is a good way to think about most vital concepts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with AbstractIllusions, Tanakh (or only Torah, a well known part of it) and Talmud are more important than the country, but Israel is an interesting choice if we try to go beyond diversifying geographically and chronologically. It illustrates one view of the concept of country in an interesting way (zionism). --^Melody _Lavender 06:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Opposing the way the article has been represented. Then I will prefer World over Israel which is the birth place of not only Abrahamic religions, but also all the religions (some are not even listed in the list). And also Jerusalem and most of the places which were the origin of several religions are already present in the list. Logical1004 (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:List of 100 Art concepts Wikipedia should have

I have just discovered the page "Wikipedia:List of 100 Art concepts Wikipedia should have".
—Wavelength (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Wavelength. We added the link to the "See also" section. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Moving Video Game from recreation to arts and culture

I had a hard time finding video games (until I used CTRL+F), seeing as I expected it in a similar category to architecture and film, rather than next to gambling and sports. I am aware that it is somewhat of an overlap between the categories (for example, Category:Video games is listed both under category "Games" and "Interactive art"), but it seems somekind of statement; the well known "video games are not an artform." I request it to be moved to Arts and Culture in this list. Maplestrip (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think it's inappropriate to call video games a form of recreation; if anything, listing it as an art form alongside literature and music is a more radical statement. There are those who find artistic value in works of engineering or mathematical formulae, but that does not mean we should list those disciplines under the arts either. Cobblet (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Level 4 article, IMHO. --Thi (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

You can indeed find artistic value in maths and engineering, I very much agree with that, but these things are, unlike film and videogames, not a medium that allows inner meanings and subtexts (or even story in general), a creative way of expression. If I may name some examples I have played; Shadow of the Colossus is themed around losing one's humanity to reach one's goals, Earthbound is a coming-of-age game with parts of its design inspired by the writer's own "trauma" as a kid and The Walking Dead (video game) attempts to get a closer look at morality (it was quite a heavy experience to myself personally, one that I've never had with film...)

Maths and engineering would be more an esthetic art, focused on the inherent beauty of systems, somewhat similar to typography. And yes, I will stay far away from Video games as an art form, I am aware that I am way too biased. Make of this what you will. Either way, there is also the "culture" part for games to fall under. Maplestrip (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Many people associate video games with sports too hence the idea of esport. I think all games (sports, board games, card games, video games) should be together. Board games in particular can have just as much of a narrative as some video games. And all games allow for artistic expression. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thi, the level of the topic is not under discussion. If it were moved on level 3, then the few articles on level 4 would be moved as well. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Tooltips

I don't know if this is possible, but if it is, it is beyond my abilities. I was wondering if we could add tooltips to the icons next to the list. It would be more convenient and wouldn't require constantly scrolling up to the top of the list. Just a suggestion. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

StewdioMACK, this project doesn't make or change the icons, they are used in many places on Wikipedia, not just on the Vital article lists. You could try to ask here: Template talk:Icon.--^Melody _Lavender 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Malnutrition

I find it odd that obesity is included while malnutrition is not. Maybe it reflects a bias towards the affluent. More deadly and a bigger issue that many of the diseases and medical conditions listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, seems like an oversight. Also, you forgot to sign ~ Maplestrip (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Please sign a.s.a.p., the nominator.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  16:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
5. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
6. --Thi (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
7. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Strong Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
9. Support --^Melody _Lavender 15:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
10. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Important, but not vital. It's so widespread but who needs to read about it?

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Maplestrip and RekishiEJ: thanks for reminding me to sign. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about having a look at the biology/medicine area, malnutrition is pretty decent and seems higher importance, and more prevalent historically and today than obesity, like you said. I think Autoimmune disease and hypertension are not great inclusions and I think I'll suggest removing them. Myself and Cobblet where thinking about adding Metabolism, I think I'll suggest that too.  Carlwev  16:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that there are two mental disorders listed in addition to the main article: autism and schizophrenia. I'd have thought clinical depression would be above both of them.

