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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
According to this link from wikimedia tools, [1], 38.3% of people reading the English Wikipedia are American. As such, there needs to be a significant amount of attention to removing American bias while also not going so far as to create anti-American bias. From the discussions above, it is evident that there needs to be a separate thread to discuss the ratio of American Baseball players to soccer players. Since a little over a third of the readers of the English wikipedia are Americans, how about we make the ratio of soccer players to baseball players 2 to 1. This would eliminate most of the American bias because Cricket would have enough players on the list along with non-American hockey players and field hockey players to counteract the number of basketball players and American Football players. If need be, we could remove a couple of basketball players from the list.
In conclusion, here is my proposal: keep a ratio of Non-American athletes to American athletes at 2:1 to represent the readership in the English Wikipedia. This ratio would be a fixed rule that would stay in place if we lower the number of sports figures in total on the list. This seems like a fair compromise so that American bias elimination does not turn into Anti-American bias creation.
You seem to be proposing two different things – I can't tell whether you're talking about just football vs. baseball or all the athletes in general. Americans currently comprise 44/117 or 38% of the athletes, definitely a better ratio than when we started trimming the list. But trying to justify a ratio of nationalities based on viewership alone makes no sense – first, one can apply this type of argument to every section of the list of people; second, if we can apply it for Americans we can apply it for every other nationality. By the same logic you're using, for every Chinese person on the list we should have one New Zealander, because both countries contribute 0.7% of Wikipedia's viewership. Oh, and we should have 27 times as many Americans as Chinese and New Zealanders combined. Cobblet ( talk) 02:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
As a separate, unrelated question that I want to ask before I make a formal proposal, I would like to ask this: Should we focus less on nominating the articles on the list and more on improving them? This would mean that we as a project would focus on specific articles that need attention that are on our list. I feel like we aren't helping wikipedia as a whole if we aren't improving articles ourselves. Instead, I feel like we are simply having geopolitical arguments about which culture is important such as the argument above. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been wanting to know the answer to this question for a while, even though it undermines my own argument: what is the point of the meta list? One of the sentences at Wikipedia:Vital articles states that "This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia. There is also a list of one thousand articles considered vital to Wikipedias of all languages." If the English Wikipedia VA list doesn't include any English-speaking bias, why does the meta list exist at all? Otherwise, we have two separate lists in English that serve the same purpose. There was some discussion here on that sentence, but no action was taken. Malerisch ( talk) 23:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a link to the 100 most popular articles of 2013. Should we replace the Level 1 and 2 lists with this list? Don't think so.
Notwithstanding the time bias and geographic bias in pageviews, there is a huge shaky assumption made in the view that high pageviews mean vitality. You are assuming that people click on the Wikipedia articles that they want to click on and read. That's probably the case with pop culture phenomena like Breaking Bad and perenially popular articles like human penis size but it's not the case with many of the articles. Do people actually want to read about Facebook, Yahoo!, Google and YouTube or do they type the name of these websites in the search box and accidentally click on the Wikipedia link? We don't have proof and we don't know for how long people view these articles, which is just as important in understanding how readers behave online. Having said that, the accident theory is widely supported (see this Signpost article).
Another assumption is that all of the pageviews come from humans which again is known to not be the case. Wikipedian articles are frequently subject to Denial-of-service attacks by online hackers. Bots can artificially inflate the pageviews of an article by up to a factor of million. Bot views don't make an article vital and even though sometimes it is clear which articles are being attacked, a moderate increase in views can also be the result of bots and we have no way of finding out.
There is also the Google Doodle and Slashdot effect. An article that normally gets 50 views a day can get 200,000 due to being linked via a Google Doodle, Slashdot, Reddit or some other website that overloads the article. Similarly, celebrities do not become more vital when they die at a young age (if anything, it means they will be in less movies, release less songs, etc. and therefore less vital) but an unexpected death is the best way to get a big boost in article pageviews. Again the Signpost article referred to above discusses all of these issues. Gizza ( t)( c) 04:59, 18 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.
I have no idea why she's listed. She's mostly notable for her role in A Passage to India, but a single appearance in a film does not make you vital. Malerisch ( talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'd say she's most notable for her stage roles. I'm finding the stage actors more difficult to evaluate. Neljack ( talk) 10:43, 20 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.
Most famous for All Quiet on the Western Front, but he had other bestsellers as well.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notable for his criticism, his dictionary, his literary efforts, and being an all-round clever chap. One example of his lasting importance is that the UK's top non-fiction prize is named the Samuel Johnson Prize.
There is so much more to Samuel Johnson than his dictionary. His Shakespeare criticism was highly influential and he made significant contributions as an essayist. His non-fiction is probably what he's most remembered for, but Rasselas is an important piece of 18th century fiction and The Vanity of Human Wishes an important poem. Having said all that, on the question of an author primarily known for one work (unlike Johnson IMO), I think there's no hard and fast answer. If they're significant enough we can have both author and work(s) like with Homer and the Iliad/Odyssey. If a little less so, maybe not, which is why I think it's reasonable to have Wuthering Heights but not Emily Brontë. If Gargantua and Pantagruel refers to all five books, I don't know what else Rabelais wrote, so better to go with the work I would imagine (if just going for one of the two, which is probably appropriate in this case).-- Rsm77 ( talk) 05:43, 16 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.
While I was a great fan of Blyton's books as a child, I don't think she can be regarded as vital. She was very popular and prolific, but her literary influence and critical reputation were limited at best. Emily Brontë not only wrote what is widely regarded as one of the greatest, most original and most influential English novels, but was also an important poet - she has been described as "one of the great English lyric poets" [1] and as the greatest female English poet. Brontë seems to me to be clearly more vital that Blyton. Neljack ( talk) 01:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
We could drop Charlotte and instead add Brontë family since must academic studies regard them collectively. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:49, 17 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.
In the grand scheme of American historiography, there are two names that stand out: Frederick Jackson Turner (who's been on the list for years) and Beard. McCullough is a popular historian, but doesn't add much in the way of historiography. p b p 20:08, 25 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 Decebalus and do not need a second Dacian king.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Henry the Fowler's role in the history of Germany is comparable to Hugh Capet's in France. They may have founded the dynasty that marks the birth of each nation, but they are less vital than their successors who expanded and consolidated the power of that initially weak ruling house – Otto I in the case of the Holy Roman Empire and Philip II in the case of France. If Hugh Capet or Henry VII of England isn't on the list I don't see why Henry the Fowler should be.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Usually I imagine people are more interested in articles on specific figures than on ruling houses. In this case though, House of Medici receives over three times as many page views as the articles on the two Medicis combined. It also seems undue to list two Florentine leaders when we don't list any other leaders of Italian city-states ( Enrico Dandolo? Ugolino della Gherardesca?). FWIW, Catherine de' Medici is also on the list.
