![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Ada made the first computer program. I thinks that's more vital than Georg Bednorz's invetions. -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Would prefer adding four-stroke engine instead, since this appears to be the only reason why he's notable. Cobblet ( talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Support !votes:
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let's try this again, this time as just a straight add. Again, it seems to me that Lewis is a serious omission from the list of chemists we have. He discovered the covalent bond and was the first person to isolate heavy water. Anyone who took chemistry in high school will remember drawing Lewis structures; any chemist will be familiar with Lewis acids and bases.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leonid Kuchma is largely unknown outside of Ukraine. Pavelić is vital from a historical point of view.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
I think you should reword this so it's clearer who is largely unknown outside of Ukraine. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yeah, Patton's a Californian like me. There are three other American WWII generals on this list: Ike, Marshall, and MacArthur. All held more significant commands than Patton. There are no Brits. I propose adding Marshal Montgomery, the Allied Commander at Dunkirk and D-Day to remedy 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.
Leader of the White movement in the Russian Civil War.
Support !votes:
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amidst a fairly substantial number of obscure writers who probably don't belong, I can't believe that Eliot isn't already on here. She's probably more vital than half the writers on here.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mani founded a fairly big religion religion, Manichaeism, (although it's now extinct) he would seem to me more notable than quite a few religious figures we have. I'm not too familiar just using my judgment to pick on someone who appears not exceptionally vital from religious figures. Reading Bhaṭṭa's article he doesn't seem to be that vital. I was also contemplating swapping out Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj or Al-Nawawi if anyone thinks they are better? I may suggest those two for removal also? Carlwev ( talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Chemists seem a little under-represented relative to other scientists. Lewis discovered the covalent bond, the type of chemical bonding found in any substance that isn't a metal, a binary ionic compound or a noble gas. He was the first person to isolate heavy water and should've won a share of the 1934 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it. Anyone who took chemistry in high school will remember drawing Lewis structures; any chemist will be familiar with Lewis acids and bases.
Secretariat was a horse. What's it doing on a list of people?
When it comes to famous animals I think of Seabiscuit and Balto first. And is Secretariat really a better choice than Man o' War? Are all of these vital? Are any of them? Cobblet ( talk) 04:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 "Anthropology, psychology and everyday life" page. That way we don't have to debate the significance of a horse vs. a human.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At present, the founder of microbiology is on the 1,000 list, but not on the 10,000. Generally, I at least believe 1000 articles should be on the 10,000 automatically. So what do we do?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Much as I admire VA, he's simply not in the same league as the other pianists presently on list; besides, MR is a far greater and historically more important musician. Alfietucker ( talk) 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
A musician who was acclaimed in his lifetime as one of the greatest in the world, inspired several major works from leading composers of the 20th century, including Sergei Prokofiev, Dmitri Shostakovich and Benjamin Britten, taught several great cellists including Jacqueline du Pré, Natalia Gutman and Mischa Maisky, and stuck his neck out for not only Prokofiev but also for Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - the latter action ultimately leading to the cellist's enforced exile from his homeland - is scarcely one of "small notability". Alfietucker ( talk) 17:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we're talking cellists, Pablo Casals definitely ought to be on the list before her; if we're talking female instrumentalists (ignoring the many female singers we have on the list, and many more we could add), Martha Argerich, Nadia Boulanger, Wanda Landowska or Clara Schumann easily trump her credentials. Cobblet ( talk) 09:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well this is an obvious omission. The most influential music pedagogue in the 20th century, she taught composers such as Copland, Glass and Piazzolla. She was also one of the first female conductors.
The following discussion is closed. 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 opera is vital; its composer, not so much, especially when we have 23 other composers in the Romantic period.
We could maybe replace Rimsky-Korsakov and Mussorgsky with The Five (composers). Cobblet ( talk) 07:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 librettists are 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.
There are other singers of comparable stature as Te Kanawa that we don't include, e.g. Kathleen Battle. Mahalia Jackson seems more significant.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Would prefer a swap here—composers of classical music are rather generously represented already. I could get behind a swap of Satie for Britten; another prominent omission is Richard Strauss—maybe swap him in for Alexander Scriabin. Cobblet ( talk) 02:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not vital when we don't have people like Celine Dion or Whitney Houston.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 this improves the list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 rather crowded Romantic period I think Borodin is the weakest link, especially considering we already have two of the Russian Five in Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. Meanwhile we have no composers from the Medieval period; Machaut seems like the most appropriate representative.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
British anti-slavery advocate
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 no Ancient Era explorers. I looked through Category:Ancient explorers and this seems like a pretty strong candidate for inclusion. His discoveries led to the establishment of the Silk Road.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The greatest surveyor of all time? He singlehandedly mapped 20% of North America.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scytians covers the subject better.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seljuq dynasty is mainly a list of kings.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
I'm going to start opposing proposals made with no justification. A cursory read of Sahelian kingdoms suggests that we've included all the other notable historical empires of West Africa on the list; it would be nice if someone could explain why this particular one isn't noteworthy enough to include. Cobblet ( talk) 09:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 dynasty article is mostly a list of kings.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
We have the Arab Spring. The Syrian civil war may turn out to be more noteworthy; too soon to tell. Cobblet ( talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 overall war is more important than a single part of it.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Could the objectors explain why Wounded Knee deserves mention over Battle of the Little Bighorn, the Nez Perce War, the Apache Wars, Tecumseh's War and the Second Seminole War, to name five other prominent US–native American conflicts? Cobblet ( talk) 18:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that we've added elevation, this can go. Cobblet ( talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would suggest replacing with administrative division but that article's mostly a list. Cobblet ( talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Maybe we should move it under politics, since it's more of a political term than geographical. -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 09:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is about vital articles; while there is not a single article on the list that is not very important, I question in a list with a finite number of articles, that gnomonic projection is a vital article at the 10,000 human items level. Without Mercator projections, the Age of Exploration would have been a fail, so it cannot be removed, particularly for a Anglo-centric encyclopedia. However, the article on map projections in general should be edited to reflect the variable importance of different large categories of projections, and gnomonic projection can await the 100,000 vital articles list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
User:Cobblet, Andean states was removed via a different proposal. I've left this one in case is gathers enough support to add Canbera. -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 08:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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 can't believe people think this isn't vital—this sea dominates Russia's Pacific coastline and is one of the largest seas on the list. See File:Oceans and seas boundaries map-en.svg. Cobblet ( talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If this is removed I'll immediately nominate a swap of this for some other hydrology article—this really should stay on the list, IMO. While I think the Geography quota should probably be 1250 rather than 1300, we've got less than 1220 articles in this section now. Cobblet ( talk) 07:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is obviously distinct from the East China Sea. Again, see File:Oceans and seas boundaries map-en.svg, which is drawn according to the IHO definitions. Removing this because we have the East China Sea is like removing Gulf of Aden (and even Red Sea) because we have Arabian Sea. Unlike the East China Sea, it was only submerged after the last Ice Age and remains an unusually large area of shallow water. To quote the WWF, "the Yellow Sea is one of the world's largest areas of continental shelf covered in shallow water, providing for rich fishing grounds and an important site for migratory birds." Cobblet ( talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If there was one strait in the world worth including this would be this one, I think. A quarter of the world's traded goods and a quarter of the world's oil goes through this strait. Hong Kong and Singapore wouldn't exist without it. Cobblet ( talk) 09:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the demand for reduced Western bias elsewhere on this list, it's strange to see so many people oppose the addition of articles not only of interest to the world in general, but vitally so to developing countries. Cobblet ( talk) 06:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Gulf of Aden gets 507 000 hits on Google Books, compared to 122 000 for Bab-el-Mandeb. Cobblet ( talk) 09:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The former is subsumed by the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. And the latter's probably better known anyway.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What's the logic behind this removal? I know almost nothing about the Adirondacks except that they expose billion+-year-old Grenville Orogeny rocks; and, this, might be vital. I need more information about the reason for removal. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Technical umbrella term that the article mentions may not be precisely defined; we already have its largest component, the Rocky Mountains.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's a stub.
Specifically Mongolian Plateau, Central Siberian Plateau, Sayan Mountains, Verkhoyansk Range, Sikhote-Alin. We do have the Altai Mountains.
