![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Hi - I think Albert Speer should be included in the list of 10,000, but firstly, I do not know into what category he would best be placed, as he was first Hitler's architect, then Armaments Minister in the Third Reich, next he was a Nazi war criminal, and finally best-selling author. How would one categorize him? Where to propose placing him? And this is important I think because if I understand correctly, someone/thing else would have to be ejected from the list to facilitate Speer's inclusion, no? Please advise, as I have never contributed to discussion concerning this list of 10,000 before. Thank you. joepa T 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The amount of articles for geography is far below its target number due to large amounts of deletions in recent months. I think that the target number should be reduced, as most additions to that part of the list are not approved. I am not sure which sections will have their goal numbers increased, though. Perhaps People? -- Dagko ( talk) 00:40, 24 December 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.
One of the most influential playwrights of modern era, recipient of Nobel Prize in Literature, 1997.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looks like there's no support for this. I wonder if anyone thinks Commedia dell'arte is something worth adding though. Cobblet ( talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Cuban trova artist known throughout the Latin world.
The main developer of contemporary Mexican ranchero music, and author/composer of most of the best known ranchero ballads known throughout Latin America.
Essential exponents of Irish music worldwide.
Um, didn't we either vote to remove them, or have a failed add proposal, within the last 6 months? p b p 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
He is primarily a singer appreciated by non-Latin people, primarily interpreting already existing Latin music for a non-Latin audience he has not participated in developing any genre of Latin music.
Composer of children's music known in all of Latin America, even inspiring Walt Disney's "Jiminy Cricket" with his character Cri-Cri.
The voice that characterized Latin American music in the 1980s and 1990s. Known throughout Latin America.
I know I have tried this before. She is essential to contemporary Latin Music, as her grammy record over two decades shows (much more impressive than "Les Paul's" which was used as an argument for keeping him in musicians.).
Essential musician representing African music well known in the west as well as throughout Africa (severely underrepresented continent). We currently have one (1) African musical artist out of 175.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Essential musician representing African music well known in the west as well as throughout Africa (severely underrepresented continent). There is now exactly one (1) African musician out of 175.
The following discussion is closed. 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. Classical singers overrepresented. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Not vital. Classical singers overrepresented. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Opera is well represented by composers and compositions, so I agree that we don't need so many singers. However, I can't support randomly removing people when no specific reason is given. Cobblet ( talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pioneer in Microcredit and Social business, Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2006.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As above, the most significant Irish politician of the 20th 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.
There seems to be an edit war going on between User:Sepsis II and other editors as to whether the State of Palestine should be listed as an unrecognized state or a recognized one. Since this is almost certainly a controversial edit, discussion on that move should occur here. I take no position. p b p 23:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The sections are not entitled "UN members" and "non-UN member states". The dividing line is based on recognition. I don't know what's unclear here - Palestine clearly doesn't fall into the "unrecognized or largely unrecognized" category when it's recognized a majority of other states. Neljack ( talk) 07:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on all points; but maybe Ypnypn's suggestion (dividing countries into UN full members vs. not) would make our job easier by removing this source of controversy. Cobblet ( talk) 23:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Taiwan, while it has a much lower level of international recognition than your regular state, is a stable state with its low level of official recognition being solely due to PRC interference. Taiwan is quite different from the other nations in the category. I do not see Kosovo as equivalent to Taiwan as the situation with Kosovo is still developing. Sepsis II ( talk) 23:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually Kosovo is the other one whose categorisation is inappropriate - it too is recognized by a majority of states, so it should be moved from the "unrecognized or largely unrecognized" category. Neljack ( talk) 07:21, 15 December 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.
Rotterdam is a city of more than a million people, the second-largest in the Netherlands. It is the third busiest port in the world and the busiest in Europe (and indeed anywhere outside of East Asia). It was the busiest in the world from 1962 to 2004. It is a major transportation hub and is often dubbed the "Gateway to Europe".
Monte Carlo has a population of 15,000. It is chiefly known as a resort, for its casino and for the Formula 1 Grand Prix. It may be listed under cities, but it is not one - it is just an administrative areas or "quarter" of Monaco, which is a city-state and already on the list as a country. I am not aware that we list any other specific parts of cities (except the Vatican, which of course is a sovereign state) and I see no reason to do so here.