The significance for economic history (banking dynasty) and for art history is incomparable. And I think you're playing down their role as political leaders. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 13:10, 12 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.
Reclusive fashion executive vs. national hero.
Being the third richest person in the world and having a net worth of USD $64 billion doesn't make you automatically vital. However, people who have accumulated such high amounts of wealth especially when they didn't inherit any of it themselves often have made a lasting impact on society. I will need to research Ortega in more detail to see if this is the case. Gizza ( t)( c) 02:06, 19 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.
In view of comments made above, I'll open this proposal.
Britannica concurs, saying: "He is considered by many to have been the best all-around player in the history of baseball." [2] The rankings I've mentioned before bear this out: he is ranked the second-greatest player of all time by the Sporting News [3], ESPN [4] and the AP [5], and third by the leading sabermetrician Bill James [6]. He also has wider importance as one of the first black players to become a top star - he has been called "baseball's first African-American superstar", [7] though Britannica suggests that because of racism "he probably never received the respect due him based upon his skills". But his status is such that, as NPR notes: "In the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama emphasized his biracial appeal by pairing John F. Kennedy with Martin Luther King, Jr.; Abraham Lincoln with Willie Mays." [8] If we're looking for someone to remove (leaving aside the ones I've already proposed), I suggest we'd be better to look at Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb or Lou Gehrig. Neljack ( talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Willie Mays' career statistics and longevity in the pre-PED era, the more recent acknowledgement of Mays as perhaps the finest five-tool player ever, and the overwhelming consensus of many surveys and other expert analyses carefully examining Mays' relative performance have led to a growing opinion that Mays was possibly the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time.
Player | AP | Bill James | ESPN | SABR | Sporting News | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hank Aaron | 3 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5.8 |
Roberto Clemente | ? | 74 | 34 | 20 | 20 | 37 |
Ty Cobb | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 5.2 |
Lou Gehrig | 8 | 14 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 8.2 |
Willie Mays | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 3.4 |
Sadaharu Oh | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Jackie Robinson | 9 | 32 | 54 | 36 | 44 | 35 |
Babe Ruth | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Cy Young | ? | 23 | 18 | 18 | 14 | 18.25 |
I agree with Neljack's analysis and have switched to oppose: Willie Mays isn't the right baseball player to remove. I've compiled the rankings from Neljack's sources into a table (see above) and averaged the rankings, which shows that Willie Mays could be considered the 2nd-best player of all-time, behind Babe Ruth. I don't think anyone's considering removing Jackie Robinson because of his historic importance, so Roberto Clemente and Cy Young are indeed the best candidates to remove. Sadaharu Oh doesn't appear on any rankings at all though, so it's hard for me to judge his importance. Malerisch ( talk) 15:01, 14 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.
Very important city in the Near/Middle East in the first centuries BCE and AD. Should either be here or in Geography. p b p 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This should go under History: the modern city is Antakya. Cobblet ( talk) 09:59, 14 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 seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What about the 6 car manufacturers in the Technology section? I think most of those should be removed before these companies. Malerisch ( talk) 16:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DaGizza, unless I'm mistaken, didn't Ypnypn vote twice? Malerisch ( talk) 23:27, 8 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.
We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
But one could say that the significance of Microsoft is subsumed by the significance of Bill Gates: his page got more views last month than Microsoft and Microsoft Windows combined. Another viewpoint is that we can list the inventor and his invention without listing the company he built around it (Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone, but not Bell Telephone Company or AT&T). In the end it still comes down to how important you really think Microsoft is though, and I'm no economic historian myself. Cobblet ( talk) 22:42, 11 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 seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
We have smaller articles like amazon mentioned above. I don't seem to hate companies as much as everyone else. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer over 10,000 stores, nearly half a trillion dollar turn over and employs over 2 million people. I know it's fairly recent but I still think it's quite significant, lots of biographies are more recent. I mean we're still talking about sports, we have the worlds top 25 footballers, and top 14 tennis players, many of them more recent, but the worlds biggest retailer is not allowed? Like we have 150+ people important to film but don't have one company no disney, fox, viacom/paramount etc, I did media not acting but those came up when i studied cinema. Carl wev 12:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
To give insight in the current vital articles, here are some museums from the List of most visited art museums in the world. Of course, this offers only a quantitative indication of only art museums. Hopefully this will help making new additions and removals in order to improve the vital museum articles. – Editør ( talk) 12:28, 15 July 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.
One of the most widely prescribed drugs to reduce blood pressure. It has several other uses in cardiac diseases, has and anxiolytic effect and is also given to prevent migranes. It's also considered a doping drug. The most ancient substance in this group, Propanolol, dates back to the 1960ies. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a better idea than adding antipsychotics. The reason I don't suggest adding Antihypertensive drug here is that beta blockers are much more notable than the other antihypertensives, none of which merit significant coverage on our list. Antipsychotics don't stand out from the other psychiatric medications in the same way. Cobblet ( talk) 21:55, 14 July 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.
On the market since 1973, L Dopa is another substance that was on the World Health Organization's list of essential medications right from the beginning. It's a substance that is normally produced by the human body; a lack of it manifests in Parkinson's disease, one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 15:35, 26 July 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.
Planck units are one system of units based on fundamental physical quantities, but hardly the only ones. They're all useful in specific contexts and I think a discussion of the concept as a whole is more vital.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Odometers have a long and rich history compared to most other measuring instruments; their significance far outweighs any single flight instrument.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove the best-known example of a long period variable for the topic itself, which we currently lack.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many people are concerned that computing may be overrepresented, and the operating systems category seems like a good place to rectify that. BSD ought to be covered to some extent in Unix, and MS-DOS is the less vital out of the two Microsoft operating systems. Multics was an influential early operating system, but we don't list things like difference engine and IBM Personal Computer, which were just as influential to the hardware side of computers. And OpenVMS just isn't on the same level as Linux, Unix, Mac OS, or Microsoft Windows. If we're removing Apple Inc. and Microsoft, I don't see how these operating systems are any more vital. Malerisch ( talk) 16:42, 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.
Covered by Optical disc. We don't list DVD or Blu-ray.
The following discussion is closed. 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 important computer science topic. It discusses how exactly data is stored on a disk.
The following discussion is closed. 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 don't have any functional languages. This the most vital of that paradigm.