Namely Alborz, Pontic Mountains, Taurus Mountains. The largest mountain range in Iran and Iraq, the Zagros Mountains, is already on the list. So is the Iranian Plateau.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Purplebackpack89, Mt. Whitney definitely doesn't merit inclusion; even if you ignore the 18 taller mountains in the Alaska/Yukon area there are also four taller mountains in Mexico, including the third highest peak in North America, Pico de Orizaba. And I don't think even Mount Logan should deserve consideration when there are many taller mountains not on the list (e.g. Kanchenjunga, third tallest in the world, and dozens of 6000 m peaks in the Andes) and other parts of the globe that aren't represented, e.g. Mont Blanc for the European Union. Granted, Pinatubo might not have been the absolute best replacement; if this proposal passes I'll consider nominating Mount Tambora to replace it. Cobblet ( talk) 23:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
I have to say, to not have this on the list is a bit like having North Island but not South Island. Or Wallachia and Moldavia but not Transylvania. And Philippines is part of the English-speaking world—on the English Wikipedia, its geography shouldn't be underrepresented relative to other nations. Cobblet ( talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 looks like we're going to keep Alaska. I'd like to know why need this as well. p b p 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
New England is part of the Northeast. Since we already have the West, Midwest, and South, the only region not included now is the Middle Atlantic. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 neither Chagos archipelago, nor British Indian Ocean Territory, nor Diego Garcia. This is the second largest protected area in the world and the largest protected marine area. The notability of the topic is obvious to me, even if the other Wikipedias haven't gotten around to writing about it yet. Cobblet ( talk) 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Suggest replacing this with Banff National Park. Cobblet ( talk) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 parks to be removed would be Aïr Mountains, Selous Game Reserve, Salonga National Park, Banc d'Arguin National Park. Africa would still be represented by Tassili n'Ajjer, Serengeti National Park, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and maybe Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. Meanwhile the additions are respectively the second and third oldest national parks in the world, and the latter is also one of the world's most-visited parks. Plus neither Australia nor Canada are currently represented (Wood Buffalo is up for deletion.) Cobblet ( talk) 02:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 several suggestions for this section, particularly the "Fiction of the Modern Era" subsection. Firstly, A Tale of Two Cities seems like an odd Dickens choice to me. If we're going to include just one Dickens novel, I think it should clearly be Great Expectations, which has similar popularity and is much more highly regarded critically. Second, And Then There Were None should be gone. Christie herself probably should be on the list in the people section, but no individual work by her is significant enough to be on here. Other questionable entries are Ficciones (Borges deserves to be on, but an article on a collection of short stories that all have their own articles seems inessential), Darkness at Noon, and The Crucible. I'd suggest that Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Middlemarch, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre are all more worthy than any of these (perhaps The Portrait of a Lady and Vanity Fair, too), and really more worthy than several other works that are included (I'm not ready to say that On the Road and The War of the Worlds don't belong on the list, but I think they clearly belong less than the works I'm suggesting). I realize that skews the list more towards the 19th century, but I think there's generally much more agreement about the "canonical" novels of the 19th century than those of the 20th. Also, in terms of organization, wouldn't it make sense to separate plays from works of narrative fiction? john k ( talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other modern short story collections worth including? Cobblet ( talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I had a few other ideas for non-fiction, including Wealth of Nations, The Interpretation of Dreams, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and possibly Leviathan. Be interested to hear what others think about these ideas. For me, something like The Art of Computer Programming looks a little weak in comparison. (Oh, and note the Communist Manifesto is on the list in the politics section. - edit, actually in the law section) -- Rsm77 ( talk) 03:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I moved it into Literature. Cobblet ( talk) 18:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Holden Caulfield is another fictional character that should probably replaced with another literature article, since we have Catcher in the Rye. Cobblet ( talk) 08:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Prefer just the add here. Cobblet ( talk) 03:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Specifically under Mass media (which we should maybe rename Media). They're not really literature per se and the Literature section is crowded enough as it is. I'd like to be able to add things like almanac, citation and diary, for example.
I even considered moving out works like Encyclopædia Britannica and A Dictionary of the English Language, but it's probably easier to find them if we keep them together with the rest of the non-fiction. Then again, political treatises are placed somewhere else too, if I'm not mistaken. Let me know what you guys think. Cobblet ( talk) 02:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Specifically under mythology, since there's already obvious overlap with that section ( Jinn, Pegasus.) Only exception I can see is Superhero, which should go into Fictional characters. This would make the Literature section more comparable with the other arts sections; right now if you look at the article count literature seems overrepresented but that isn't actually the case.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Why are people opposing this? It's not even obvious that Années de pèlerinage is Liszt's most significant work, despite the unsourced statement in the lead of that article—a case could be made for the Piano Sonata or his symphonic poems. Cobblet ( talk) 08:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would rather remove bass guitar instead. Cobblet ( talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 swap of Bach works. The latter is more vital, particularly when we also have The Well-Tempered Clavier to represent his keyboard works. I'll also note that with the removal of Mozart's Requiem, Western church music is currently unrepresented.
Maunus, your vote implies that you think the Mass in B minor is less important than Peter and the Wolf. Care to explain? Cobblet ( talk) 15:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Suggest we remove one or two of mandolin, lyre or lute instead. Cobblet ( talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Prokofiev's ballet is probably best known for the tune in Montagues and Capulets; that isn't enough to make it vital when we already have The Nutcracker and Swan Lake. (Prokofiev's also represented by Peter and the Wolf.) Though we have Der Ring des Nibelungen, Wagner is surely important enough to be represented by two works (Bach has four; Beethoven three.) And Tristan und Isolde was probably the single most influential work of Classical music in the second half of the 19th century.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mozart's represented by five works, more than any other composer (and only Bach has four). I think the Requiem has the weakest case for inclusion - the other four on the list are The Magic Flute, the Jupiter Symphony, Don Giovanni and Eine kleine nachtmusik. Verdi isn't represented at all, even though he's the most popular opera composer today, and La traviata has been most frequently performed opera in recent times.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So it sold a lot of records. Have you seen the List of best-selling singles? -- Rsm77 ( talk) 11:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the English Wikipedia the latter is more vital than the former.
There must be better places to cut. This is a whole tradition which has definitely exerted an influence on western culture. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
For the English Wikipedia the latter is more vital than the former.
I'd look to some of the weaker individual songs rather than do this kind of replacement. Or I don't know why you can't do a straight add. We just deleted a Finnish tango (!) and a bunch of individual dancers. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Lovely article, mostly the work of one dedicated user though. Article appears in no other languages. We have Van Gogh himself and his Sunflowers already. Carlwev ( talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I got futurism added earlier, and I am trying to get calligraphy and Turner in at the moment. I am not trying to reduce art to increase other sections, but I believe whole visual art forms/genres and top painters are, generally, higher priority than individual paintings are. I believe there would be books, or articles about art forms and artists more often than single paintings. I am also not sure if the 24 painting we have are the 24 most vital paintings either. We obviously need some, like Mona Lisa and perhaps Scream, but I think we can lose some others. Paintings appears to be one of those lists like TV shows that has grown with no one keeping an eye on it. I looked through the edit history, a while ago and noticed several paintings were added in one go by one user, there's no discussion of this in talk page archives, so they were only added through one user's opinion. [ here]. The whole original list was made by edits like this, so I'm not saying the user was wrong to add them, or we should remove them all but still needs to be looked at. Carlwev ( talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
I moved a few films to different genres along the lines stated in the soon-to-be-archived section above. I'd actually like to remove genres altogether, but not sure I would get any consensus on that (not that there was any consensus when they were put into genres in the first place). -- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose ! votes
I don't know if documentary belongs in Movie or TV, because it applies to both. (Just shows why I think movies and TV should be together. I am proposing to merge Movies and TV among other things right down the bottom of this talk page by the way, take a look and give your opinion on that too.) Carlwev ( talk) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
People not liking cross swaps. Not being a movie expert I don't know which if any movie topic could make way for this. With film in the vital 100 and many articles here dedicated to the medium of film be it movies, actors, directors and more. I think the article about movie theater is more vital to the topic of film than many existing articles. Articles about "venues" are not out of place we have, swimming and swimming pool, sport and stadium. We have removed many movies already in straight removals, if I thought of this back then, I could have proposed a swap with one of them. I think this belongs, if others don't fair enough lets vote. If anyone can think of a good swap that I cannot, bring it up. Carlwev ( talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The Catcher in the Rye and Nineteen Eighty-Four are already on the list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy as well as sections on religious philosophies and philosophical schools. In light of that, discussing philosophies by country doesn't seem so vital to me. Cobblet ( talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In no other humanities discipline do we have articles by country: articles like English literature, Italian music or Chinese art are all plausible, but judging from their absence from the list it appears we don't consider such articles vital enough. Instead we prefer to limit our selections to notable people, stylistic movements and works. I don't see why philosophy should be treated any differently from the rest of the humanities, or all other academic disciplines for that matter. Imagine what would happen if we had to start considering things like German engineering? Cobblet ( talk) 10:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 fairly extensively in Ancient Greek philosophy, of which it is a part. Cobblet ( talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsurprisingly a stubby article. Justice is already listed under Law in Social Sciences.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Suggest adding Greco-Roman mysteries instead. Cobblet ( talk) 07:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greek mythology is overrepresented. Maya religion is a vital topic.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 removed Islamic mythology on the grounds that Islam ought to cover it in sufficient detail. I think the same argument should apply to these cases.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, and post-theism.
We already have atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, and post-theism.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that we can't seem to find room for any individual Bible books, I'm puzzled why we'd include an article on a subject that only comes up in two chapters of one of them.
The following discussion is closed. 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 article is a list.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Perhaps Native American religion might be a stronger candidate for inclusion. Cobblet ( talk) 07:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
Now that we're keeping Tibet and Xinjiang, is it still necessary to have articles on the Tibetans and Uyghurs? Cobblet ( talk) 22:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
User:Maunus, did you have a reason for including this and not the Sioux? Cobblet ( talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
I have reservations about including this one, since this is a label applied by the Chinese government and it's unclear whether the people regard themselves as a single ethnic group. Cobblet ( talk) 07:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
Right now Sápmi (area) is listed under the new Regions list. I don't know whether it's better to replace it with Sami people, or to even have both articles. A similar issue is whether we should include Kurdistan and/or Kurdish people. We currently have the former but not the latter. Cobblet ( talk) 04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the closet thing to a list of different races or ethnicity we have. "Race" itself is in he vital 100 so we are kind of saying it's important. Our list here in the vital 10'000 of different races looks very shabby to me. We have stubs like Turco-Mongol, but don't have perhaps the most basic of races. Again I am not an expert and voting needs to take place but we are missing things like black people and white people and Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Caucasian race etc. We have Turkish people, but hardly any other country's people so that looks odd. I doubt we want every nation itself in geography plus every nationality in race as that would be unhelpful duplication taking up room. But which "races" if that's the right word do we include, and which do we not, maybe a touchy subject and some may avoid it because of that. Some people are not adequately represented by a country article. Turkish people may be half represented by the inclusion of the country Turkey. However people like the Indigenous peoples of the Americas are only represented at the moment by present countries like USA, Mexico etc and old civilizations like Aztec, and History of USA, History of Mexico and History of The Americas. Anyway, in short, I think the section needs lots of care and attention from myself and others. Carlwev ( talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Not widely recognized by linguists.