I think a large city that is one of the most important ports in the world is more vital than a part of a city we already have. Neljack ( talk) 12:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll put you down for support as nom. then. On top of the small size and redundancy to Monaco itself, Monte Carlo was only founded in 1866 so also lacks the history many cities have, of many 100's or 1000's of years. Carlwev ( talk) 13:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After a swap thread was just closed and passed, We removed " art" from the 10 and 100, and replaced it with " the arts". We have now art in the vital 1000 and 10'000 but not 10 or 100, which is OK. But we also now have The arts in the vital 10 and 100 but not 1000 or 10'000, following the logic we've tried to follow up until now, if we want the arts in the vital 10 and 100, we have to have it in the 1000 and 10'000 too. (Personally I much preferred the "Art" article as the higher but what is passed is passed.) I would at least keep art at the 1000 and 10'000 levels, and just add "the arts" to those lists with out swapping anything out Carlwev ( talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
We've added it to the 10, 100 and 1000 logically it needs to be in this list as well. Carlwev ( talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Carlwev, I already added the arts to the Level 3 list. Did I misread that discussion when I closed it? Cobblet ( talk) 20:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Medea is primarily a literary figure known form Euripides play, not a mythological figure.
Conan the Barbarian originated as a literary character in 1930s Pulp Fiction by John Howard. He is currently located among the comic book characters.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add mug in place of silverware? under tableware we have knife, fork, spoon, chopsticks and plate. Mug seems to be the missing main eating and drinking utensil. Article in about 36 languages, fairly long article. Not immensely important but just as important as the other tableware and I'm only bringing this up now as a default swap for silverware. But I like posting for votes separately. Carlwev ( talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Cup. that's a valid point. No cup is not in yet. I did take a look at cup and I did think about suggesting it Your right it would make sense. I always thought cup was the general or parent term, but when I looked at the articles " cup" and " mug" I noticed cup was in no other languages at all, mug is in 35 other languages. Rightly or wrongly I thought at the time maybe other languages consider mug the proper word as a translation for their word for drinking vessel, and so I chose that. But thinking now it's probably a translation issue within Wikipedia, as I am surprised cup is in completely no other languages. If I had ignored that I would have posted cup and not mug, the more I think about I agree with you we should probably have cup before mug. I'd support if someone opened that, maybe I'll open it myself a bit later. Carlwev ( talk) 20:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't really see why this was added. I would suggest remove it and adding Linen to textiles. Or we could just remove it outright I don't mind which, whatever we vote. Look at the articles, similar titles but different articles.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Baseball and the MLB. We don't have any soccer leagues p b p 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. 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 current list of companies is biased in a number of ways. Firstly, all of the companies listed are from the US. You expect American companies to dominate but the USA doesn't represent 100% of the world's economy and so companies from other countries should be added. The list is also fairly limited in terms of industry but is a little bit more diverse. There are 3 IT companies (Apple, Microsoft, IBM), one telecommunications corporation (AT&T), one in retail (Walmart), one in oil (Standard Oil) and one conglomerate (General Electric).
The other less obvious bias is recentism. It looks like somebody mostly copied and pasted the list from the top of either List of corporations by market capitalization or List of largest companies by revenue. The current list represent the bigest companies of this decade only. Most of the companies just like most of the other articles on VA should be able to stand the test of time. Historically significant companies should ideally be added.
The types of companies that in my opinion have a strong case include British East India Company, Toyota, Royal Dutch Shell, Volkswagen and Nestlé. But there will be many more companies which I haven't thought about which is why I think having an open discussion first is better than going straight into specific swap proposals. Gizza ( t)( c) 23:53, 27 November 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.
How a Secret Spy Pact Helped Win the Cold War
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As Cobblet said, I could probably be talked into supporting just plain "surveillance" if everyone else likes it too. Someone should start the thread for that. Carlwev ( talk) 17:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The most powerful espionage alliance in world history.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Obviously vital, appears to be missing.
I haven't cast a vote yet. I was thinking the phylum it belongs to may be better Nematode. I noticed that's already in Invertebrates, other among the animals (somewhere here), This may or may not effect peoples' views, just thought I'd share my thoughts. Carlwev ( talk) 11:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These are seven orders and one suborder of insects that don't seem vital to me as a layman. Even if you don't believe 88 articles on insects is too much, surely we can find better entries than these.
The following discussion is closed. 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 commonly used measurement of measuring the size of gems p b p 23:45, 29 December 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 psychological concept that might be worth adding.