A long time ago all programming languages were removed because it was thought programming languages article itself was enough and covered the topic, now we have 4 of them added back, and might soon have a total of 6 programming languages. How many do we want in the end? I would probably disagree removing CD as we have optical disc, over 200 billion CDs have been made, and they're still going. One could say CD is covered by optical disc so we don't need it, but what is the reply to we have programming language, so we don't need 6 examples of programming languages? I admit programming isn't my thing but I am a little confused say water wheel in use for over 2000 years may not get in because we have water mill but 6 programming languages is acceptable. I still appreciate all the hard work and different views, I think it makes the list better in the end, this is only my view. Carl wev 12:39, 14 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 recently added Archimedes' screw, Water wheel seems slightly more important. If we can have Solar power and solar energy and solar cell, as well as windmill, wind power, wind turbine, I believe we should have water wheel. They were in use from ancient Roman and Greec world in the 3rd century BC to the 20th century. Carl wev 17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
We list watermill though, which covers similar ground – you might as well propose water turbine too even though we have turbine (watermills use one or the other). I'm not sure we need this much overlap on this subject. Incidentally, I've never really liked the overlap between hydropower and hydroelectricity and now we've also got solar power and solar energy. Cobblet ( talk) 02:54, 14 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.
There are only eight medical technology articles on the list, but a stunning 68 military technology articles. That is totally out of balance, even if we consider that much of the revolution in the medical technology sector has taken place in the course of the last century. We do have rifle on the list (not that I think it's necessary) but it should cover assault rifle. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
AK-47 and M16 rifle were Wikiproject Firearms's first and fourth most frequently viewed articles last month. Just sayin'. (Assault rifle itself was 87th.) Cobblet ( talk) 22:40, 7 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.
Lace is one of the oldest forms of decoration and is one of the fundamental types of fabric. -- Ca2james ( talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No disrespect to wikipedians (we all have limited knowledge), just a constatation of the fact that the decision was made by people who have absolutely no knownledge of Russian culture, not to say literature. To call "obscure" two cult Russian writers demonstrates this. I strongly suggest in such cases to draw attention of the corresponding national wikiprojects. -No.Altenmann >t 02:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the definition of obscure from Merriam Webster:
1 a : dark, dim
2 not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious
3 relatively unknown: as
4 constituting the unstressed vowel \ə\ or having unstressed \ə\ as its value -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Guys, there are 17 soccer players on this list. That may well be what gives some people (including me) the impression that we might be cutting too many Americans. Do we seriously need so many soccer players? None of them is American, by the way. How about replacing some of them with their teams? -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 18:10, 24 July 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.
McKellen's only as famous as he is for playing Gandalf, but that does not make him vital. He never won an Oscar. Malerisch ( talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Since McKellan is probably most notable as a stage actor, the fact that he hasn't won an Oscar is not that significant. He has won six Olivier Awards and a Tony Award. Still thinking about this. Neljack ( talk) 10:30, 20 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.
Day doesn't make the AFI list, and she's only been nominated for one Oscar. I don't see why she's vital. Malerisch ( talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly the combination of her acting and singing careers is what has got her on the list. She certainly had quite a significant cultural impact, all in all. I'm not sure she's out of place on the list, thought I'm still considering. Neljack ( talk) 10:55, 20 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.
I think we could lose a football player and while undoubtedly very talented, Best was only at the top of the game for a relatively short period. He was Manchester United's top scorer for six seasons before entering a decline he never came back from.-- Rsm77 ( talk) 23:19, 20 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.
I think the general idea of etiquette is more vital than its specific application to sports. Not sure where it's best placed though.
Sportsmanship, while a subset of etiquette, deserves its own place as the etiquette surrounding games is highly important to our culture - winning and losing happen not only on the sports field but in the workplace, relationships, etc and thus how to act when winning or losing is vital. Jacobmacmillan ( talk) 13:55, 17 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 are so many other forms of regulation that are way more important than this.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ice hockey and field hockey are completely different sports and the other forms of hockey are not vital. We don't need this any more than we need team sport or winter sport or racquet sports (a redirect to a list) or multi-sport event.
The following discussion is closed. 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 was no consensus to add this to the level 3 list, but I believe that it's certainly at least level 4 material. Malerisch ( talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else think economic development or development economics might be worth adding? Cobblet ( talk) 03:26, 14 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.
This was previously discussed here, but no action was taken. Elections are a fundamental part of many governments around the world. If women's suffrage is a level 3 article, election should be a level 4 article. Malerisch ( talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Other decent articles could be Voting system or possibly just voting. Carl wev 13:29, 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.
With the allergy season fast approaching, I'll write up a proposal for allergy medication. Allergies are some of the most wide-spread diseases, ranging from annoying hay fever to deadly anaphylaxis. Allergy and Asthma are, consequently, on level 3, and they explain or at least mention the role of histamines in the pathophysiology of these diseases. Our article on antihistamines is not exhaustive yet, and doesn't really give a good overview of the subject. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 10:33, 9 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.
A rather glaring omission; we don't even have the most-studied galaxy cluster or the supercluster that we are a part of.
The following discussion is closed. 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 most-studied supernova remnant, and one of the newest that can be studied in great detail.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Definitely the least-important constellation on the list right now; no need to keep it when we don't have more important constellations like Ara and Lupus.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harmonic oscillator is already listed, but it seems like some also want the more basic concept to be added as well. I also think it's worth listing since it's a topic that comes up fairly frequently in physics. Malerisch ( talk) 08:16, 12 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 field is categorized here: Mechanics > Continuum mechanics > Fluid mechanics > Fluid statics. I think this is too specific, and considering that all the subfields of optics were removed, this probably should be as well. We also already list statics separately.
As a separate question, what do people think of removing fluid dynamics? Dynamics (mechanics) is also listed. And what about electrostatics and magnetostatics? Malerisch ( talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Gotta think about this one. You could call aerodynamics a subfield of fluid dynamics: does that mean it's even less vital? I'd also question whether we really need to include dynamics and statics as subfields of mechanics – can a person really be said to study "dynamics" as an academic subject? Is there such a thing as a "dynamicist"? At least I know for a fact there are journals and academic departments devoted to rheology. Cobblet ( talk) 08:58, 12 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.
I don't think this subfield of continuum mechanics is particularly vital. Why is it more important than, say, polymer physics? Malerisch ( talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly because we list polymer but not flow? Cobblet ( talk) 01:07, 17 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.
Important topic. We do list Computer graphics though.