Btw, malnutrition is more than just kids in the third world starving to death. It encompasses any nutrient deficiency. It is of interest to the fields of public health, agriculture, biochemistry and sports science, history (scurvy being an example of malnutrition), economics and geopolitics (international trade and aid are often shaped around the issue) and environmental science (in terms of finding a long-term sustainable solution or at least better outcome). So yeah apart from the general public, I think many people need to read about it. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Autoimmune disease

It's hard for me to explain, but this is mostly a long list of related conditions and problems arising from the bodies immune system attacking parts of itself in different ways. We have allergy and immune system from the same area. This seems like an awkward article of different but related conditions, none of which are lev3 vital on their own and together are a list and just a collection of related things that I think probably isn't a top 1000 article topic to have, I don't think it's within the most vital biology/medicine topics an encyclopedia should hav at this level.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, allergy and immune system should indeed cover this on level 3 ~ Maplestrip (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support non-vital classification of diseases. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
6. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Move to Level 4 Logical1004 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Hypertension

This is the term for "high blood pressure". A while ago there was discussion that maybe we don't need both circulatory system and Blood. I think we do need blood, but if some where at least considering removing blood, then high blood pressure surely cannot be vital. I just don't think it's within the most vital conditions/diseases....After reading through the article more it explains it effects about one quarter of the world adult population, which I didn't realize; although there are probably many diseases/conditions that effect higher percentage of people.

I'm not convinced numbers alone make this within the 1000 most important articles, it doesn't occupy the place and appear to have the global impact like say AIDS cancer malaria and a few others. Other conditions like Gastroesophageal reflux disease may effect up to one fifth of world population according to the article, but are not even lev4 listed. Also Acne vulgaris article claims the disease effects 90% of people in West during teenage years but again the article isn't even lev4 listed. What I'm trying to say is although it must be a factor I suppose, numbers alone don't make a disease vital even at the 10'000 level, for the more compact 1000 list even more so. We also removed removed bone fracture, which must be very common, but doesn't seem vital either.  Carlwev  14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
2. --Thi (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support crystalclear (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose affects more than 26% of the population, almost everybody gets it if they become old enough (your blood pressure rises with age, automatically). Major, major killer. Not sure, but this might be deadlier than smoking. If a disease has to be removed, take a less widespread one like HIV. Acne and reflux that are mentioned in the OP (what a weird comparison) won't kill you.--^Melody _Lavender 15:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest replacing this and myocardial infarction (heart attack) with cardiovascular disease. Cobblet (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't oppose your proposal. On the contrary, I kind of support it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Metabolism

We list a few biological processes like photosynthesis and digestion plus (Reproduction and Evolution, are they processes?). Photosynthesis is known primarily for plants, and digestion for animals, and a different form for fungi. Metabolism is pretty much carried out by all life, or at least all cellular life, and is kind of one of the things that makes something "life". (I think only the non-cellular life, viruses are the only things that don't do it on it's own but use another cell to do it.) I think if we are including a small number of processes like the ones I listed above, metabolism is the most widespread one so we should not leave it off. It also seems more important for biology to include this before several conditions like high blood pressure and autoimmune disease among others for example. There seems to be a slight preference to covering abnormal biological conditions ie diseases rather than covering normal and universal biological conditions or processes such as this.  Carlwev  16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Fundamental characteristic of life. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Maplestrip (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support --^Melody _Lavender 15:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Tanakh

We already have Judaism on the list. And will all due respect, Judaism is a religion of 0.2% people around the world (per Major religious groups). I am not suggesting removing it - it has historical and cultural significance above that number, clearly. But its holy books are not vital, they are not household names for most non-Jews, and why is Judaism the only religion to have two holy books listed? If we have to keep one, keep Talmud, I guess (let's discuss this in the proposal below). Also, this creates space to add Israel, as discussed few proposals above. Finally, I would like us to discuss removal of few other holy books - see my following posts.