Not sure this is the right article. Risk is more about economic risk than a psychological concept (though perhaps worth adding to an economics section of the vital list?). There's clearly something psychological deeper than just risking loss of money, but I'm not sure what article covers it. Anxiety, perhaps? Whatever the psychological concept is, I don't think humans are the only ones to experience it. An animal weighing its thirst versus increased exposure to predators at a water hole is analyzing/experiencing risk. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While certainly a controversial figure, he was a cultural touchstone of the mid-20th century and one of the more successful publishers of his era p b p 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious that there are far more noteworthy Americans than Hugh Hefner not currently on the list. For example, he barely made it into a list of most influential living Americans published by the Atlantic in 2006. Compiled at the same time ( these were the people on the panel) was a list of the 100 most influential figures in all of American history; by my count, our list omits no less than 28 of the people listed there. Of course, I'm not saying that list can't be disputed, but look at just the names in their top 50 we've left out:
It seems obvious to me that Hugh Hefner (not to mention many Americans currently on our list, e.g. athletes, actors and journalists) doesn't hold a candle to any of these folks. Cobblet ( talk) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The cut-off b/w early modern and modern seems to be about 1815. Sitting Bull was active mostly after 1815 p b p 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with this. Looking at other sections of the list although I haven't by any means checked it all, in authors for example Shakespeare is in Early Modern. Modern authors includes people earlier than Sitting Bull, William Blake and Jane Austen where born in the mid to late 1700's and died in the early 1800's, in fact Austen died in 1817, so practically her whole life is before 1815 and she's still classed as modern. Sitting Bull is said to be born c.1831. I wonder if anyone else is seemingly out of place, or out of time, or should we be setting a clear cut off point? The articles on Modern and Early Modern say the cut of is even earlier at c.1800. Carlwev ( talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My reading of the history of broadcasting leads me to believe that there are probably only three figures worth having on this list: David Sarnoff (not currently on the list; nominated under Businesspeople), Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.
The following discussion is closed. 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 recently added to the level 3 list to replace History of the Americas.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently added to the level 3 list to replace History of China. The level 4 list does not have History of Mongolia or History of Tibet; this article would ostensibly cover those topics.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
History of England primarily deals with history prior to formation of the Union; subsequent events are treated summarily and only in the context of England itself.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the 10 highest points on earth, & highest in Oceania -- being higher than Mauna Kea. (If New Guinea is considered part of Australia, then being higher than Mount Kosciuszko it would be the highest point in that continent.) I feel the reason it hasn't been included is due to lack of familiarity (I only learned of its existence a little while ago) & quibbling over definitions (is New Guinea part of Australia, Oceania, Asia, or none of the above?) -- llywrch ( talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't voted yet, and I'm not saying how vital or not this is. I would like to point out Puncak Jaya is 4884 m high, the highest 100 mountains of the world are all over 7200 m high. This mountain is one of the highest mountains taking into account Topographic prominence and appears in the List of peaks by prominence as 9th most prominent. The articles explain in more detail, but it's basically because this mountain on a island not a continent, so it's more prominent as it's not overshadowed by other high mountains on the same mountain range or landmass, it has no parent peak as it were. I would like to check which other peaks from the highest and most prominent mountain lists we have or not. Puncak is 9th most prominent, do we have the first 8 most prominent? Carlwev ( talk) 18:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the two main types of literature. We have some types of non-fiction ( dictionary, encyclopedia, thesaurus) but not the overarching category.
I disagree that it's a redundant concept. Surely creative nonfiction counts as "art literature". Cobblet ( talk) 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For some bizarre reason the former's listed under Industry in Technology.
I think Scuba diving is definitely more vital and I support adding it. The scuba set article although lower, is fairly significant, and it is kind of a technology. This swap would improve the list, I'm just wandering if I would have both, or is it too much. Although I see the scuba diving article contains sections for the equipment anyway, so it may be enough. Carlwev ( talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would have thought this quite vital, important topic in medicine/biology, I can imagine seeing this in a print encyclopedia.
I thought about other cells, they would be covered by their organ/tissue, skin cell by skin, muscle cell by muscle, fat cell etc. Stem cell by its nature has no specific tissue/organ. Carlwev ( talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Drugs are probably encyclopedia material when you get to 10'000 articles. We do list some such as opium, and caffeine although they're scattered abound chemistry, plants and drugs, depending on what they are, plant or chemical etc. But we are missing some fairly well know, used and studied drugs, like morphine, heroin, ecstasy and cannabis. I'll open Cannabis (drug) for now as some other user's have informed me they think it may belong, I may open some more later. What are others thoughts on these? Carlwev ( talk) 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
See comment above in drugs
This discussion is relevant. Cobblet ( talk) 20:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've got alternative medicine and pseudoscience; we don't need all of these 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.