I think this is not the weakest, I probably would include this before any programming language, I know it's early days with VR, but it's still in use to an extent, nanotech, and AI are also far from being super advanced, where they could be in the future, but they are also significant and included too. Carl wev 12:52, 14 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.
It seems Diesel locomotive is too specific for most. Someone said Diesel engine or fuel covers this but nothing about diesel is in the list at all. But it's true I think it looks like diesel engine is wider and better to have than the locomotive, as it covers it's use in trains cars and other areas too. In the 1000 list we have Engine then 4 types Internal combustion engine, Jet engine, Steam engine and Electric motor, then when we get to the 10,000 list it is the same, there is no expansion on it at all. If those 5 articles about engines can fit in the 1000 I'm sure there's room for a few more in a list this big. It looks like the best article about diesel we could have, better than locomotive and fuel articles. Not that it matters that much but Diesel engine is a very detailed article, appears in over 50 languages and has over 100 sources in English. BTW Diesel itself is a disambiguation page if anyone was wondering. Carl wev 14:05, 4 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 realized that we don't list steam; could that be vital? Water is listed on level 2, and ice is listed on level 4. Malerisch ( talk) 20:37, 4 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.
Symmetry is a basic concept in geometry. We currently list symmetry in mathematics, which seems to cover everything but the everyday connotation of symmetry, and the general article should be more vital. Malerisch ( talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a swap would be better. I think there is a significant overlap if we have both articles. -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 16:02, 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.
Proposed above. Lewis and Clark Expedition is a journey, not a person, and so has no business in the bio section. The two leaders and their female guide/interpreter do, however. p b p 23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
While the Lewis and Clark Expedition is definitely important, I feel that it is excessive to have 4 articles on the list about it. Malerisch ( talk) 23:50, 21 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.
A case of recentism. Garrincha is generally regarded as the second-greatest Brazilian player ever, after Pelé - and a significant number of Brazilians will tell you that he was even better than Pelé. He was probably the greatest winger ever, and perhaps the greatest dribbler. He was the player of the tournament and the highest goalscorer at the 1962 FIFA World Cup, carrying a Brazilian team missing Pelé to the title. He also won the tournament in 1958. He was a huge star in Brazil, being known as the "Joy of the People", and the national stadium in Brasilia is named after him.
Ronaldo was a great player, but - as Brazilians will tell you - not up there with Garrincha. The last couple of decades are already well-represented with the likes of Zidane and Messi, the two greatest players of the period. Unlike them, Ronaldo is not vital. Neljack ( talk) 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I support the addition of Garrincha, but I have doubts about the removal of Ronaldo. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Soccer already has 17 people on the list. That is too much for any sport. Adding Garrincha without a removal will make the number of soccer players on the list be 18. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 18:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I would not deny that Ronaldo was a great player, but Zidane and Messi have higher reputations. We have to make tough choices, in my view. Neljack ( talk) 11:45, 23 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 case of recentism. A very fine and widely-admired player, but not up there with other recent players on the list such as Zidane and Messi. For example, he was never named FIFA World Footballer of the Year, while Zidane and Messi both won the award (or its successor, the FIFA Ballon d'Or) several times. Neljack ( talk) 05:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure Maldini is even the greatest Italian player, though - Giuseppe Meazza, Gianni Rivera and Franco Baresi would all have strong cases. I don't think this would be indicative of bias - leaving aside Hamm, who is hardly comparable, it simply says that Charlton has a higher reputation than Maldini, which is in my view true. It's fair to say that Italy has not produced the sort of superstars that some other nations have. Conversely, I don't think the fact we have three Argentine players on the list is evidence of pro-Argentine bias in this section, merely that Argentina have produced a lot of individual stars. It may be unfair that defenders don't get as much acclaim as more attacking players, but I don't think it is our role to rectify that. Neljack ( talk) 11:43, 23 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.
John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory is one of the most influential books in the history of economics (only The Wealth of Nations, which is already listed, comes to mind as possibly being more important). This book is the foundational work of macroeconomics. Malerisch ( talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Melody Lavender: Would you move the rest of the nonfiction works to other sections as well? -- Ypnypn ( talk) 12:59, 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.
This article is a stub, and its contents are better conveyed in human sexuality. we dont need this article on the list, and it probably should be merged, as it may only require a definition. I think there are many more human sexuality sub-articles which would be better for this list, including possibly human sexual activity Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:32, 9 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've nominated this before and I still believe it to be a major omission.
Please take a look at the actual list – it provides context for my suggestions. In this case no individual shooting disciplines are listed apart from multi-sport events that include a shooting component. Things like skeet shooting might not be vital enough on their own but shooting sports collectively should be considered vital. Cobblet ( talk) 03:19, 5 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.
Another popular recreational activity.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Sociology terminology with great pertinence to everybody's everyday life.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 19:49, 6 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.
Basic Sociology terminology with great pertinence to everybody's everyday life.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 19:49, 6 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.
Basic anatomy article that should at least be on level 4. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 06:25, 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.
The only type of emission nebula we are currently missing, and certainly one of the most important types.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Essential to our understanding of galaxies.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Too specific.
Not sure why this is too specific, especially compared to some of the proposals below. This is the reason why trojans exist and a number of notable space probes are also deployed at Lagrangian points. What other article do we have on the list that would cover this concept? It also seems to me that while our coverage of stars and galaxies is now quite strong, our coverage of planetary science is not nearly as comprehensive. Cobblet ( talk) 13:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove a subtype, add the overarching classification.
The following discussion is closed. 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're missing an important type of active galaxy.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pole star is the vital concept here, Polaris is just the most recent example of one.
The following discussion is closed. 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 expect this one to be controversial. However, we already have minor planet on the list, and nowadays the term "asteroid" simply means a minor planet in the inner solar system. I don't think such a concept is vital.
I would expect this to be looked up, and would look it up myself. I would expect a print encyclopaedia to have this in a smaller than 10,000 article limit, and before minor planet, I'm sure my encyclopaedias have it. Minor planet also includes Dwarf Planet according to the article, would we remove that too? I wouldn't think so. There are other astronomy topics covered by something else, we have several types of stars that could be covered by star. We have terrestrial planet and gas giant, that are covered by planet. If it is considered overlap, it is an acceptable overlap in my opinion. Also Asteroid is in the 1000 list too, so should be removed from there first, or swapped for minor planet there before here, even though I think I may oppose that too. We also previously had Asteroid belt in the 1000, but we removed it as we had asteroid, then we added Comet near the same time, as a semi replacement. Carl wev 19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
According to this link from wikimedia tools, [1], 38.3% of people reading the English Wikipedia are American. As such, there needs to be a significant amount of attention to removing American bias while also not going so far as to create anti-American bias. From the discussions above, it is evident that there needs to be a separate thread to discuss the ratio of American Baseball players to soccer players. Since a little over a third of the readers of the English wikipedia are Americans, how about we make the ratio of soccer players to baseball players 2 to 1. This would eliminate most of the American bias because Cricket would have enough players on the list along with non-American hockey players and field hockey players to counteract the number of basketball players and American Football players. If need be, we could remove a couple of basketball players from the list.
