This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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)
I would prefer a swap with environmentalism and/or pollution. Malerisch ( talk) 09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
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:
And a couple of notes on recentism:
Next, some suggested additions:
And some suggested removals, in reverse chronological order:
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 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. Carl wev 13:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments, everyone! Here are my responses:
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)
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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?. Carl wev 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
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. Carl wev 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This nomination just failed on VA/E, so it should be removed from here as well. Malerisch ( talk) 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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. Carl wev 09:27, 4 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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Parent category; clearly more vital.
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)
@ 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)
The following discussion is closed. 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 deserves better coverage. School is more vital than the currently listed library and museum.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. 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 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)
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)
MackyBeth ( talk) 10:06, 1 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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:
The following discussion is closed. 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 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).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To have him on the list but leave off Lenin or Peter the Great is insane; it shows just how overrepresented the filmmakers are.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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
Oppose
Discussion
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)
The following discussion is closed. 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 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. p b p 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I do think Jazz needs to be represented and is even under-represented.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 12:16, 28 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.
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. p b p 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Carl wev 13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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. Carl wev 10:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Query per heading. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 8 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.
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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. Carl wev 12:19, 8 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 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?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
@ 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All 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)
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.
Basic food. Should be added before any specific plant that is cultivated mostly for sugar.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 09:07, 23 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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. 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 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. p b p 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is no less important than rice or wheat.
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. Carl wev 12:35, 14 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.
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Birthplace of Abrahamic religions. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 18:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 have just discovered the page "
Wikipedia:List of 100 Art concepts Wikipedia should have".
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:22, 4 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.
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)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@ 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. Carl wev 16:04, 26 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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Carl wev 14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest replacing this and myocardial infarction (heart attack) with cardiovascular disease. Cobblet ( talk) 09:24, 2 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.
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. Carl wev 16:49, 26 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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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)
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. Carl wev 16:34, 1 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. Carl wev 20:17, 3 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.
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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."
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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)
I would prefer a swap with environmentalism and/or pollution. Malerisch ( talk) 09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
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:
And a couple of notes on recentism:
Next, some suggested additions:
And some suggested removals, in reverse chronological order:
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 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. Carl wev 13:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments, everyone! Here are my responses:
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)
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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?. Carl wev 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
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. Carl wev 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This nomination just failed on VA/E, so it should be removed from here as well. Malerisch ( talk) 01:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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. Carl wev 09:27, 4 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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Parent category; clearly more vital.
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)
@ 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)
The following discussion is closed. 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 deserves better coverage. School is more vital than the currently listed library and museum.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. 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 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)
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)
MackyBeth ( talk) 10:06, 1 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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:
The following discussion is closed. 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 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).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To have him on the list but leave off Lenin or Peter the Great is insane; it shows just how overrepresented the filmmakers are.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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
Oppose
Discussion
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)
The following discussion is closed. 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 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. p b p 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I do think Jazz needs to be represented and is even under-represented.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 12:16, 28 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.
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. p b p 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Carl wev 13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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. Carl wev 10:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Query per heading. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:17, 8 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.
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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. Carl wev 12:19, 8 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 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?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
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)
@ 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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All 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)
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.
Basic food. Should be added before any specific plant that is cultivated mostly for sugar.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 09:07, 23 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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. 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 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. p b p 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is no less important than rice or wheat.
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. Carl wev 12:35, 14 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.
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Birthplace of Abrahamic religions. -- Triggerhippie4 ( talk) 18:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 have just discovered the page "
Wikipedia:List of 100 Art concepts Wikipedia should have".
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:22, 4 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.
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)
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)
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@ 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. Carl wev 16:04, 26 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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Carl wev 14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I suggest replacing this and myocardial infarction (heart attack) with cardiovascular disease. Cobblet ( talk) 09:24, 2 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.
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. Carl wev 16:49, 26 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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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)
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. Carl wev 16:34, 1 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. Carl wev 20:17, 3 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.
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.
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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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."