Another missing disease. Although more of an inconvenience in the West like the common cold or flu, which we include anyway, it is serious illness in the developing world, and historically much of the world. According to article, there are 2.5 billion cases of diarrhoea a year, kills 2.5 million a year, killed 5 million a year 2 - 3 decades ago. Second highest cause of infant death, just behind pneumonia. Causes 16% of all infant deaths. Carlwev ( talk) 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, depends on your definition of disease, but yes you're right it's definitely not a germ, virus or organism though correct. Is it still an important topic even though it's not an actual virus? maybe, maybe not. I thought of Gastroenteritis too that is also not there, well thought of. Would you support Gastroenteritis, or do you think this is best left alone? We could put a thread for that too, to see if users prefer that instead? thank you for your help. Carlwev ( talk) 21:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We just added it to the 1000 list. This is surely vital and a must have if it's in the shorter list already. I would put it with anatomy myself but next to human is OK I guess. Carlwev ( talk) 15:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll add this too anatomy, we don't list feather under bird it's under anatomy, human body should be there too. Carl wev 14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A non-vital type of glacial landform (which has just been added). Compare moraine or drumlin, which are also not on the list.
I wasn't very keen on Glacial landform but I didn't want to be the one to block it, it was on 5-2 my vote would have stopped it but I didn't want to be the baddie. I believe Cirque is pretty decent article standing alone, trying to have the catch'em all phase in this case to save space, I'm not keen on I don't think it does the topic justice. There is an article on Coastal landform that we don't have. That could feasibly replace beach, cliff, coast and peninsula but I don't think that would be good either. Carlwev ( talk) 12:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the most important experiments in the history of physics deserves to be a VA.
I agree on its importance, but am a bit concerned with the overlap with wave–particle duality (the experiment being the most concrete proof of this concept), and wonder if we really need both articles. FWIW we also have Thomas Young listed under People, but since Young is known for many things besides this experiment I don't think that's an issue. Cobblet ( talk) 08:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are many significant bridges world wide, both old and new, especially with rapid modern construction in Asia. I'm not sure how many bridges we would want to settle on but at the moment we have 9 individual bridges and 3 of those are in New York, which seems unbalanced. Brooklyn Bridge is probably the most notable, do we need both George Washington Bridge and Verrazano–Narrows Bridge as well, could we remove one or both of them?
Although not my favourite ideas for additions, since we're listing transport structures, we have several bridges, a few canals and a handful of underground train networks, why not balance it with a few of the worlds most notable airports? Again not my favourite idea but why not? Airports are just as notable as bridges and subways aren't they? What do people think? Carlwev ( talk) 18:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cited by the media as India's most popular actor. Second highest paid actor in whole of Asia.
I wonder how his legacy will compare with Raj Kapoor or Guru Dutt, neither of whom are on the list. Cobblet ( talk) 08:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Maunus has argued for the inclusion of a large number of Latin musicians. Meanwhile after the removal of Yo-Yo Ma there is not a single person of East Asian extraction on the list. If diversity is a primary concern for us, then Teresa Teng has a strong case to be on here. She was the most famous Chinese musician of any kind in the 20th century, and possibly in all of Chinese history (for some reason, despite a rich musical history, the Chinese don't have much of a tradition of venerating individual musicians). Her songs (her signature being The Moon Represents My Heart) are well known throughout East and Southeast Asia.
reopen this one, has only been open 10 days this one, I can see how it was overlooked. I will support this because I don't think the add is brilliant, but I think it's OK, I wouldn't want a 4-0 thread closed as failed I don't think it is following consensus, and I almost feel a little bad for the voters. If we are trying to be more "global" and as China has over one sixth of the world population, perhaps their top modern musician, should have a shot. Carl wev 16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the only singer before the recording era who might deserve a place on this list might be Farinelli, the most celebrated of the castrati. Lind is essentially remembered only as part of a publicity stunt staged by P. T. Barnum. She is not otherwise more notable than other once-famous but now-forgotten opera sopranos of the 19th century such as Thérèse Tietjens and Adelina Patti.
Sorry, I should have said "essentially remembered today". Any modern-day reference to Lind is made almost invariably in conjunction with her US tour. Cobblet ( talk) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we really need a classical flautist on this list? I'm not even sure Rampal's the most important flautist in history – he has to contend with Johann Joachim Quantz. Classical music has many examples of people who put their instrument on the map – classical guitar has Andrés Segovia, the horn has Dennis Brain, the double bass has Domenico Dragonetti, etc.; I'm not sure Rampal has a better or worse claim to be on this list than any of them. Also we already have several examples of woodwind instrumentalists among the jazz musicians.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Pivotal female tennis player from France. She was arguably the first female tennis superstar and the one who put women's tennis on the map in the 1920s. She was the world's number one female tennis player for at least six years and was almost undefeated during this time. She won Wimbledon and the French Championships six times each. The French Open Women's Singles trophy is named after her (Coupe Suzanne Lenglen).