In conclusion, here is my proposal: keep a ratio of Non-American athletes to American athletes at 2:1 to represent the readership in the English Wikipedia. This ratio would be a fixed rule that would stay in place if we lower the number of sports figures in total on the list. This seems like a fair compromise so that American bias elimination does not turn into Anti-American bias creation.
You seem to be proposing two different things – I can't tell whether you're talking about just football vs. baseball or all the athletes in general. Americans currently comprise 44/117 or 38% of the athletes, definitely a better ratio than when we started trimming the list. But trying to justify a ratio of nationalities based on viewership alone makes no sense – first, one can apply this type of argument to every section of the list of people; second, if we can apply it for Americans we can apply it for every other nationality. By the same logic you're using, for every Chinese person on the list we should have one New Zealander, because both countries contribute 0.7% of Wikipedia's viewership. Oh, and we should have 27 times as many Americans as Chinese and New Zealanders combined. Cobblet ( talk) 02:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
As a separate, unrelated question that I want to ask before I make a formal proposal, I would like to ask this: Should we focus less on nominating the articles on the list and more on improving them? This would mean that we as a project would focus on specific articles that need attention that are on our list. I feel like we aren't helping wikipedia as a whole if we aren't improving articles ourselves. Instead, I feel like we are simply having geopolitical arguments about which culture is important such as the argument above. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been wanting to know the answer to this question for a while, even though it undermines my own argument: what is the point of the meta list? One of the sentences at Wikipedia:Vital articles states that "This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia. There is also a list of one thousand articles considered vital to Wikipedias of all languages." If the English Wikipedia VA list doesn't include any English-speaking bias, why does the meta list exist at all? Otherwise, we have two separate lists in English that serve the same purpose. There was some discussion here on that sentence, but no action was taken. Malerisch ( talk) 23:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a link to the 100 most popular articles of 2013. Should we replace the Level 1 and 2 lists with this list? Don't think so.
Notwithstanding the time bias and geographic bias in pageviews, there is a huge shaky assumption made in the view that high pageviews mean vitality. You are assuming that people click on the Wikipedia articles that they want to click on and read. That's probably the case with pop culture phenomena like Breaking Bad and perenially popular articles like human penis size but it's not the case with many of the articles. Do people actually want to read about Facebook, Yahoo!, Google and YouTube or do they type the name of these websites in the search box and accidentally click on the Wikipedia link? We don't have proof and we don't know for how long people view these articles, which is just as important in understanding how readers behave online. Having said that, the accident theory is widely supported (see this Signpost article).
Another assumption is that all of the pageviews come from humans which again is known to not be the case. Wikipedian articles are frequently subject to Denial-of-service attacks by online hackers. Bots can artificially inflate the pageviews of an article by up to a factor of million. Bot views don't make an article vital and even though sometimes it is clear which articles are being attacked, a moderate increase in views can also be the result of bots and we have no way of finding out.
There is also the Google Doodle and Slashdot effect. An article that normally gets 50 views a day can get 200,000 due to being linked via a Google Doodle, Slashdot, Reddit or some other website that overloads the article. Similarly, celebrities do not become more vital when they die at a young age (if anything, it means they will be in less movies, release less songs, etc. and therefore less vital) but an unexpected death is the best way to get a big boost in article pageviews. Again the Signpost article referred to above discusses all of these issues. Gizza ( t)( c) 04:59, 18 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.
I have no idea why she's listed. She's mostly notable for her role in A Passage to India, but a single appearance in a film does not make you vital. Malerisch ( talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, I'd say she's most notable for her stage roles. I'm finding the stage actors more difficult to evaluate. Neljack ( talk) 10:43, 20 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.
Most famous for All Quiet on the Western Front, but he had other bestsellers as well.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Notable for his criticism, his dictionary, his literary efforts, and being an all-round clever chap. One example of his lasting importance is that the UK's top non-fiction prize is named the Samuel Johnson Prize.
There is so much more to Samuel Johnson than his dictionary. His Shakespeare criticism was highly influential and he made significant contributions as an essayist. His non-fiction is probably what he's most remembered for, but Rasselas is an important piece of 18th century fiction and The Vanity of Human Wishes an important poem. Having said all that, on the question of an author primarily known for one work (unlike Johnson IMO), I think there's no hard and fast answer. If they're significant enough we can have both author and work(s) like with Homer and the Iliad/Odyssey. If a little less so, maybe not, which is why I think it's reasonable to have Wuthering Heights but not Emily Brontë. If Gargantua and Pantagruel refers to all five books, I don't know what else Rabelais wrote, so better to go with the work I would imagine (if just going for one of the two, which is probably appropriate in this case).-- Rsm77 ( talk) 05:43, 16 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.
While I was a great fan of Blyton's books as a child, I don't think she can be regarded as vital. She was very popular and prolific, but her literary influence and critical reputation were limited at best. Emily Brontë not only wrote what is widely regarded as one of the greatest, most original and most influential English novels, but was also an important poet - she has been described as "one of the great English lyric poets" [1] and as the greatest female English poet. Brontë seems to me to be clearly more vital that Blyton. Neljack ( talk) 01:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
We could drop Charlotte and instead add Brontë family since must academic studies regard them collectively. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:49, 17 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.
In the grand scheme of American historiography, there are two names that stand out: Frederick Jackson Turner (who's been on the list for years) and Beard. McCullough is a popular historian, but doesn't add much in the way of historiography. p b p 20:08, 25 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 Decebalus and do not need a second Dacian king.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Henry the Fowler's role in the history of Germany is comparable to Hugh Capet's in France. They may have founded the dynasty that marks the birth of each nation, but they are less vital than their successors who expanded and consolidated the power of that initially weak ruling house – Otto I in the case of the Holy Roman Empire and Philip II in the case of France. If Hugh Capet or Henry VII of England isn't on the list I don't see why Henry the Fowler should be.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Usually I imagine people are more interested in articles on specific figures than on ruling houses. In this case though, House of Medici receives over three times as many page views as the articles on the two Medicis combined. It also seems undue to list two Florentine leaders when we don't list any other leaders of Italian city-states ( Enrico Dandolo? Ugolino della Gherardesca?). FWIW, Catherine de' Medici is also on the list.