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support crystalclear (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Guru Granth Sahib

A major religious text of Sikhism, a religion with 28 millions adherents. Not a household name to anyone but them, not a vital concept for world's culture and history, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Too many religious texts listed compared to other works of literature; is this really more important than the Ramayana? Cobblet (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support especially in light of its young age, Sikhism shouldn't be better represented than Shinto, Taoism or Zoroastrianism. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Logical1004 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support per Gizza. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. 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 Neil Armstrong

IMO there are already enough articles related to space exploration on the list (space exploration, moon landing, spaceflight, satellite, even the International Space Station). And why is Armstrong on the list while Yuri Gagarin isn't? Even if you forced me to put someone on the list in order to represent America's contribution to space exploration, I wouldn't choose Armstrong; I'd choose JFK.

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Being "first" to explore something should not be a sufficient criterion to list an explorer on level 3—there must be some wider influence/impact from their discoveries. Armstrong's legacy is pretty minimal. Malerisch (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, was wondering about this one as well. Redundant with moon landing. ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support : Move it to level 4 Logical1004 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support I was going to suggest that some day. --^Melody _Lavender 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support  Carlwev  16:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Support CrystalClear (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
9. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
10. Support Indeed Gagarin arguably made the greater "leap", but since he was Russian he doesn't get the same attention. Neljack (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose Obviously Armstrong shouldn't get the credit for being the first human to land on a solid surface outside our home planet. It was the efforts of NASA more than anything. That doesn't make Armstrong non-vital. The front men in every field rely on people in the background for advice, money and support. Columbus and Marie Curie would have achieved very little without the support and encouragement of Isabella I of Castile and Pierre Curie respectively. But the latter are nowhere close to being as vital as the former. Hugely popular singers that get other people to write the songs for them are still more vital than the people behind the scenes. Armstrong is very fortunate but he is going to be remembered forever. The only reason why my oppose is weak is because it is hard to decide between Armstrong and Gagarin. We might as well get rid of moon landing which is written like a history article. And there's already a space article in the history section making it redundant. Armstrong gets more views than Moon landing as well (ranked 1670 vs 6723). Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per DaGizza. He is the human face of space exloration, and is likely to remain that way for a long time. As the most famous explorer of space, I think he is vital enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose We can play the alternate history game all day. Fact is, Armstrong left the lander first, Buzz Aldrin be damned. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Supporters leave me flabbergasted with their faulty reasoning. The first man on the moon? I call that vital. Jusdafax 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Leif Erikson strikes me as an odd inclusion. He has a negligible legacy, and I don't believe chronological diversity alone is a good argument for keeping him. Malerisch (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like an obvious removal.--^Melody _Lavender 15:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Zhang Qian, Henry the Navigator or Vitus Bering would be better choices, IMO. Cobblet (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with cobblet. One of the three can go to the list. Go ahead with proposal. Logical1004 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As big of a fan of ISS as I am, I am not sure I would keep ISS here; I'd support it's removal in favor of keeping Neil here. Regarding the four historical names proposed above, I'd support removal / oppose adding any of them. They are not on the same level as Polo, Columbus, de Gama, Magellan, Cook, Amudsen - and Armstrong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah he was first man on the Moon and he's significant, but he didn't lead the expedition or NASA or drive it forward like Columbus or Magellan, if he never existed of if he had a cold at the time another man would have gone instead and the Moon landing and the rest of history would be nearly exactly the same. Probably.  Carlwev  16:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather swap Neil Armstrong with Apollo 11 than to keep Armstrong. Moon landing isn't actually about the specific event, but about moon landings in general. It's currently 8 supports vs 4 opposes - exciting contest! ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All this talk of explorers, we list several explorers and space exploration but we don't list exploration itself, the article is in bad shape, but we do have articles colonialism and Age of Discovery but that's from a European point of view and one period of history not a general concept itself.  Carlwev  20:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove J. Robert Oppenheimer

We already include Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg. Is the "father of the atomic bomb" (in my view, to call him that is to neglect the contributions of Compton and Fermi, not to mention Einstein of course) really more vital than the Wright brothers or Alexander Graham Bell? Is his role in WW2 more significant than F. D. Roosevelt's? Because we don't list those three people, and yet we list Oppenheimer.