The following discussion is closed. 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 see how there's any doubt which of these is more vital for an English language encyclopedia.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Bantu languages are really important as a distinct group. Besides Swahili, I don't think any of the individual languages are all that important (although I'd support adding Zulu people, and perhaps some other articles on individual Bantu ethnic groups)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These are officially considered dialects of Hindi, and, while widely spoken, don't have much in the way of a literary tradition. There's already a ton of Indo-Aryan languages
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Catalan is (very slightly more spoken), but Danish and Norwegian are official languages of significant European countries, and have a much larger literary tradition.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Dari is the name for the modern Persian language in Afghanistan, and is covered in the latter article. Xiang Chinese is the most spoken language whose status as such is not disputed (compare Jin Chinese) and is not already on the list. With 35-40 million speakers, it is spoken by approximately as many people as Polish, Pashto, Kannada, Malayalam and Sundanese, all of which are on the list, and is more widely spoken than Hakka Chinese, also on the list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
You know what I'm gonna support this. I thought about bringing it up my myself, it's fairly wide spread, widely consumed. It's more vital than some plants we have. But, I have a strange feeling in belly not from swallowing gum, but a strange feeling this is gonna get a load of opposes, if not for being a lone add, for being, well, "only gum". Carlwev ( talk) 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
While I'll don't consider this top top importance, we're attacking the wrong lists first. Maybe this should be moved to plants, and we can start trimming the truly obscure plants, and leave the moderately well known ones to discus after. the whole plant vs food issue needs to be addressed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Carlwev, I think what we really need is Snack. I feel this isn't vital because it's really a method of preparing potatoes, much like pilaf is in relation to rice. Cobblet ( talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If fork and spoon are on the list surely this is vital 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
All Furniture - I'm not of the opinion of removing all furniture as redundant to furniture itself, furniture was in the 1000 until January I didn't like it being removed there was no discussion. Furniture is a very broad term, as well as very wide spread world wide and history wide. I would prefer to keep some specific examples. I know they're not very scientific, artistic or technical, but the everyday life section was made for everyday things. I'd like the main items to stay, we could maybe lose some though, I feel more comfortable having 8 items of furniture than say 8 figure skaters. Maybe some can go I will look one at a time, I don't know if we need chair and bench, table and desk, willing to compromise on similar furniture types already covered. There may be difference of opinion on this one, I would prefer to keep some, but I am only one opinion, consensus will decide. Carlwev ( talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life#Sports and recreation for a list of topics in this category.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Adding a sport, while not hugely popular, definitely not obscure either, and removing a sportsperson, one of the 8 ice skaters. Not really balanced to have 8 ice skaters but not even mention some other sports at all. We have canoeing and rowing, this shouldn't be ignored completely Carlwev ( talk) 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
I propose moving the 13 specific colors and the 8 other topics related to color to Arts, where Color theory is. Thoughts?
The following discussion is closed. 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 all, we have nine companies listed in this category, and there are a lot of large oil and gas companies these days. I think Standard Oil tops them all in historical significance—it was the precursor of both ExxonMobil and Chevron, for example, and its dissolution was a landmark case in antitrust law.
The following discussion is closed. 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 removed Procter & Gamble recently; none of the major consumer goods companies need to be on this list, IMO.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorbonne now redirects to Sorbonne (building). The page for the university is University of Paris.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 don't think any of the independent American TV companies are notable enough to be included on this list (see below), there's no denying that American television has had a lasting impact on global culture.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we didn't want to remove all of these, we'd have to include Fox Broadcasting Company as well, for starters.
I can see an argument to be made for BBC to remain on the list (we can discuss that), but this should go.
The following discussion is closed. 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 latter article looks pretty weak to me and I think it should be removed regardless. Cobblet ( talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Until the 20th century military science was considered an academic discipline in many countries, and military academies still exist of course. We do cover many of its fields in separate articles, but the overarching term seems vital to me 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 essential component of government.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obviously vital. This has been proposed for the Level 3 list 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 sensory system list in biology is well laid out into systems, this would mess up the nice laid out list, but there is overlapping content and I think the "system" articles listed there are the less fleshed out articles on Wiki compared to the other. We have nose, Olfaction and Olfactory system. The less fleshed out and less represented language wise of these 3 is Olfactory system, quite short no references either, pretty much all content there is covered in olfaction, and in more depth too. My own biology encyclopedia has an article named smell which means olfaction but not one named smell/olfactory system. Neuron (or nerve cell) is missing and quite important, review the article. Carlwev ( talk) 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
I thought sperm would have already been in, but it's not. Well it is well studied, we all passed by it in school, Universal to many species, vital topic to biology? I think so. My only thoughts are, at first I thought the best article to cover the topic would have been sperm. But after looking, there seems to be more content at semen, and semen appears in many more languages, although this may be translating issues, just how Wikipedians translated and interlinked articles from different languages, or even if other languages have separate words for the 2 things? who knows? I don't know if we necessarily need both sperm and semen, I couldn't decide which to nominate, so I did both, but they are both more vital than there swap counterparts I believe. Carlwev ( talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Support, but not a fan of swapping subjects from two different domains. Psoralea esculenta is a very good candidate for removal, but I think should be a separate proposal. Camas, and Acorn were also important wild gathered food sources for Native Americans. Mongongo is important in South Africa. But the list is missing many cultivated plants of greater importance. I don't think there's room for wild gathered foods even if they are staples for a particular culture. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have Taste which is a much longer article covers everything Gustatory system does in better depth and more, and appears in more languages. The article in my own biology print encyclopedia uses the title taste. Epilepsy, is very well documented and studied and effects 50 million people world wide according to the article. Carlwev ( talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Custard-apple redirects to a disambiguation page. The page for the tree and fruit is Annonaceae.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Delete Alismatales, Asparagales, Liliales, Poales, Ericales, Asterales, Gentianales, Brassicales, Cucurbitales, Rosales, Lamiales, Malpighiales, Myrtales, Fagales, Sapindales, Proteales, Cornales, and Fabales. These are very obscure articles, and will never attract more than a handful of views. To botanists, the orders of plants are far less important than families, in spite of the higher taxonomic rank. To the general public, these are articles that are inherently highly technical and will not be very interesting. There are many articles on families and species that are of higher interest both to botanists and lay readers which be better included here than the articles on orders.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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've moved most of the organisms out of that section but a good number still remain, specifically potato, rice, hazelnut, pine nut, walnut, anise, basil, black pepper, cinnamon, fennel, garlic, horseradish, lavender, liquorice, mentha, onion, paprika, parsley, parsnip, sage and thyme. Also I propose moving Nut (fruit) to Biological processes and physiology, where fruit and berry are also listed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
How many dinosaurs do we want, and which ones do we want Maiasaura and Camarasaurus look less known than T rex and Triceratops? Thoughts? Carlwev ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
But we have no other articles on types of dinosaurs, only articles on specific genera. Cobblet ( talk) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 missing major research organism.
If there's one species of fungi worth including because of its value as a model organism, surely it ought to be Saccharomyces cerevisiae, whose importance also extends to fermentation. And there's also Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Neurospora crassa to be considered. Cobblet ( talk) 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Cannabis focuses on the plant, Cannabis (drug) focuses on the drug uses of the plant, and is the more relevant topic to health and fitness. The article on the plant doesn't seem to be a vital article (although the article on the other major use of the plant, Hemp, might be).
So, remove Cannabis and add Cannabis (drug)? I have to think about it; but, I think that you are probably right that it's use as a drug far outweighs any other aspect of it. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 21:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. 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 theory in philosophy, but the use of the term in science to denote a well-substantiated explanation of experimental observations deserves separate treatment, I think.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rhea is a bigger moon than Enceladus
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More important and interesting constellation.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is Wikipedia 10,000 vital articles, not "Everybody loves everything about volcanoes," and this is a ridiculous number of extrusive igneous landforms to include among only 10,000 articles that include arts, history, geography, physics, chemistry, philosophy. None of these other articles are even in the same ballpark as volcano and mid ocean ridge. It's universe versus piece of dirt behind home plate. But, very American tourist centric. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Didn't even look at the article? Sigh. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 15:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. 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 commonly used crystallographic technique, with extensive applications in chemistry and molecular biology. It basically allows scientists to "see" molecules. Numerous Nobel Prizes in Chemistry have been awarded for the determination of molecular structures using this technique, e.g. that of the ribosome in 2009.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More general overview article. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 00:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thermodynamic state is a weird collection of stub/definition topics that someone put on the same page for some reason which is hard to discern. The 2nd law article is one of the most important topics in thermodynamics, and it's fairly well written.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Auger effect, while important, is hardly something I would expect anyone but physicists and chemist to care about that. Particle on the other hand, is a truly vital and fundamental concept of science.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already have Square metre.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already have Metre.
Actually, the League_(unit) article looks really weak. Mainly just a list of how it has differed by region followed by one of those terrible "in popular culture" lists under another name. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already have Light-year.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
We need the measurement system, not one of its units.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both largely obsolete.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Commonly used units in physics and chemistry/biochemistry. Both are non-SI units mentioned in the SI.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obviously non-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.
I was shocked to find that street isn't simply a redirect to road (which we have), but is defined in the article as essentially an urban road. Still I'm not convinced it's vital; we also have town square for instance. Let's replace it with the phenomenon of urbanization itself.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Pbp, I just wanted to clarify: are you suggesting we should have both street and road? Cobblet ( talk) 15:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cotton is the only specific crop listed in the Agriculture/Crops and livestock section. It would be better listed with similar articles on textile fibers (e.g. silk, wool, nylon) in the Crafts/Materials section of the Technology list.
The following discussion is closed. 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 didn't just start with the refrigerator, which is all we've got right now.
The crucial idea that made assembly lines possible. I think this is the sort of topic the Technology section is really lacking at the moment.