The significance for economic history (banking dynasty) and for art history is incomparable. And I think you're playing down their role as political leaders. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 13:10, 12 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.
Reclusive fashion executive vs. national hero.
Being the third richest person in the world and having a net worth of USD $64 billion doesn't make you automatically vital. However, people who have accumulated such high amounts of wealth especially when they didn't inherit any of it themselves often have made a lasting impact on society. I will need to research Ortega in more detail to see if this is the case. Gizza ( t)( c) 02:06, 19 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.
In view of comments made above, I'll open this proposal.
Britannica concurs, saying: "He is considered by many to have been the best all-around player in the history of baseball." [2] The rankings I've mentioned before bear this out: he is ranked the second-greatest player of all time by the Sporting News [3], ESPN [4] and the AP [5], and third by the leading sabermetrician Bill James [6]. He also has wider importance as one of the first black players to become a top star - he has been called "baseball's first African-American superstar", [7] though Britannica suggests that because of racism "he probably never received the respect due him based upon his skills". But his status is such that, as NPR notes: "In the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama emphasized his biracial appeal by pairing John F. Kennedy with Martin Luther King, Jr.; Abraham Lincoln with Willie Mays." [8] If we're looking for someone to remove (leaving aside the ones I've already proposed), I suggest we'd be better to look at Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb or Lou Gehrig. Neljack ( talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Willie Mays' career statistics and longevity in the pre-PED era, the more recent acknowledgement of Mays as perhaps the finest five-tool player ever, and the overwhelming consensus of many surveys and other expert analyses carefully examining Mays' relative performance have led to a growing opinion that Mays was possibly the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time.
Player | AP | Bill James | ESPN | SABR | Sporting News | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hank Aaron | 3 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5.8 |
Roberto Clemente | ? | 74 | 34 | 20 | 20 | 37 |
Ty Cobb | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 5.2 |
Lou Gehrig | 8 | 14 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 8.2 |
Willie Mays | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 3.4 |
Sadaharu Oh | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Jackie Robinson | 9 | 32 | 54 | 36 | 44 | 35 |
Babe Ruth | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Cy Young | ? | 23 | 18 | 18 | 14 | 18.25 |
I agree with Neljack's analysis and have switched to oppose: Willie Mays isn't the right baseball player to remove. I've compiled the rankings from Neljack's sources into a table (see above) and averaged the rankings, which shows that Willie Mays could be considered the 2nd-best player of all-time, behind Babe Ruth. I don't think anyone's considering removing Jackie Robinson because of his historic importance, so Roberto Clemente and Cy Young are indeed the best candidates to remove. Sadaharu Oh doesn't appear on any rankings at all though, so it's hard for me to judge his importance. Malerisch ( talk) 15:01, 14 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.
Very important city in the Near/Middle East in the first centuries BCE and AD. Should either be here or in Geography. p b p 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This should go under History: the modern city is Antakya. Cobblet ( talk) 09:59, 14 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 seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What about the 6 car manufacturers in the Technology section? I think most of those should be removed before these companies. Malerisch ( talk) 16:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DaGizza, unless I'm mistaken, didn't Ypnypn vote twice? Malerisch ( talk) 23:27, 8 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.
We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
But one could say that the significance of Microsoft is subsumed by the significance of Bill Gates: his page got more views last month than Microsoft and Microsoft Windows combined. Another viewpoint is that we can list the inventor and his invention without listing the company he built around it (Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone, but not Bell Telephone Company or AT&T). In the end it still comes down to how important you really think Microsoft is though, and I'm no economic historian myself. Cobblet ( talk) 22:42, 11 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 seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
We have smaller articles like amazon mentioned above. I don't seem to hate companies as much as everyone else. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer over 10,000 stores, nearly half a trillion dollar turn over and employs over 2 million people. I know it's fairly recent but I still think it's quite significant, lots of biographies are more recent. I mean we're still talking about sports, we have the worlds top 25 footballers, and top 14 tennis players, many of them more recent, but the worlds biggest retailer is not allowed? Like we have 150+ people important to film but don't have one company no disney, fox, viacom/paramount etc, I did media not acting but those came up when i studied cinema. Carl wev 12:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
To give insight in the current vital articles, here are some museums from the List of most visited art museums in the world. Of course, this offers only a quantitative indication of only art museums. Hopefully this will help making new additions and removals in order to improve the vital museum articles. – Editør ( talk) 12:28, 15 July 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.
One of the most widely prescribed drugs to reduce blood pressure. It has several other uses in cardiac diseases, has and anxiolytic effect and is also given to prevent migranes. It's also considered a doping drug. The most ancient substance in this group, Propanolol, dates back to the 1960ies. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a better idea than adding antipsychotics. The reason I don't suggest adding Antihypertensive drug here is that beta blockers are much more notable than the other antihypertensives, none of which merit significant coverage on our list. Antipsychotics don't stand out from the other psychiatric medications in the same way. Cobblet ( talk) 21:55, 14 July 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.
On the market since 1973, L Dopa is another substance that was on the World Health Organization's list of essential medications right from the beginning. It's a substance that is normally produced by the human body; a lack of it manifests in Parkinson's disease, one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 15:35, 26 July 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.
Planck units are one system of units based on fundamental physical quantities, but hardly the only ones. They're all useful in specific contexts and I think a discussion of the concept as a whole is more vital.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Odometers have a long and rich history compared to most other measuring instruments; their significance far outweighs any single flight instrument.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove the best-known example of a long period variable for the topic itself, which we currently lack.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many people are concerned that computing may be overrepresented, and the operating systems category seems like a good place to rectify that. BSD ought to be covered to some extent in Unix, and MS-DOS is the less vital out of the two Microsoft operating systems. Multics was an influential early operating system, but we don't list things like difference engine and IBM Personal Computer, which were just as influential to the hardware side of computers. And OpenVMS just isn't on the same level as Linux, Unix, Mac OS, or Microsoft Windows. If we're removing Apple Inc. and Microsoft, I don't see how these operating systems are any more vital. Malerisch ( talk) 16:42, 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.
Covered by Optical disc. We don't list DVD or Blu-ray.
The following discussion is closed. 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 important computer science topic. It discusses how exactly data is stored on a disk.
The following discussion is closed. 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 don't have any functional languages. This the most vital of that paradigm.