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Less vital than the figures Cobblet mentioned, in addition to Louis Pasteur, another significant omission in the scientist section. Malerisch (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, and maybe add Bell and the Wright brothers on this level? ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Logical1004 (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --^Melody _Lavender 15:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Thi (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support  Carlwev  16:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Support Pasteur will be a good addition. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Leaning support. Not as famous as Einstein, through I wonder if any other physicist other then Newton would be... Hmmm. Have we ever discussed adding Stephen Hawking? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hawking would definitely beat Oppenheimer, and his ideas have a great encyclopedic value. Also, his popularity with the masses despite his complex field is a big reason to have the best article possible for him. That all being said, there hasn't been enough time to build on his works, making him a lot less vital than the people who he has followed. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Pasteur would be an excellent choice, but since vaccine and pasteurization are listed, I can live with a list that doesn't include him. When it comes to 20th-century physicists, I'd definitely take Feynman and Schrodinger before Hawking. Cobblet (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Thailand

User:Red Slash's proposal to swap Canada for Thailand prompted a flurry of countries being added to the list, but Thailand somehow got lost in the mix. It's the most populous nation not currently listed (ranking 21st in the world, ahead of the UK, Italy and South Africa) and I need not defend the notability of its culture and history – suffice it to say that it is not inferior to Vietnam, Indonesia or the Philippines in that regard, and those three countries are all listed.

Support

1. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 11:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  15:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support There are more English-speakers in Thailand than Israel and Poland. See here. OTOH, if it's the people who are editing and viewing the English Wikipedia which is so important, we could copy and paste the list from [1] or [2]. Don't agree with that myself but anyway, agree with the others Thailand's contributions to the world. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Support --Thi (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
9. Support This list is not of things that are vital in the English-speaking world. Neljack (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not vital, not in the English-speaking world. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I don't find the counter-arguments that convincing, so - moving here from neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I am neutral regarding the addition of Thailand to the list. I am not sure what is the basic reason to include countries to the list. If it is the population, then there are 20 more countries before it. Also regarding culture of Thailand, its the same as most of the South-Asian countries (Thats what I inferred after reading the article, If I am wrong, correct me). I will prefer adding the countries that have some historical significance. I would avoid the dominance of a particular set of things and hence prefer diverse culture in the list. Logical1004 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Logical. What makes Thailand special? I am sorry, with regards to the op saying it needs no defense for its notability or history - please defend it, if you'd. As far as I can tell Thailand has never been a major player in world - or even its region's - politics, economy nor culture; it's biggest cultural influence worldwide is probably the Thai cuisine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia that never succumbed to European colonization, I cannot possibly fathom how you might think it's not a major player in its own region. Please try to understand its history a little yourself first before you disparage it with naive comments. Cobblet (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think what may make it appear worse is tha this nation is close by to some very big players that overshadow it, China, India and to a lesser extent Japan. China and India are truly huge, they both, on their own, have more population than every other whole continent other than Asia let alone every other country so they would overshadow anything. I wouldn't leave of Poland as we had Germany, Russia and France, I think Thailand is very historically and culturally important, it's just near some huge countries that overshadow it. In the 10'000 list we have History of Thailand, but not history of the Philippines, suggests Thailand is more important than other nations who's history is missing, from that area or others.  Carlwev  16:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you for the most part Carl. Just one thing to note is that sometimes a country can be L3 vital and its history not L4 vital (like Bangladesh) or vice versa (like History of Afghanistan). Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Secularism

Quoting User:DaGizza: "There are over a billion irreligious/atheist/agnostic people in the world. Their views should probably be represented with more than just atheism. Personally I think the next best article would be secularism."

Support

1. Support as nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Per my earlier comments as well as Cobblet's. This will be a good counterweight to theocracy as well. Probably more vital than theocracy. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 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.