The following discussion is closed. 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 latter article's much stronger.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Technology is still below quota and there are no programming languages. Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Technology is still below quota and there are no programming languages.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
I will honestly give these some thought later, but at the moment before I've researched this I cannot see these programming languages as vital, it's only my opinion, and I don't want an argument over it, just let people vote and comment as normal. We have a lot missing from regular language also, may or may not get addressed? I think search engine may actually be better, everyone now a days uses google and others, c++ not so much. I will read about this later. Carlwev ( talk) 19:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Clearly the wrong article was chosen to represent this topic, assess both articles, all important information by far is located at Sailing article not Sailing ship. Sailing ship is only in one other language, Sailing itself in about 45 other languages. Carlwev ( talk) 18:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Rockets include missiles as well. Cobblet ( talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Weapons" is clearly not the right name for a category that includes War elephant, Tank, Bomber and Battleship.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
V3n0M93, outside of Kung-fu movies, where are Nunchaku currently being used in any organized way (not just teenagers in an alley)? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wasn't this article the reason you wanted to remove Knife -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because threads for Space Shuttle and space station removal have been posted, I will start this. Both those articles are also in the vital 1000 list, so keeping with the logic of the vital articles project, articles that are present in the 1000 list cannot be absent from the 10'000 list. People should be able to vote on those articles but logically bearing in mind they are present in both lists. I will expand the thread, to give people the option to vote on whether the articles should be in both lists, only the 10'000 but not the 1000 or remove them from both lists.
My belief is for a 1000 list space shuttle is not needed as we have space flight. We only have one article, aircraft to represent flight, and one article, ship to represent that area. Space flight probably doesn't need more, than transports that are much more widely used at the 1000 list. At the 1000 we have both space station and International Space Station. At least one of them should go I think, at a stretch both, I'm not sure which one should go, leaning toward removing space station, the specific example looks better than generic term for a 1000 list. I will bring up the International Space Station as a thread too as it is in the same vein. Within a list as big as 10'000 I think the topic of space flight should be expanded and cover these articles. I think they should stay in the 10'000 but maybe not the 1000, only my opinion.
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list
Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list
Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list
Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list
The following discussion is closed. 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.
We don't have the concept of a numerical base system.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Mean" is listed, but the actual article linked is Sample mean and sample covariance, which doesn't seem to be the best article on the concept. Nor is average, which talks about median and mode as if they were also averages, which they aren't. (They're different measures of central tendency.) I think the best article to include on the list is either mean or arithmetic mean. Cobblet ( talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that the Geography section's being trimmed to a manageable size, I think we need to tackle the most over-represented section of the list: organisms. We have 1064 of them, more than 10% of the entire list. Anyone familiar with the Leptodactylidae or the Tapaculo? Or the Callitrichidae or the Potamogetonaceae? And looking at the subsections, it's obvious certain groups are disproportionately represented: 110 insects, 158 birds, 160 fishes and 170 mammals, but only 50 reptiles (including 14 dinosaurs) and 10 amphibians. I think I'd prefer keeping something like 50 insects, 50 birds, 50 fishes and 100 mammals, which would mean cutting ~250 articles. We also have 258 plants, which include a lot of edible nuts, grains, fruits and vegetables. That will need trimming as well.
I'm interested to hear what people think - I'm looking at you, User:GabeMc, User talk:Maunus, User:Purplebackpack89, User:Jusdafax, User:Rsm77. If there's support for major cuts I might try to come up with a mass deletion proposal tomorrow - it would take far too long to take things out one by one. I'm not a zoologist but I feel strongly that something drastic needs to be done; apart from freeing up space for other areas of the list, there are topics within biology and the health sciences like genome, food web, origin of life, computational biology and epidemiology that ought to make it in. Cobblet ( talk) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles to be removed
The following discussion is closed. 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'm not sure where to put this, but I find some of the inclusions and exclusion of languages puzzling. For example, why is Catalan considered vital, but not Danish or Norwegian? Catalan has only marginally more native speakers, and is considerably less important as a national or literary language than the two not included Scandinavian languages. Furthermore, surely it is vital for an English language encyclopedia to contain articles about Old English and Middle English? This is especially true when Old Church Slavonic and Ge'ez are considered vital. What about Yiddish? I'd say it's cultural importance as the historical language of Ashkenazi Jewry eclipses the importance of Oriya or Sundanese, however many speakers those languages may have. There's a general lack of dead Western European languages - Old Norse, Old French, and Old High German are all significant enough to the English-speaking world for me to think they're probably more vital than Ge'ez or Coptic. Obviously, systematic bias can be a problem, but we should also keep in mind that there are problems with the other direction as well - namely, that we are demanding articles on things that don't have much written about them in English, while neglecting subjects about which much ink has been spilled. For instance, it's much easier to learn at least the basics of Old English in the US than it is to learn Shona or Sundanese. Virtually every major university in the English-speaking world will have an Old English class. Much harder to find instruction in many of these other languages. At any rate, I'd at least propose adding Old English, Danish language, Norwegian language and Yiddish language to the Germanic languages. john k ( talk) 15:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
p b p 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
As with hit count, Google Books doesn't tell the whole story, largely for some of the reasons with hit count. For example, John F. Kennedy has a great deal of books written about him, but that doesn't make him one of the 10-15 most important figures in American history p b p 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 as of 1700 UTC 10 August. Note: Not all subsections are listed
|
|
|
We are less than 100 articles from our goal! p b p 17:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This means we're actually under 10,000 articles, since we've already agreed to cut the 272 regions to at most 141 if we keep everything that's being voted on right now. Nice work folks. Cobblet ( talk) 22:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surveying was moved to geophysics, with a edit summary about moving it to geodesy. This doesn't make sense. Surveying in general is a very small part of geodesy, but it is a very large part of cartography, geomorphology, geology, geography. It does not belong under geophysics. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 21:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. 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 know how it was decided, but I am a cladist at heart; let's not call dinosaurs extinct reptiles in the list. This list has the potential to be public, and errors as big as birds as reptiles can attract unpleasant commentary and remove the focus from content. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 14:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IMO, the current wording for add/remove/swap threads is a bit lacking:
Individual topic discussions may remain open for 90 days or more, but will be archived when it becomes apparent that consensus is unlikely to be reached. We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed as a consensus change if (a) a 5−0 (or greater) unanimous !vote has been achieved, or (b) six or more editors have participated in the discussion and there is an !vote of 70% or greater in favor of or opposed to the proposed addition, removal or swap. Please be patient with our process; we believe that wider participation by more editors, with more informed discussion, are better and more likely to produce an improved and stable final list.
In particular this text-string needs work:
We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed as a consensus change if (a) a 5−0 (or greater) unanimous !vote has been achieved, or (b) six or more editors have participated in the discussion and there is an !vote of 70% or greater in favor of or opposed to the proposed addition, removal or swap.
This might need some tweaking, but I think its a step in the right direction. IMO, we should strive to remove any and all grey area whereby someone could be criticized for closing a thread that was older than 15 days. As long as these concrete rules are obeyed there will be no room for disagreement. Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking at this sub-topic, it strikes me that 400 articles doesn't seem nearly enough. The Philosophy section looks basically fine, but the material on religion and mythology seems remarkably bare-bones, especially when we compare to some other sections. In the "People" section, for instance, we have a bunch of Biblical prophets and we have Arius, the founder of Arianism. In the religion section, the only articles on the Bible we have are Bible, Tanakh, and Torah. No articles on individual books. We also don't have Arianism, which seems pretty clearly more vital to me than Arius. The articles on Christian denominations are fairly minimalist, too. In an English language encyclopedia, I'd think the Church of England warrants inclusion separate from Anglicanism (a topic with which it has wide overlaps, but is not a subset - "Anglicanism" as a concept significantly post-dates the separation of the Church of England from Rome, arguably not really emerging until the Oxford Movement in the 19th century). Given their influence on the English language, the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer seem pretty vital to me. (There seems broadly to be very little recognition here, in general, of the idea that, in an English language encyclopedia, subjects having to do with the English language and English-speaking countries might warrant somewhat heavier coverage than they would in some imaginary universal encyclopedia). Also ignored are the Nicene Creed and historical topics - none of the Ecumenical Councils is included either here or in history. In the eastern religions, important concepts like the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths don't appear, nor do many important religious texts (while we have numerous articles in People about quite obscure Buddhist and Hindu religious figures - how is Valmiki more important than the Puranas?) The Hindu concept of caste seems to appear neither here nor in anthropology, and the individual Varnas aren't included, either. Important denominations of Islam like Twelver and Ismaili Shi'ism are also not included.
Moving to mythology, this looks self-evidently weak to me. Only three articles from Norse mythology, two on different versions of the same deity? Nothing on the Eddas, or any of the sagas (either here or in arts, as far as I can tell). Not even Loki? Greek mythology is somewhat fuller, but even here there are odd omissions - Theseus comes particularly strongly to mind, but I feel like Greek mythology is a pretty vital area of knowledge, and it's covered rather intermittently. It doesn't help that some of the articles seem poorly selected. Why so many articles on Roman deities who are basically just renamed versions of Greek gods? Jupiter and Mars perhaps warrant distinct coverage, but I'm less certain why the others do. Certainly Rpman gods don't really deserve any coverage as mythology - it is the Roman gods' status as cult objects that makes them distinct from Greek deities, not the stories about them, which, with a few exceptions, they stole wholesale from the Greeks.