User:Wolbo, there is a general feeling that athletes are overrepresented on this list at the expense of other types of historical figures. To pick some random examples from French history, we don't have Louis IX of France, Jean de La Fontaine or Abbé Pierre. Obviously it's not easy to compare people from totally different areas, but are there any tennis players on the list you would consider removing to make room for Lenglen? Cobblet ( talk) 19:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since User:Wolbo and User:Fyunck(click) have agreed on one person to remove, I'll make the proposal here. Initially I had my doubts – Gibson's role in tennis has been compared to Jackie Robinson's in baseball – but African-American athletes actually seem to be quite well represented, and I think it's likely there are more deserving African-Americans in other fields to include on the list – W. E. B. Du Bois, Thurgood Marshall, Zora Neale Hurston, etc. Gibson's achievements don't quite measure up to those of the other tennis players we have here.
I am seriously thinking about supporting the other tennis player add, seeing as 4 of you like her already, and this one is kind of a swap. How many tennis players do we really want though, I would have thought 10 or less, what number do other's think. I ask the expert among us for guidance on who the weak links may be, and who the top 10 most vital players are in order, in your opinion, so we can consider, a more enlightened opinion before making our minds up. Clearly one of us is much more knowledgeable about this topic which is very helpful. The number of tennis players is not the only sportsperson list which I'm questioning the number for either. Also would we trim sportspeople even more or keep the total number similar and just redistribute the numbers among people from different sports instead? Or leave it alone? Carl wev 10:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Same rationale as above.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Same rationale as above.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Investigative journalism is well represented on the list by Nellie Bly, Upton Sinclair, Ida Tarbell, and in the modern era, Bob Woodward. I think we can afford to remove Hersh to include Noah Webster, #71 on The Atlantic's 2006 list of the most influential Americans. Through his eponymous dictionary and his American Spelling Book (which taught five generations of Americans how to spell and has been estimated to have sold over 100 million copies), he is credited with "giving America a language of its own." He enthusiastically championed the cause of American nationalism through his pamphleteering and journalism (he's regarded by some as a Founding Father), and he founded New York City's first daily newspaper.
The following discussion is closed. 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 removing another relatively obscure figure (other foreign correspondents on the list are Robert Fisk and Ernie Pyle) for the man who has been credited with writing both the first modern English novel ( Robinson Crusoe) and the first piece of modern journalism ( The Storm).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Portugal role on the global stage was larger in history, it had an empire, colonized parts of Asia, Africa and S. America. Is one of the oldest nations in the world, and made Portuguese a major language, mostly in Brazil. Carl wev 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
How about removing History of the European Union? The EU was only created in its present form in 1993, and European history is over-represented on the list to begin with. Cobblet ( talk) 07:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two articles about peoples/civilization in the wider ancient Middle East area.
Canaan is B-class article and exists in 58 languages, Canaan arose anywhere from 6000 BC to 3000 BC depending on definition and sources and lasted to about 500 BC, covered virtually the whole Levant, the history of a large area of people for 1000's of years spanning from nomadic stone age, and Chalcolithic prehisory to agricultural bronze age and iron age, with information about them coming from modern archaeology, and traded with and where recorded by several other civilizations texts, like Egyptians, Hittites, Sumer and Assyria.
The Sabeans were a people who around for less than 1000 years in a smaller area both sides of the Red Sea's Bab el Mandeb straight, in modern day Djibouti and Yemen, they were conquered twice by the Himyarite Kingdom which seems more notable and we don't have. Their history is harder to come by and half our articles history on them is quoted from the Quran and the book of Job, Sabiens is a start class article and appears in 23 languages. Smaller in area, smaller in time span and smaller in available historical texts to read from. Carl wev 18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If you're looking for something to swap with, I'd ask whether we need Pharaoh when I don't think we have any other articles on generic rulers of a specific civilization – no Roman emperor or Roman Senate for instance (or Senate for that matter). Cobblet ( talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The concept and modern nations of North and South Korea have only existed since World War 2. But Korea has existed in some form since Ancient times. I know I have good and bad ideas but this is one I truly believe is very vital. We have Korea Strait and Korean Peninsula, both of which are less vital and could go in a swap if people prefer. Here and probably print encyclopedias most relevant info is/would be at Korea not Korean Peninsula. I don't think it's redundant to the nations as we would remove Scandinavia, British Isles, Great Britain or Ireland as we also have the nations of those regions too. Plus the nations are relatively young compared to Korea. The history, culture, language of Korea is huge, and usually covered as a single entity not two. (Eg here we have history of Korea, not history of North and South Korea.) I suggested it as a swap in July see here for an Antarctic Territory, in fact it was closed as failed with 6-3 support, which would actually be a pass now. I am also considering some removals from geography like peninsulas that may be redundant like Scandinavian, and Korean peninsulas. Carlwev ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
OK thank you for your input. Only I always thought Korea to be a very significant region, if you use only that logic, one cold argue we should have no region at all anywhere that is not a nation, as every patch of ground everywhere is covered by a nation. No Scandinavia, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Caribbean, Latin America, England, Great Britain etc.