A long time ago all programming languages were removed because it was thought programming languages article itself was enough and covered the topic, now we have 4 of them added back, and might soon have a total of 6 programming languages. How many do we want in the end? I would probably disagree removing CD as we have optical disc, over 200 billion CDs have been made, and they're still going. One could say CD is covered by optical disc so we don't need it, but what is the reply to we have programming language, so we don't need 6 examples of programming languages? I admit programming isn't my thing but I am a little confused say water wheel in use for over 2000 years may not get in because we have water mill but 6 programming languages is acceptable. I still appreciate all the hard work and different views, I think it makes the list better in the end, this is only my view. Carl wev 12:39, 14 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 recently added Archimedes' screw, Water wheel seems slightly more important. If we can have Solar power and solar energy and solar cell, as well as windmill, wind power, wind turbine, I believe we should have water wheel. They were in use from ancient Roman and Greec world in the 3rd century BC to the 20th century. Carl wev 17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
We list watermill though, which covers similar ground – you might as well propose water turbine too even though we have turbine (watermills use one or the other). I'm not sure we need this much overlap on this subject. Incidentally, I've never really liked the overlap between hydropower and hydroelectricity and now we've also got solar power and solar energy. Cobblet ( talk) 02:54, 14 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.
There are only eight medical technology articles on the list, but a stunning 68 military technology articles. That is totally out of balance, even if we consider that much of the revolution in the medical technology sector has taken place in the course of the last century. We do have rifle on the list (not that I think it's necessary) but it should cover assault rifle. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
AK-47 and M16 rifle were Wikiproject Firearms's first and fourth most frequently viewed articles last month. Just sayin'. (Assault rifle itself was 87th.) Cobblet ( talk) 22:40, 7 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.
Lace is one of the oldest forms of decoration and is one of the fundamental types of fabric. -- Ca2james ( talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No disrespect to wikipedians (we all have limited knowledge), just a constatation of the fact that the decision was made by people who have absolutely no knownledge of Russian culture, not to say literature. To call "obscure" two cult Russian writers demonstrates this. I strongly suggest in such cases to draw attention of the corresponding national wikiprojects. -No.Altenmann >t 02:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the definition of obscure from Merriam Webster:
1 a : dark, dim
2 not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious
3 relatively unknown: as
4 constituting the unstressed vowel \ə\ or having unstressed \ə\ as its value -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Guys, there are 17 soccer players on this list. That may well be what gives some people (including me) the impression that we might be cutting too many Americans. Do we seriously need so many soccer players? None of them is American, by the way. How about replacing some of them with their teams? -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 18:10, 24 July 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.
McKellen's only as famous as he is for playing Gandalf, but that does not make him vital. He never won an Oscar. Malerisch ( talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Since McKellan is probably most notable as a stage actor, the fact that he hasn't won an Oscar is not that significant. He has won six Olivier Awards and a Tony Award. Still thinking about this. Neljack ( talk) 10:30, 20 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.
Day doesn't make the AFI list, and she's only been nominated for one Oscar. I don't see why she's vital. Malerisch ( talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly the combination of her acting and singing careers is what has got her on the list. She certainly had quite a significant cultural impact, all in all. I'm not sure she's out of place on the list, thought I'm still considering. Neljack ( talk) 10:55, 20 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.
I think we could lose a football player and while undoubtedly very talented, Best was only at the top of the game for a relatively short period. He was Manchester United's top scorer for six seasons before entering a decline he never came back from.-- Rsm77 ( talk) 23:19, 20 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.
I think the general idea of etiquette is more vital than its specific application to sports. Not sure where it's best placed though.
Sportsmanship, while a subset of etiquette, deserves its own place as the etiquette surrounding games is highly important to our culture - winning and losing happen not only on the sports field but in the workplace, relationships, etc and thus how to act when winning or losing is vital. Jacobmacmillan ( talk) 13:55, 17 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 are so many other forms of regulation that are way more important than this.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ice hockey and field hockey are completely different sports and the other forms of hockey are not vital. We don't need this any more than we need team sport or winter sport or racquet sports (a redirect to a list) or multi-sport event.
The following discussion is closed. 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 was no consensus to add this to the level 3 list, but I believe that it's certainly at least level 4 material. Malerisch ( talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone else think economic development or development economics might be worth adding? Cobblet ( talk) 03:26, 14 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.
This was previously discussed here, but no action was taken. Elections are a fundamental part of many governments around the world. If women's suffrage is a level 3 article, election should be a level 4 article. Malerisch ( talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Other decent articles could be Voting system or possibly just voting. Carl wev 13:29, 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.
With the allergy season fast approaching, I'll write up a proposal for allergy medication. Allergies are some of the most wide-spread diseases, ranging from annoying hay fever to deadly anaphylaxis. Allergy and Asthma are, consequently, on level 3, and they explain or at least mention the role of histamines in the pathophysiology of these diseases. Our article on antihistamines is not exhaustive yet, and doesn't really give a good overview of the subject. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 10:33, 9 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.
A rather glaring omission; we don't even have the most-studied galaxy cluster or the supercluster that we are a part of.
The following discussion is closed. 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 most-studied supernova remnant, and one of the newest that can be studied in great detail.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Definitely the least-important constellation on the list right now; no need to keep it when we don't have more important constellations like Ara and Lupus.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Harmonic oscillator is already listed, but it seems like some also want the more basic concept to be added as well. I also think it's worth listing since it's a topic that comes up fairly frequently in physics. Malerisch ( talk) 08:16, 12 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 field is categorized here: Mechanics > Continuum mechanics > Fluid mechanics > Fluid statics. I think this is too specific, and considering that all the subfields of optics were removed, this probably should be as well. We also already list statics separately.
As a separate question, what do people think of removing fluid dynamics? Dynamics (mechanics) is also listed. And what about electrostatics and magnetostatics? Malerisch ( talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Gotta think about this one. You could call aerodynamics a subfield of fluid dynamics: does that mean it's even less vital? I'd also question whether we really need to include dynamics and statics as subfields of mechanics – can a person really be said to study "dynamics" as an academic subject? Is there such a thing as a "dynamicist"? At least I know for a fact there are journals and academic departments devoted to rheology. Cobblet ( talk) 08:58, 12 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.
I don't think this subfield of continuum mechanics is particularly vital. Why is it more important than, say, polymer physics? Malerisch ( talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly because we list polymer but not flow? Cobblet ( talk) 01:07, 17 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.
Important topic. We do list Computer graphics though.