So, anyway, I'd suggest that there needs to be a considerably higher quota for Philosophy and Religion, in order to allow for more expansive coverage of religions and mythology. john k ( talk) 18:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There should be a balance between topics of interest internationally and topics of interest in the English-speaking world. Generally, I think the list should tilt towards international coverage (though there are different ways to interpret what international coverage is). I don't think we should compare with other lists like the project for "articles every wikipedia should have" or versions of this in other languages. They are not very good and seem to all be based on earlier versions of this list rather than built from the ground up. (Whereas I think this list has improved from the attention paid to it.) Finally, I think that the current quotas are not necessarily that great, so should perhaps not have so much weight. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 23:10, 22 August 2013 (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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Ada made the first computer program. I thinks that's more vital than Georg Bednorz's invetions. -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Would prefer adding four-stroke engine instead, since this appears to be the only reason why he's notable. Cobblet ( talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Support !votes:
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let's try this again, this time as just a straight add. Again, it seems to me that Lewis is a serious omission from the list of chemists we have. He discovered the covalent bond and was the first person to isolate heavy water. Anyone who took chemistry in high school will remember drawing Lewis structures; any chemist will be familiar with Lewis acids and bases.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Leonid Kuchma is largely unknown outside of Ukraine. Pavelić is vital from a historical point of view.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
I think you should reword this so it's clearer who is largely unknown outside of Ukraine. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yeah, Patton's a Californian like me. There are three other American WWII generals on this list: Ike, Marshall, and MacArthur. All held more significant commands than Patton. There are no Brits. I propose adding Marshal Montgomery, the Allied Commander at Dunkirk and D-Day to remedy 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.
Leader of the White movement in the Russian Civil War.
Support !votes:
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amidst a fairly substantial number of obscure writers who probably don't belong, I can't believe that Eliot isn't already on here. She's probably more vital than half the writers on here.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mani founded a fairly big religion religion, Manichaeism, (although it's now extinct) he would seem to me more notable than quite a few religious figures we have. I'm not too familiar just using my judgment to pick on someone who appears not exceptionally vital from religious figures. Reading Bhaṭṭa's article he doesn't seem to be that vital. I was also contemplating swapping out Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj or Al-Nawawi if anyone thinks they are better? I may suggest those two for removal also? Carlwev ( talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Chemists seem a little under-represented relative to other scientists. Lewis discovered the covalent bond, the type of chemical bonding found in any substance that isn't a metal, a binary ionic compound or a noble gas. He was the first person to isolate heavy water and should've won a share of the 1934 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it. Anyone who took chemistry in high school will remember drawing Lewis structures; any chemist will be familiar with Lewis acids and bases.
Secretariat was a horse. What's it doing on a list of people?
When it comes to famous animals I think of Seabiscuit and Balto first. And is Secretariat really a better choice than Man o' War? Are all of these vital? Are any of them? Cobblet ( talk) 04:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 "Anthropology, psychology and everyday life" page. That way we don't have to debate the significance of a horse vs. a human.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At present, the founder of microbiology is on the 1,000 list, but not on the 10,000. Generally, I at least believe 1000 articles should be on the 10,000 automatically. So what do we do?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Much as I admire VA, he's simply not in the same league as the other pianists presently on list; besides, MR is a far greater and historically more important musician. Alfietucker ( talk) 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
A musician who was acclaimed in his lifetime as one of the greatest in the world, inspired several major works from leading composers of the 20th century, including Sergei Prokofiev, Dmitri Shostakovich and Benjamin Britten, taught several great cellists including Jacqueline du Pré, Natalia Gutman and Mischa Maisky, and stuck his neck out for not only Prokofiev but also for Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - the latter action ultimately leading to the cellist's enforced exile from his homeland - is scarcely one of "small notability". Alfietucker ( talk) 17:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we're talking cellists, Pablo Casals definitely ought to be on the list before her; if we're talking female instrumentalists (ignoring the many female singers we have on the list, and many more we could add), Martha Argerich, Nadia Boulanger, Wanda Landowska or Clara Schumann easily trump her credentials. Cobblet ( talk) 09:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well this is an obvious omission. The most influential music pedagogue in the 20th century, she taught composers such as Copland, Glass and Piazzolla. She was also one of the first female conductors.
The following discussion is closed. 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 opera is vital; its composer, not so much, especially when we have 23 other composers in the Romantic period.
We could maybe replace Rimsky-Korsakov and Mussorgsky with The Five (composers). Cobblet ( talk) 07:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 librettists are 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.
There are other singers of comparable stature as Te Kanawa that we don't include, e.g. Kathleen Battle. Mahalia Jackson seems more significant.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Would prefer a swap here—composers of classical music are rather generously represented already. I could get behind a swap of Satie for Britten; another prominent omission is Richard Strauss—maybe swap him in for Alexander Scriabin. Cobblet ( talk) 02:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not vital when we don't have people like Celine Dion or Whitney Houston.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 this improves the list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 rather crowded Romantic period I think Borodin is the weakest link, especially considering we already have two of the Russian Five in Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. Meanwhile we have no composers from the Medieval period; Machaut seems like the most appropriate representative.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
British anti-slavery advocate
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 no Ancient Era explorers. I looked through Category:Ancient explorers and this seems like a pretty strong candidate for inclusion. His discoveries led to the establishment of the Silk Road.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The greatest surveyor of all time? He singlehandedly mapped 20% of North America.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scytians covers the subject better.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seljuq dynasty is mainly a list of kings.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
I'm going to start opposing proposals made with no justification. A cursory read of Sahelian kingdoms suggests that we've included all the other notable historical empires of West Africa on the list; it would be nice if someone could explain why this particular one isn't noteworthy enough to include. Cobblet ( talk) 09:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 dynasty article is mostly a list of kings.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
We have the Arab Spring. The Syrian civil war may turn out to be more noteworthy; too soon to tell. Cobblet ( talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 overall war is more important than a single part of it.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Could the objectors explain why Wounded Knee deserves mention over Battle of the Little Bighorn, the Nez Perce War, the Apache Wars, Tecumseh's War and the Second Seminole War, to name five other prominent US–native American conflicts? Cobblet ( talk) 18:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that we've added elevation, this can go. Cobblet ( talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would suggest replacing with administrative division but that article's mostly a list. Cobblet ( talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Maybe we should move it under politics, since it's more of a political term than geographical. -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 09:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is about vital articles; while there is not a single article on the list that is not very important, I question in a list with a finite number of articles, that gnomonic projection is a vital article at the 10,000 human items level. Without Mercator projections, the Age of Exploration would have been a fail, so it cannot be removed, particularly for a Anglo-centric encyclopedia. However, the article on map projections in general should be edited to reflect the variable importance of different large categories of projections, and gnomonic projection can await the 100,000 vital articles list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
User:Cobblet, Andean states was removed via a different proposal. I've left this one in case is gathers enough support to add Canbera. -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 08:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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 can't believe people think this isn't vital—this sea dominates Russia's Pacific coastline and is one of the largest seas on the list. See File:Oceans and seas boundaries map-en.svg. Cobblet ( talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If this is removed I'll immediately nominate a swap of this for some other hydrology article—this really should stay on the list, IMO. While I think the Geography quota should probably be 1250 rather than 1300, we've got less than 1220 articles in this section now. Cobblet ( talk) 07:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is obviously distinct from the East China Sea. Again, see File:Oceans and seas boundaries map-en.svg, which is drawn according to the IHO definitions. Removing this because we have the East China Sea is like removing Gulf of Aden (and even Red Sea) because we have Arabian Sea. Unlike the East China Sea, it was only submerged after the last Ice Age and remains an unusually large area of shallow water. To quote the WWF, "the Yellow Sea is one of the world's largest areas of continental shelf covered in shallow water, providing for rich fishing grounds and an important site for migratory birds." Cobblet ( talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If there was one strait in the world worth including this would be this one, I think. A quarter of the world's traded goods and a quarter of the world's oil goes through this strait. Hong Kong and Singapore wouldn't exist without it. Cobblet ( talk) 09:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given the demand for reduced Western bias elsewhere on this list, it's strange to see so many people oppose the addition of articles not only of interest to the world in general, but vitally so to developing countries. Cobblet ( talk) 06:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Gulf of Aden gets 507 000 hits on Google Books, compared to 122 000 for Bab-el-Mandeb. Cobblet ( talk) 09:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The former is subsumed by the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. And the latter's probably better known anyway.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What's the logic behind this removal? I know almost nothing about the Adirondacks except that they expose billion+-year-old Grenville Orogeny rocks; and, this, might be vital. I need more information about the reason for removal. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Technical umbrella term that the article mentions may not be precisely defined; we already have its largest component, the Rocky Mountains.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's a stub.
Specifically Mongolian Plateau, Central Siberian Plateau, Sayan Mountains, Verkhoyansk Range, Sikhote-Alin. We do have the Altai Mountains.