The article on Korea seems so much better to have than Korean Peninsula, at least to me. To alleviate that problem, would this work as a swap for the peninsula then? Would that be better? I may suggest that instead. Or do you think this is best left alone? Carlwev ( talk) 18:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In terms of geographic extent, Korea and the Korean Peninsula are completely contiguous with one another. It's just that the latter is strictly a geomorphological term while the former can refer to the culture as well. Any discussion of a culture must include its geographical context, so I think including a separate article on the peninsula isn't necessary. It's like having both Korea and Geography of Korea (which could easily be merged with the article on the peninsula).
I was just starting a swap thread in another tab but you beat me to it. I support the remove, only if Korea itself is added. Supporting a swap in 2 halves as it were, same thing. As Gabe said the article on Korea is much better written and fleshed out, and it's what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia, and agree with Cobblet's comments too. Carlwev ( talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For extended family relationships we already list cousin, aunt and uncle. I don't think we need this too—it would be like listing grandchildren in addition to grandparents. Indeed the article itself is very weak.
The following discussion is closed. 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 listed under programs but it's a channel, not a program, and we don't need it when we already have BBC.
Yes as it's a channel not a show, if we had a channel wouldn't it be BBC1? but no that's redundant to BBC also. Seeing as we removed all networks other than BBC, we can't leave 2 BBC slots. For TV/film, could we have Documentary film or Movie theater as a replacement? Carl wev 11:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To mass media or film? One of the basic program and film formats. There are lots of documentaries about many many things on terrestrial and cable/satellite television, and some in theatres too. Cable/satellite TV have lots of channels dedicated to just documentaries. Some very notable people are known primarily from documentaries, such as David Attenborough. While maybe no single documentary film, program, series or channel may be worth including, I believe the overall topic is.
If we include over 100 fiction film actors in addition to many film directors, should we have a person from the documentary film area? I've had my mind on David Attenborough, a decorated "Sir" of over 60 years work. Anyone like the idea of him, I believe him more notable than most journalists, some of which are going, both areas document things, one news and the other nature. Carl wev 11:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Starfish is today's featured article, I thought I'd check if we have it and we don't. Much more important than half the plants, bugs and insects we have. Interesting to general readers and experts. Carlwev ( talk) 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recommended by Cobblet, but I agree this. Sponge and Echinoderm are important, well known and missing animal phyla, with several insects and plants being removed soon, I believe we would improve the list by adding these. Nothing really covers these well at the moment apart from the very wide articles "animal" and "invertebrate". Carlwev ( talk) 11:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. 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 relatively minor order of arachnids (~1000 species). All larger orders (ticks and mites, spiders, harvestmen, pseudoscorpions, scorpions) are 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.
A minor order (~800 species) within Entognatha, which is also on the list.
A minor order (~700 species) within Entognatha, which is 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.
Earthworm and Flatworm got more support than I expected, Leeches I think are important, with their use in medicine for thousands of years making them more notable. There are 700 species known, which not the highest compared to other groups we do list smaller groups like tsetse fly with 23 species, or many many individual species of birds and mammals. Carlwev ( talk) 13:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tetra is a common name for fish in 3 different families, many of which are popular aquarium fishes. The article is essentially a list of species to which the common name is applied. This is not vital article material. Articles on the "tetra" species most important to aquarium hobbyists (e.g. Neon tetra) would be more appropriate for inclusion.
The following discussion is closed. 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 barreleye, batrachoididae, cetomimiformes, beardfish, beryciformes, gonorynchiformes, gymnotiformes, esociformes, gasterosteiformes, gobiesocidae, jellynose fish, lampriformes, percopsiformes, stephanoberyciformes, synbranchiformes, zeiformes. These orders contain between 10 and 200 species (for comparison, there are currently about 33,000 fish species known), and some of them are already represented on the list by a particular genus or species. None of these orders look particularly vital in an ecological, economic or evolutionary sense. There's the occasional species, genus or family that's fished commercially – Zeidae for example – but when we're also missing things like menhaden, shad, Sciaenidae, Scomberesocidae or hake (to name some random examples off this list of commercially important species), I don't think we're removing anything terribly important.