I think this is not the weakest, I probably would include this before any programming language, I know it's early days with VR, but it's still in use to an extent, nanotech, and AI are also far from being super advanced, where they could be in the future, but they are also significant and included too. Carl wev 12:52, 14 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.
It seems Diesel locomotive is too specific for most. Someone said Diesel engine or fuel covers this but nothing about diesel is in the list at all. But it's true I think it looks like diesel engine is wider and better to have than the locomotive, as it covers it's use in trains cars and other areas too. In the 1000 list we have Engine then 4 types Internal combustion engine, Jet engine, Steam engine and Electric motor, then when we get to the 10,000 list it is the same, there is no expansion on it at all. If those 5 articles about engines can fit in the 1000 I'm sure there's room for a few more in a list this big. It looks like the best article about diesel we could have, better than locomotive and fuel articles. Not that it matters that much but Diesel engine is a very detailed article, appears in over 50 languages and has over 100 sources in English. BTW Diesel itself is a disambiguation page if anyone was wondering. Carl wev 14:05, 4 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 realized that we don't list steam; could that be vital? Water is listed on level 2, and ice is listed on level 4. Malerisch ( talk) 20:37, 4 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.
Symmetry is a basic concept in geometry. We currently list symmetry in mathematics, which seems to cover everything but the everyday connotation of symmetry, and the general article should be more vital. Malerisch ( talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a swap would be better. I think there is a significant overlap if we have both articles. -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 16:02, 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.
Proposed above. Lewis and Clark Expedition is a journey, not a person, and so has no business in the bio section. The two leaders and their female guide/interpreter do, however. p b p 23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
While the Lewis and Clark Expedition is definitely important, I feel that it is excessive to have 4 articles on the list about it. Malerisch ( talk) 23:50, 21 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.
A case of recentism. Garrincha is generally regarded as the second-greatest Brazilian player ever, after Pelé - and a significant number of Brazilians will tell you that he was even better than Pelé. He was probably the greatest winger ever, and perhaps the greatest dribbler. He was the player of the tournament and the highest goalscorer at the 1962 FIFA World Cup, carrying a Brazilian team missing Pelé to the title. He also won the tournament in 1958. He was a huge star in Brazil, being known as the "Joy of the People", and the national stadium in Brasilia is named after him.
Ronaldo was a great player, but - as Brazilians will tell you - not up there with Garrincha. The last couple of decades are already well-represented with the likes of Zidane and Messi, the two greatest players of the period. Unlike them, Ronaldo is not vital. Neljack ( talk) 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I support the addition of Garrincha, but I have doubts about the removal of Ronaldo. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Soccer already has 17 people on the list. That is too much for any sport. Adding Garrincha without a removal will make the number of soccer players on the list be 18. PointsofNoReturn ( talk) 18:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I would not deny that Ronaldo was a great player, but Zidane and Messi have higher reputations. We have to make tough choices, in my view. Neljack ( talk) 11:45, 23 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 case of recentism. A very fine and widely-admired player, but not up there with other recent players on the list such as Zidane and Messi. For example, he was never named FIFA World Footballer of the Year, while Zidane and Messi both won the award (or its successor, the FIFA Ballon d'Or) several times. Neljack ( talk) 05:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure Maldini is even the greatest Italian player, though - Giuseppe Meazza, Gianni Rivera and Franco Baresi would all have strong cases. I don't think this would be indicative of bias - leaving aside Hamm, who is hardly comparable, it simply says that Charlton has a higher reputation than Maldini, which is in my view true. It's fair to say that Italy has not produced the sort of superstars that some other nations have. Conversely, I don't think the fact we have three Argentine players on the list is evidence of pro-Argentine bias in this section, merely that Argentina have produced a lot of individual stars. It may be unfair that defenders don't get as much acclaim as more attacking players, but I don't think it is our role to rectify that. Neljack ( talk) 11:43, 23 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.
John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory is one of the most influential books in the history of economics (only The Wealth of Nations, which is already listed, comes to mind as possibly being more important). This book is the foundational work of macroeconomics. Malerisch ( talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Melody Lavender: Would you move the rest of the nonfiction works to other sections as well? -- Ypnypn ( talk) 12:59, 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.
This article is a stub, and its contents are better conveyed in human sexuality. we dont need this article on the list, and it probably should be merged, as it may only require a definition. I think there are many more human sexuality sub-articles which would be better for this list, including possibly human sexual activity Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:32, 9 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've nominated this before and I still believe it to be a major omission.
Please take a look at the actual list – it provides context for my suggestions. In this case no individual shooting disciplines are listed apart from multi-sport events that include a shooting component. Things like skeet shooting might not be vital enough on their own but shooting sports collectively should be considered vital. Cobblet ( talk) 03:19, 5 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.
Another popular recreational activity.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Sociology terminology with great pertinence to everybody's everyday life.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 19:49, 6 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.
Basic Sociology terminology with great pertinence to everybody's everyday life.-- Melody Lavender ( talk) 19:49, 6 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.
Basic anatomy article that should at least be on level 4. -- Melody Lavender ( talk) 06:25, 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.
The only type of emission nebula we are currently missing, and certainly one of the most important types.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Essential to our understanding of galaxies.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Too specific.
Not sure why this is too specific, especially compared to some of the proposals below. This is the reason why trojans exist and a number of notable space probes are also deployed at Lagrangian points. What other article do we have on the list that would cover this concept? It also seems to me that while our coverage of stars and galaxies is now quite strong, our coverage of planetary science is not nearly as comprehensive. Cobblet ( talk) 13:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove a subtype, add the overarching classification.
The following discussion is closed. 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're missing an important type of active galaxy.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pole star is the vital concept here, Polaris is just the most recent example of one.
The following discussion is closed. 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 expect this one to be controversial. However, we already have minor planet on the list, and nowadays the term "asteroid" simply means a minor planet in the inner solar system. I don't think such a concept is vital.
I would expect this to be looked up, and would look it up myself. I would expect a print encyclopaedia to have this in a smaller than 10,000 article limit, and before minor planet, I'm sure my encyclopaedias have it. Minor planet also includes Dwarf Planet according to the article, would we remove that too? I wouldn't think so. There are other astronomy topics covered by something else, we have several types of stars that could be covered by star. We have terrestrial planet and gas giant, that are covered by planet. If it is considered overlap, it is an acceptable overlap in my opinion. Also Asteroid is in the 1000 list too, so should be removed from there first, or swapped for minor planet there before here, even though I think I may oppose that too. We also previously had Asteroid belt in the 1000, but we removed it as we had asteroid, then we added Comet near the same time, as a semi replacement. Carl wev 19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)