Namely Alborz, Pontic Mountains, Taurus Mountains. The largest mountain range in Iran and Iraq, the Zagros Mountains, is already on the list. So is the Iranian Plateau.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Purplebackpack89, Mt. Whitney definitely doesn't merit inclusion; even if you ignore the 18 taller mountains in the Alaska/Yukon area there are also four taller mountains in Mexico, including the third highest peak in North America, Pico de Orizaba. And I don't think even Mount Logan should deserve consideration when there are many taller mountains not on the list (e.g. Kanchenjunga, third tallest in the world, and dozens of 6000 m peaks in the Andes) and other parts of the globe that aren't represented, e.g. Mont Blanc for the European Union. Granted, Pinatubo might not have been the absolute best replacement; if this proposal passes I'll consider nominating Mount Tambora to replace it. Cobblet ( talk) 23:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
I have to say, to not have this on the list is a bit like having North Island but not South Island. Or Wallachia and Moldavia but not Transylvania. And Philippines is part of the English-speaking world—on the English Wikipedia, its geography shouldn't be underrepresented relative to other nations. Cobblet ( talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 looks like we're going to keep Alaska. I'd like to know why need this as well. p b p 17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
New England is part of the Northeast. Since we already have the West, Midwest, and South, the only region not included now is the Middle Atlantic. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 neither Chagos archipelago, nor British Indian Ocean Territory, nor Diego Garcia. This is the second largest protected area in the world and the largest protected marine area. The notability of the topic is obvious to me, even if the other Wikipedias haven't gotten around to writing about it yet. Cobblet ( talk) 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Suggest replacing this with Banff National Park. Cobblet ( talk) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 parks to be removed would be Aïr Mountains, Selous Game Reserve, Salonga National Park, Banc d'Arguin National Park. Africa would still be represented by Tassili n'Ajjer, Serengeti National Park, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and maybe Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. Meanwhile the additions are respectively the second and third oldest national parks in the world, and the latter is also one of the world's most-visited parks. Plus neither Australia nor Canada are currently represented (Wood Buffalo is up for deletion.) Cobblet ( talk) 02:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 several suggestions for this section, particularly the "Fiction of the Modern Era" subsection. Firstly, A Tale of Two Cities seems like an odd Dickens choice to me. If we're going to include just one Dickens novel, I think it should clearly be Great Expectations, which has similar popularity and is much more highly regarded critically. Second, And Then There Were None should be gone. Christie herself probably should be on the list in the people section, but no individual work by her is significant enough to be on here. Other questionable entries are Ficciones (Borges deserves to be on, but an article on a collection of short stories that all have their own articles seems inessential), Darkness at Noon, and The Crucible. I'd suggest that Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Middlemarch, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre are all more worthy than any of these (perhaps The Portrait of a Lady and Vanity Fair, too), and really more worthy than several other works that are included (I'm not ready to say that On the Road and The War of the Worlds don't belong on the list, but I think they clearly belong less than the works I'm suggesting). I realize that skews the list more towards the 19th century, but I think there's generally much more agreement about the "canonical" novels of the 19th century than those of the 20th. Also, in terms of organization, wouldn't it make sense to separate plays from works of narrative fiction? john k ( talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other modern short story collections worth including? Cobblet ( talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I had a few other ideas for non-fiction, including Wealth of Nations, The Interpretation of Dreams, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and possibly Leviathan. Be interested to hear what others think about these ideas. For me, something like The Art of Computer Programming looks a little weak in comparison. (Oh, and note the Communist Manifesto is on the list in the politics section. - edit, actually in the law section) -- Rsm77 ( talk) 03:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I moved it into Literature. Cobblet ( talk) 18:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Holden Caulfield is another fictional character that should probably replaced with another literature article, since we have Catcher in the Rye. Cobblet ( talk) 08:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Prefer just the add here. Cobblet ( talk) 03:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Specifically under Mass media (which we should maybe rename Media). They're not really literature per se and the Literature section is crowded enough as it is. I'd like to be able to add things like almanac, citation and diary, for example.
I even considered moving out works like Encyclopædia Britannica and A Dictionary of the English Language, but it's probably easier to find them if we keep them together with the rest of the non-fiction. Then again, political treatises are placed somewhere else too, if I'm not mistaken. Let me know what you guys think. Cobblet ( talk) 02:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Specifically under mythology, since there's already obvious overlap with that section ( Jinn, Pegasus.) Only exception I can see is Superhero, which should go into Fictional characters. This would make the Literature section more comparable with the other arts sections; right now if you look at the article count literature seems overrepresented but that isn't actually the case.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Why are people opposing this? It's not even obvious that Années de pèlerinage is Liszt's most significant work, despite the unsourced statement in the lead of that article—a case could be made for the Piano Sonata or his symphonic poems. Cobblet ( talk) 08:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would rather remove bass guitar instead. Cobblet ( talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 swap of Bach works. The latter is more vital, particularly when we also have The Well-Tempered Clavier to represent his keyboard works. I'll also note that with the removal of Mozart's Requiem, Western church music is currently unrepresented.
Maunus, your vote implies that you think the Mass in B minor is less important than Peter and the Wolf. Care to explain? Cobblet ( talk) 15:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Suggest we remove one or two of mandolin, lyre or lute instead. Cobblet ( talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Prokofiev's ballet is probably best known for the tune in Montagues and Capulets; that isn't enough to make it vital when we already have The Nutcracker and Swan Lake. (Prokofiev's also represented by Peter and the Wolf.) Though we have Der Ring des Nibelungen, Wagner is surely important enough to be represented by two works (Bach has four; Beethoven three.) And Tristan und Isolde was probably the single most influential work of Classical music in the second half of the 19th century.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mozart's represented by five works, more than any other composer (and only Bach has four). I think the Requiem has the weakest case for inclusion - the other four on the list are The Magic Flute, the Jupiter Symphony, Don Giovanni and Eine kleine nachtmusik. Verdi isn't represented at all, even though he's the most popular opera composer today, and La traviata has been most frequently performed opera in recent times.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So it sold a lot of records. Have you seen the List of best-selling singles? -- Rsm77 ( talk) 11:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the English Wikipedia the latter is more vital than the former.
There must be better places to cut. This is a whole tradition which has definitely exerted an influence on western culture. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
For the English Wikipedia the latter is more vital than the former.
I'd look to some of the weaker individual songs rather than do this kind of replacement. Or I don't know why you can't do a straight add. We just deleted a Finnish tango (!) and a bunch of individual dancers. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Lovely article, mostly the work of one dedicated user though. Article appears in no other languages. We have Van Gogh himself and his Sunflowers already. Carlwev ( talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I got futurism added earlier, and I am trying to get calligraphy and Turner in at the moment. I am not trying to reduce art to increase other sections, but I believe whole visual art forms/genres and top painters are, generally, higher priority than individual paintings are. I believe there would be books, or articles about art forms and artists more often than single paintings. I am also not sure if the 24 painting we have are the 24 most vital paintings either. We obviously need some, like Mona Lisa and perhaps Scream, but I think we can lose some others. Paintings appears to be one of those lists like TV shows that has grown with no one keeping an eye on it. I looked through the edit history, a while ago and noticed several paintings were added in one go by one user, there's no discussion of this in talk page archives, so they were only added through one user's opinion. [ here]. The whole original list was made by edits like this, so I'm not saying the user was wrong to add them, or we should remove them all but still needs to be looked at. Carlwev ( talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
I moved a few films to different genres along the lines stated in the soon-to-be-archived section above. I'd actually like to remove genres altogether, but not sure I would get any consensus on that (not that there was any consensus when they were put into genres in the first place). -- Rsm77 ( talk) 12:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose ! votes
I don't know if documentary belongs in Movie or TV, because it applies to both. (Just shows why I think movies and TV should be together. I am proposing to merge Movies and TV among other things right down the bottom of this talk page by the way, take a look and give your opinion on that too.) Carlwev ( talk) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
People not liking cross swaps. Not being a movie expert I don't know which if any movie topic could make way for this. With film in the vital 100 and many articles here dedicated to the medium of film be it movies, actors, directors and more. I think the article about movie theater is more vital to the topic of film than many existing articles. Articles about "venues" are not out of place we have, swimming and swimming pool, sport and stadium. We have removed many movies already in straight removals, if I thought of this back then, I could have proposed a swap with one of them. I think this belongs, if others don't fair enough lets vote. If anyone can think of a good swap that I cannot, bring it up. Carlwev ( talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
The Catcher in the Rye and Nineteen Eighty-Four are already on the list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy as well as sections on religious philosophies and philosophical schools. In light of that, discussing philosophies by country doesn't seem so vital to me. Cobblet ( talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In no other humanities discipline do we have articles by country: articles like English literature, Italian music or Chinese art are all plausible, but judging from their absence from the list it appears we don't consider such articles vital enough. Instead we prefer to limit our selections to notable people, stylistic movements and works. I don't see why philosophy should be treated any differently from the rest of the humanities, or all other academic disciplines for that matter. Imagine what would happen if we had to start considering things like German engineering? Cobblet ( talk) 10:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 fairly extensively in Ancient Greek philosophy, of which it is a part. Cobblet ( talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsurprisingly a stubby article. Justice is already listed under Law in Social Sciences.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Suggest adding Greco-Roman mysteries instead. Cobblet ( talk) 07:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Greek mythology is overrepresented. Maya religion is a vital topic.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 removed Islamic mythology on the grounds that Islam ought to cover it in sufficient detail. I think the same argument should apply to these cases.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, and post-theism.
We already have atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, and post-theism.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that we can't seem to find room for any individual Bible books, I'm puzzled why we'd include an article on a subject that only comes up in two chapters of one of them.
The following discussion is closed. 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 article is a list.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Perhaps Native American religion might be a stronger candidate for inclusion. Cobblet ( talk) 07:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
Now that we're keeping Tibet and Xinjiang, is it still necessary to have articles on the Tibetans and Uyghurs? Cobblet ( talk) 22:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
User:Maunus, did you have a reason for including this and not the Sioux? Cobblet ( talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
I have reservations about including this one, since this is a label applied by the Chinese government and it's unclear whether the people regard themselves as a single ethnic group. Cobblet ( talk) 07:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support votes
oppose votes
Right now Sápmi (area) is listed under the new Regions list. I don't know whether it's better to replace it with Sami people, or to even have both articles. A similar issue is whether we should include Kurdistan and/or Kurdish people. We currently have the former but not the latter. Cobblet ( talk) 04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the closet thing to a list of different races or ethnicity we have. "Race" itself is in he vital 100 so we are kind of saying it's important. Our list here in the vital 10'000 of different races looks very shabby to me. We have stubs like Turco-Mongol, but don't have perhaps the most basic of races. Again I am not an expert and voting needs to take place but we are missing things like black people and white people and Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Caucasian race etc. We have Turkish people, but hardly any other country's people so that looks odd. I doubt we want every nation itself in geography plus every nationality in race as that would be unhelpful duplication taking up room. But which "races" if that's the right word do we include, and which do we not, maybe a touchy subject and some may avoid it because of that. Some people are not adequately represented by a country article. Turkish people may be half represented by the inclusion of the country Turkey. However people like the Indigenous peoples of the Americas are only represented at the moment by present countries like USA, Mexico etc and old civilizations like Aztec, and History of USA, History of Mexico and History of The Americas. Anyway, in short, I think the section needs lots of care and attention from myself and others. Carlwev ( talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Not widely recognized by linguists.