Building the organism section of the vital list by top down inclusion of high taxonomic ranks is not the way to go. Orders are fairly important taxonomically, but not every fish order is vital, although it appears that every fish order is currently on the vital list. Stephanoberyciformes are "45... mostly uncommon deep-sea species with little, if any, importance to commercial fishery". That's not a subject that is vital article material. In my mind, there are 3 general ways an article on an organism might be vital: evolutionary significance, ecological significance and human significance. And human significance generally outweighs ecological which usually outweighs evolutionary. Orders (and families and phyla) are de facto evolutionarily significant groups of organisms, but I'd argue that species number is another aspect of evolutionary significance (a family with 10,000 species is probably more important than an order with 45). Ecological significance depends on how widely distributed organisms are across the globe, how common they are in the areas they occur, and their interactions with other important organisms. Human significance should really be the kicker for whether something is on the vital list (I assume we're writing an encyclopedia for humans to read). That can take a number of forms; organisms significant to humans could be pets, food sources, disease vectors, national symbols, model organisms in lab research, or even just marvels of nature.
Stephanoberyciformes are not evolutionarily significant (45 species), ecologically significant ("mostly uncommon"), or significant to humans "deep-sea...little if any, importance to commercial fishery", and the other nominated orders are pretty similar. Several of the nominated orders are deep sea fishes, and I'd rather see deep sea fish on the vital list (as a general interest broad concept article covering some "marvels of nature") than listing every taxonomically minor order of fishes. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To complement the proposed removal above which includes several predominantly deep sea fish orders ( barreleye, cetomimiformes, beardfish, beryciformes, jellynose fish, lampriformes, stephanoberyciformes). Deep sea fish is a broad concept article that is of more general interest. Deep sea fishes include many wonderously bizarre organisms that aren't vital individually, but may be of sufficient interest to be vital collectively. The deep sea is by far the largest habitat on earth, and the fish that live there are (by some measures) the most ecologically dominant organisms in that habitat.
I agree with this, the same way an article like seabird, is good instead of having several or one seabird. Deep sea fish article looks good not in many languages but maybe they may follow?? general wide topic is better than picking or two in this case, although anglerfish and lanternfish (possibly 65% of deep sea biomass, surprising) are not bad. Deep sea fish would be good if we do or do not list any examples. Carl wev 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I haven't got much to say on this other than, it's a variety of celery which we already have, I'm not sure how many slots we want for plants or food but I don't think this one is the most vital within our current space. There must be a few more important species and foods or drinks we don't have. Champagne anyone?
I might support this but I want to find some production statistics first. Celeriac is a variety of celery in the same way that cabbage is a variety of broccoli; they are different vegetable varieties of the same plant species. Cabbage, broccoli and Brassica oleracea each have separate articles. Celery and Apium graveolens are at the same article. While celery is by far the most common A. graveolens vegetable in North American supermarkets, I understand that celeriac is pretty common in continental Europe, and Chinese celery is more common in Asia (and not exactly rare in Europe). And I'm open to considering that celery/Apium graveolens doesn't belong on the vital list either; the list of vegetables could certainly be cut further. Plantdrew ( talk) 05:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure why we would edible seaweed before seaweed itself. The seaweed article covers biological information the edible article does not plus it contains sections about its use as food anyway and other uses in industry like fertilizer. The Japanese and Korean language Wikipedias, areas where seaweed is perhaps more widely eaten, do not even have a separate distinct article for specifically edible seaweed, only seaweed itself, and some edible varieties like Arame. Carl wev 09:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A subfamily of only 30 species. Very minor importance as food for humans, some importance as food for wildlife. They do occur throughout the world, but these really aren't very important plants overall.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fairly minor importance as a food plant. A significant agricultural weed, but I'm not sure it is vital as a weed (and weed ought to be added to vital list before any particular plant is a "vital weed").
If weed were added, where should it go? Under plants? Agriculture? Plantdrew ( talk) 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is already on the level 2 and 3 lists: it's the terrestrial complement of sea.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add Linen to textiles. To replace Linens in everyday life. Not up there with cotton or silk but important; important enough though? lets see, much better choice than linens though. Carlwev ( talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Flax was recently added after this discussion. I'm not sure that including both flax and linen is necessary, but don't have any strong opinion about which to include if only one is listed. Here is a link to some production statistics for natural fibers. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we're going to add linen as a natural fiber then we definitely need jute, which is second only to cotton in terms of world production.
![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Hi - I think Albert Speer should be included in the list of 10,000, but firstly, I do not know into what category he would best be placed, as he was first Hitler's architect, then Armaments Minister in the Third Reich, next he was a Nazi war criminal, and finally best-selling author. How would one categorize him? Where to propose placing him? And this is important I think because if I understand correctly, someone/thing else would have to be ejected from the list to facilitate Speer's inclusion, no? Please advise, as I have never contributed to discussion concerning this list of 10,000 before. Thank you. joepa T 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The amount of articles for geography is far below its target number due to large amounts of deletions in recent months. I think that the target number should be reduced, as most additions to that part of the list are not approved. I am not sure which sections will have their goal numbers increased, though. Perhaps People? -- Dagko ( talk) 00:40, 24 December 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.