The following discussion is closed. 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 see how there's any doubt which of these is more vital for an English language encyclopedia.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Bantu languages are really important as a distinct group. Besides Swahili, I don't think any of the individual languages are all that important (although I'd support adding Zulu people, and perhaps some other articles on individual Bantu ethnic groups)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These are officially considered dialects of Hindi, and, while widely spoken, don't have much in the way of a literary tradition. There's already a ton of Indo-Aryan languages
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Catalan is (very slightly more spoken), but Danish and Norwegian are official languages of significant European countries, and have a much larger literary tradition.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Dari is the name for the modern Persian language in Afghanistan, and is covered in the latter article. Xiang Chinese is the most spoken language whose status as such is not disputed (compare Jin Chinese) and is not already on the list. With 35-40 million speakers, it is spoken by approximately as many people as Polish, Pashto, Kannada, Malayalam and Sundanese, all of which are on the list, and is more widely spoken than Hakka Chinese, also on the list.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
You know what I'm gonna support this. I thought about bringing it up my myself, it's fairly wide spread, widely consumed. It's more vital than some plants we have. But, I have a strange feeling in belly not from swallowing gum, but a strange feeling this is gonna get a load of opposes, if not for being a lone add, for being, well, "only gum". Carlwev ( talk) 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
While I'll don't consider this top top importance, we're attacking the wrong lists first. Maybe this should be moved to plants, and we can start trimming the truly obscure plants, and leave the moderately well known ones to discus after. the whole plant vs food issue needs to be addressed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Carlwev, I think what we really need is Snack. I feel this isn't vital because it's really a method of preparing potatoes, much like pilaf is in relation to rice. Cobblet ( talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If fork and spoon are on the list surely this is vital 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
All Furniture - I'm not of the opinion of removing all furniture as redundant to furniture itself, furniture was in the 1000 until January I didn't like it being removed there was no discussion. Furniture is a very broad term, as well as very wide spread world wide and history wide. I would prefer to keep some specific examples. I know they're not very scientific, artistic or technical, but the everyday life section was made for everyday things. I'd like the main items to stay, we could maybe lose some though, I feel more comfortable having 8 items of furniture than say 8 figure skaters. Maybe some can go I will look one at a time, I don't know if we need chair and bench, table and desk, willing to compromise on similar furniture types already covered. There may be difference of opinion on this one, I would prefer to keep some, but I am only one opinion, consensus will decide. Carlwev ( talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life#Sports and recreation for a list of topics in this category.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Adding a sport, while not hugely popular, definitely not obscure either, and removing a sportsperson, one of the 8 ice skaters. Not really balanced to have 8 ice skaters but not even mention some other sports at all. We have canoeing and rowing, this shouldn't be ignored completely Carlwev ( talk) 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
I propose moving the 13 specific colors and the 8 other topics related to color to Arts, where Color theory is. Thoughts?
The following discussion is closed. 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 all, we have nine companies listed in this category, and there are a lot of large oil and gas companies these days. I think Standard Oil tops them all in historical significance—it was the precursor of both ExxonMobil and Chevron, for example, and its dissolution was a landmark case in antitrust law.
The following discussion is closed. 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 removed Procter & Gamble recently; none of the major consumer goods companies need to be on this list, IMO.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sorbonne now redirects to Sorbonne (building). The page for the university is University of Paris.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 don't think any of the independent American TV companies are notable enough to be included on this list (see below), there's no denying that American television has had a lasting impact on global culture.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we didn't want to remove all of these, we'd have to include Fox Broadcasting Company as well, for starters.
I can see an argument to be made for BBC to remain on the list (we can discuss that), but this should go.
The following discussion is closed. 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 latter article looks pretty weak to me and I think it should be removed regardless. Cobblet ( talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Until the 20th century military science was considered an academic discipline in many countries, and military academies still exist of course. We do cover many of its fields in separate articles, but the overarching term seems vital to me 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 essential component of government.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obviously vital. This has been proposed for the Level 3 list 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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 sensory system list in biology is well laid out into systems, this would mess up the nice laid out list, but there is overlapping content and I think the "system" articles listed there are the less fleshed out articles on Wiki compared to the other. We have nose, Olfaction and Olfactory system. The less fleshed out and less represented language wise of these 3 is Olfactory system, quite short no references either, pretty much all content there is covered in olfaction, and in more depth too. My own biology encyclopedia has an article named smell which means olfaction but not one named smell/olfactory system. Neuron (or nerve cell) is missing and quite important, review the article. Carlwev ( talk) 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
I thought sperm would have already been in, but it's not. Well it is well studied, we all passed by it in school, Universal to many species, vital topic to biology? I think so. My only thoughts are, at first I thought the best article to cover the topic would have been sperm. But after looking, there seems to be more content at semen, and semen appears in many more languages, although this may be translating issues, just how Wikipedians translated and interlinked articles from different languages, or even if other languages have separate words for the 2 things? who knows? I don't know if we necessarily need both sperm and semen, I couldn't decide which to nominate, so I did both, but they are both more vital than there swap counterparts I believe. Carlwev ( talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Support, but not a fan of swapping subjects from two different domains. Psoralea esculenta is a very good candidate for removal, but I think should be a separate proposal. Camas, and Acorn were also important wild gathered food sources for Native Americans. Mongongo is important in South Africa. But the list is missing many cultivated plants of greater importance. I don't think there's room for wild gathered foods even if they are staples for a particular culture. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We already have Taste which is a much longer article covers everything Gustatory system does in better depth and more, and appears in more languages. The article in my own biology print encyclopedia uses the title taste. Epilepsy, is very well documented and studied and effects 50 million people world wide according to the article. Carlwev ( talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Custard-apple redirects to a disambiguation page. The page for the tree and fruit is Annonaceae.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Delete Alismatales, Asparagales, Liliales, Poales, Ericales, Asterales, Gentianales, Brassicales, Cucurbitales, Rosales, Lamiales, Malpighiales, Myrtales, Fagales, Sapindales, Proteales, Cornales, and Fabales. These are very obscure articles, and will never attract more than a handful of views. To botanists, the orders of plants are far less important than families, in spite of the higher taxonomic rank. To the general public, these are articles that are inherently highly technical and will not be very interesting. There are many articles on families and species that are of higher interest both to botanists and lay readers which be better included here than the articles on orders.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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've moved most of the organisms out of that section but a good number still remain, specifically potato, rice, hazelnut, pine nut, walnut, anise, basil, black pepper, cinnamon, fennel, garlic, horseradish, lavender, liquorice, mentha, onion, paprika, parsley, parsnip, sage and thyme. Also I propose moving Nut (fruit) to Biological processes and physiology, where fruit and berry are also listed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
How many dinosaurs do we want, and which ones do we want Maiasaura and Camarasaurus look less known than T rex and Triceratops? Thoughts? Carlwev ( talk) 16:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
But we have no other articles on types of dinosaurs, only articles on specific genera. Cobblet ( talk) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 missing major research organism.
If there's one species of fungi worth including because of its value as a model organism, surely it ought to be Saccharomyces cerevisiae, whose importance also extends to fermentation. And there's also Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Neurospora crassa to be considered. Cobblet ( talk) 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Cannabis focuses on the plant, Cannabis (drug) focuses on the drug uses of the plant, and is the more relevant topic to health and fitness. The article on the plant doesn't seem to be a vital article (although the article on the other major use of the plant, Hemp, might be).
So, remove Cannabis and add Cannabis (drug)? I have to think about it; but, I think that you are probably right that it's use as a drug far outweighs any other aspect of it. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 21:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. 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 theory in philosophy, but the use of the term in science to denote a well-substantiated explanation of experimental observations deserves separate treatment, I think.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rhea is a bigger moon than Enceladus
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More important and interesting constellation.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is Wikipedia 10,000 vital articles, not "Everybody loves everything about volcanoes," and this is a ridiculous number of extrusive igneous landforms to include among only 10,000 articles that include arts, history, geography, physics, chemistry, philosophy. None of these other articles are even in the same ballpark as volcano and mid ocean ridge. It's universe versus piece of dirt behind home plate. But, very American tourist centric. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Didn't even look at the article? Sigh. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 15:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. 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 commonly used crystallographic technique, with extensive applications in chemistry and molecular biology. It basically allows scientists to "see" molecules. Numerous Nobel Prizes in Chemistry have been awarded for the determination of molecular structures using this technique, e.g. that of the ribosome in 2009.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More general overview article. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 00:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thermodynamic state is a weird collection of stub/definition topics that someone put on the same page for some reason which is hard to discern. The 2nd law article is one of the most important topics in thermodynamics, and it's fairly well written.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Auger effect, while important, is hardly something I would expect anyone but physicists and chemist to care about that. Particle on the other hand, is a truly vital and fundamental concept of science.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already have Square metre.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already have Metre.
Actually, the League_(unit) article looks really weak. Mainly just a list of how it has differed by region followed by one of those terrible "in popular culture" lists under another name. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already have Light-year.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
We need the measurement system, not one of its units.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both largely obsolete.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Commonly used units in physics and chemistry/biochemistry. Both are non-SI units mentioned in the SI.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obviously non-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.
I was shocked to find that street isn't simply a redirect to road (which we have), but is defined in the article as essentially an urban road. Still I'm not convinced it's vital; we also have town square for instance. Let's replace it with the phenomenon of urbanization itself.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Pbp, I just wanted to clarify: are you suggesting we should have both street and road? Cobblet ( talk) 15:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cotton is the only specific crop listed in the Agriculture/Crops and livestock section. It would be better listed with similar articles on textile fibers (e.g. silk, wool, nylon) in the Crafts/Materials section of the Technology list.
The following discussion is closed. 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 didn't just start with the refrigerator, which is all we've got right now.
The crucial idea that made assembly lines possible. I think this is the sort of topic the Technology section is really lacking at the moment.
The following discussion is closed. 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 latter article's much stronger.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Technology is still below quota and there are no programming languages. Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Technology is still below quota and there are no programming languages.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
I will honestly give these some thought later, but at the moment before I've researched this I cannot see these programming languages as vital, it's only my opinion, and I don't want an argument over it, just let people vote and comment as normal. We have a lot missing from regular language also, may or may not get addressed? I think search engine may actually be better, everyone now a days uses google and others, c++ not so much. I will read about this later. Carlwev ( talk) 19:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Clearly the wrong article was chosen to represent this topic, assess both articles, all important information by far is located at Sailing article not Sailing ship. Sailing ship is only in one other language, Sailing itself in about 45 other languages. Carlwev ( talk) 18:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
Rockets include missiles as well. Cobblet ( talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Weapons" is clearly not the right name for a category that includes War elephant, Tank, Bomber and Battleship.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
V3n0M93, outside of Kung-fu movies, where are Nunchaku currently being used in any organized way (not just teenagers in an alley)? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wasn't this article the reason you wanted to remove Knife -- V3n0M93 ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Support !votes
Oppose !votes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because threads for Space Shuttle and space station removal have been posted, I will start this. Both those articles are also in the vital 1000 list, so keeping with the logic of the vital articles project, articles that are present in the 1000 list cannot be absent from the 10'000 list. People should be able to vote on those articles but logically bearing in mind they are present in both lists. I will expand the thread, to give people the option to vote on whether the articles should be in both lists, only the 10'000 but not the 1000 or remove them from both lists.
My belief is for a 1000 list space shuttle is not needed as we have space flight. We only have one article, aircraft to represent flight, and one article, ship to represent that area. Space flight probably doesn't need more, than transports that are much more widely used at the 1000 list. At the 1000 we have both space station and International Space Station. At least one of them should go I think, at a stretch both, I'm not sure which one should go, leaning toward removing space station, the specific example looks better than generic term for a 1000 list. I will bring up the International Space Station as a thread too as it is in the same vein. Within a list as big as 10'000 I think the topic of space flight should be expanded and cover these articles. I think they should stay in the 10'000 but maybe not the 1000, only my opinion.
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list
Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list
Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list
Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list
The following discussion is closed. 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.
We don't have the concept of a numerical base system.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Mean" is listed, but the actual article linked is Sample mean and sample covariance, which doesn't seem to be the best article on the concept. Nor is average, which talks about median and mode as if they were also averages, which they aren't. (They're different measures of central tendency.) I think the best article to include on the list is either mean or arithmetic mean. Cobblet ( talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now that the Geography section's being trimmed to a manageable size, I think we need to tackle the most over-represented section of the list: organisms. We have 1064 of them, more than 10% of the entire list. Anyone familiar with the Leptodactylidae or the Tapaculo? Or the Callitrichidae or the Potamogetonaceae? And looking at the subsections, it's obvious certain groups are disproportionately represented: 110 insects, 158 birds, 160 fishes and 170 mammals, but only 50 reptiles (including 14 dinosaurs) and 10 amphibians. I think I'd prefer keeping something like 50 insects, 50 birds, 50 fishes and 100 mammals, which would mean cutting ~250 articles. We also have 258 plants, which include a lot of edible nuts, grains, fruits and vegetables. That will need trimming as well.
I'm interested to hear what people think - I'm looking at you, User:GabeMc, User talk:Maunus, User:Purplebackpack89, User:Jusdafax, User:Rsm77. If there's support for major cuts I might try to come up with a mass deletion proposal tomorrow - it would take far too long to take things out one by one. I'm not a zoologist but I feel strongly that something drastic needs to be done; apart from freeing up space for other areas of the list, there are topics within biology and the health sciences like genome, food web, origin of life, computational biology and epidemiology that ought to make it in. Cobblet ( talk) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles to be removed
The following discussion is closed. 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'm not sure where to put this, but I find some of the inclusions and exclusion of languages puzzling. For example, why is Catalan considered vital, but not Danish or Norwegian? Catalan has only marginally more native speakers, and is considerably less important as a national or literary language than the two not included Scandinavian languages. Furthermore, surely it is vital for an English language encyclopedia to contain articles about Old English and Middle English? This is especially true when Old Church Slavonic and Ge'ez are considered vital. What about Yiddish? I'd say it's cultural importance as the historical language of Ashkenazi Jewry eclipses the importance of Oriya or Sundanese, however many speakers those languages may have. There's a general lack of dead Western European languages - Old Norse, Old French, and Old High German are all significant enough to the English-speaking world for me to think they're probably more vital than Ge'ez or Coptic. Obviously, systematic bias can be a problem, but we should also keep in mind that there are problems with the other direction as well - namely, that we are demanding articles on things that don't have much written about them in English, while neglecting subjects about which much ink has been spilled. For instance, it's much easier to learn at least the basics of Old English in the US than it is to learn Shona or Sundanese. Virtually every major university in the English-speaking world will have an Old English class. Much harder to find instruction in many of these other languages. At any rate, I'd at least propose adding Old English, Danish language, Norwegian language and Yiddish language to the Germanic languages. john k ( talk) 15:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
p b p 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
As with hit count, Google Books doesn't tell the whole story, largely for some of the reasons with hit count. For example, John F. Kennedy has a great deal of books written about him, but that doesn't make him one of the 10-15 most important figures in American history p b p 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. 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 as of 1700 UTC 10 August. Note: Not all subsections are listed
|
|
|
We are less than 100 articles from our goal! p b p 17:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This means we're actually under 10,000 articles, since we've already agreed to cut the 272 regions to at most 141 if we keep everything that's being voted on right now. Nice work folks. Cobblet ( talk) 22:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surveying was moved to geophysics, with a edit summary about moving it to geodesy. This doesn't make sense. Surveying in general is a very small part of geodesy, but it is a very large part of cartography, geomorphology, geology, geography. It does not belong under geophysics. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 21:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. 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 know how it was decided, but I am a cladist at heart; let's not call dinosaurs extinct reptiles in the list. This list has the potential to be public, and errors as big as birds as reptiles can attract unpleasant commentary and remove the focus from content. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 14:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IMO, the current wording for add/remove/swap threads is a bit lacking:
Individual topic discussions may remain open for 90 days or more, but will be archived when it becomes apparent that consensus is unlikely to be reached. We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed as a consensus change if (a) a 5−0 (or greater) unanimous !vote has been achieved, or (b) six or more editors have participated in the discussion and there is an !vote of 70% or greater in favor of or opposed to the proposed addition, removal or swap. Please be patient with our process; we believe that wider participation by more editors, with more informed discussion, are better and more likely to produce an improved and stable final list.
In particular this text-string needs work:
We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed as a consensus change if (a) a 5−0 (or greater) unanimous !vote has been achieved, or (b) six or more editors have participated in the discussion and there is an !vote of 70% or greater in favor of or opposed to the proposed addition, removal or swap.
This might need some tweaking, but I think its a step in the right direction. IMO, we should strive to remove any and all grey area whereby someone could be criticized for closing a thread that was older than 15 days. As long as these concrete rules are obeyed there will be no room for disagreement. Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking at this sub-topic, it strikes me that 400 articles doesn't seem nearly enough. The Philosophy section looks basically fine, but the material on religion and mythology seems remarkably bare-bones, especially when we compare to some other sections. In the "People" section, for instance, we have a bunch of Biblical prophets and we have Arius, the founder of Arianism. In the religion section, the only articles on the Bible we have are Bible, Tanakh, and Torah. No articles on individual books. We also don't have Arianism, which seems pretty clearly more vital to me than Arius. The articles on Christian denominations are fairly minimalist, too. In an English language encyclopedia, I'd think the Church of England warrants inclusion separate from Anglicanism (a topic with which it has wide overlaps, but is not a subset - "Anglicanism" as a concept significantly post-dates the separation of the Church of England from Rome, arguably not really emerging until the Oxford Movement in the 19th century). Given their influence on the English language, the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer seem pretty vital to me. (There seems broadly to be very little recognition here, in general, of the idea that, in an English language encyclopedia, subjects having to do with the English language and English-speaking countries might warrant somewhat heavier coverage than they would in some imaginary universal encyclopedia). Also ignored are the Nicene Creed and historical topics - none of the Ecumenical Councils is included either here or in history. In the eastern religions, important concepts like the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths don't appear, nor do many important religious texts (while we have numerous articles in People about quite obscure Buddhist and Hindu religious figures - how is Valmiki more important than the Puranas?) The Hindu concept of caste seems to appear neither here nor in anthropology, and the individual Varnas aren't included, either. Important denominations of Islam like Twelver and Ismaili Shi'ism are also not included.
Moving to mythology, this looks self-evidently weak to me. Only three articles from Norse mythology, two on different versions of the same deity? Nothing on the Eddas, or any of the sagas (either here or in arts, as far as I can tell). Not even Loki? Greek mythology is somewhat fuller, but even here there are odd omissions - Theseus comes particularly strongly to mind, but I feel like Greek mythology is a pretty vital area of knowledge, and it's covered rather intermittently. It doesn't help that some of the articles seem poorly selected. Why so many articles on Roman deities who are basically just renamed versions of Greek gods? Jupiter and Mars perhaps warrant distinct coverage, but I'm less certain why the others do. Certainly Rpman gods don't really deserve any coverage as mythology - it is the Roman gods' status as cult objects that makes them distinct from Greek deities, not the stories about them, which, with a few exceptions, they stole wholesale from the Greeks.
So, anyway, I'd suggest that there needs to be a considerably higher quota for Philosophy and Religion, in order to allow for more expansive coverage of religions and mythology. john k ( talk) 18:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There should be a balance between topics of interest internationally and topics of interest in the English-speaking world. Generally, I think the list should tilt towards international coverage (though there are different ways to interpret what international coverage is). I don't think we should compare with other lists like the project for "articles every wikipedia should have" or versions of this in other languages. They are not very good and seem to all be based on earlier versions of this list rather than built from the ground up. (Whereas I think this list has improved from the attention paid to it.) Finally, I think that the current quotas are not necessarily that great, so should perhaps not have so much weight. -- Rsm77 ( talk) 23:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)