One of the most influential playwrights of modern era, recipient of Nobel Prize in Literature, 1997.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looks like there's no support for this. I wonder if anyone thinks Commedia dell'arte is something worth adding though. Cobblet ( talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Cuban trova artist known throughout the Latin world.
The main developer of contemporary Mexican ranchero music, and author/composer of most of the best known ranchero ballads known throughout Latin America.
Essential exponents of Irish music worldwide.
Um, didn't we either vote to remove them, or have a failed add proposal, within the last 6 months? p b p 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
He is primarily a singer appreciated by non-Latin people, primarily interpreting already existing Latin music for a non-Latin audience he has not participated in developing any genre of Latin music.
Composer of children's music known in all of Latin America, even inspiring Walt Disney's "Jiminy Cricket" with his character Cri-Cri.
The voice that characterized Latin American music in the 1980s and 1990s. Known throughout Latin America.
I know I have tried this before. She is essential to contemporary Latin Music, as her grammy record over two decades shows (much more impressive than "Les Paul's" which was used as an argument for keeping him in musicians.).
Essential musician representing African music well known in the west as well as throughout Africa (severely underrepresented continent). We currently have one (1) African musical artist out of 175.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Essential musician representing African music well known in the west as well as throughout Africa (severely underrepresented continent). There is now exactly one (1) African musician out of 175.
The following discussion is closed. 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. Classical singers overrepresented. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Not vital. Classical singers overrepresented. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Opera is well represented by composers and compositions, so I agree that we don't need so many singers. However, I can't support randomly removing people when no specific reason is given. Cobblet ( talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pioneer in Microcredit and Social business, Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2006.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As above, the most significant Irish politician of the 20th 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.
There seems to be an edit war going on between User:Sepsis II and other editors as to whether the State of Palestine should be listed as an unrecognized state or a recognized one. Since this is almost certainly a controversial edit, discussion on that move should occur here. I take no position. p b p 23:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The sections are not entitled "UN members" and "non-UN member states". The dividing line is based on recognition. I don't know what's unclear here - Palestine clearly doesn't fall into the "unrecognized or largely unrecognized" category when it's recognized a majority of other states. Neljack ( talk) 07:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on all points; but maybe Ypnypn's suggestion (dividing countries into UN full members vs. not) would make our job easier by removing this source of controversy. Cobblet ( talk) 23:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Taiwan, while it has a much lower level of international recognition than your regular state, is a stable state with its low level of official recognition being solely due to PRC interference. Taiwan is quite different from the other nations in the category. I do not see Kosovo as equivalent to Taiwan as the situation with Kosovo is still developing. Sepsis II ( talk) 23:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually Kosovo is the other one whose categorisation is inappropriate - it too is recognized by a majority of states, so it should be moved from the "unrecognized or largely unrecognized" category. Neljack ( talk) 07:21, 15 December 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.
Rotterdam is a city of more than a million people, the second-largest in the Netherlands. It is the third busiest port in the world and the busiest in Europe (and indeed anywhere outside of East Asia). It was the busiest in the world from 1962 to 2004. It is a major transportation hub and is often dubbed the "Gateway to Europe".
Monte Carlo has a population of 15,000. It is chiefly known as a resort, for its casino and for the Formula 1 Grand Prix. It may be listed under cities, but it is not one - it is just an administrative areas or "quarter" of Monaco, which is a city-state and already on the list as a country. I am not aware that we list any other specific parts of cities (except the Vatican, which of course is a sovereign state) and I see no reason to do so here.
I think a large city that is one of the most important ports in the world is more vital than a part of a city we already have. Neljack ( talk) 12:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll put you down for support as nom. then. On top of the small size and redundancy to Monaco itself, Monte Carlo was only founded in 1866 so also lacks the history many cities have, of many 100's or 1000's of years. Carlwev ( talk) 13:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After a swap thread was just closed and passed, We removed " art" from the 10 and 100, and replaced it with " the arts". We have now art in the vital 1000 and 10'000 but not 10 or 100, which is OK. But we also now have The arts in the vital 10 and 100 but not 1000 or 10'000, following the logic we've tried to follow up until now, if we want the arts in the vital 10 and 100, we have to have it in the 1000 and 10'000 too. (Personally I much preferred the "Art" article as the higher but what is passed is passed.) I would at least keep art at the 1000 and 10'000 levels, and just add "the arts" to those lists with out swapping anything out Carlwev ( talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
We've added it to the 10, 100 and 1000 logically it needs to be in this list as well. Carlwev ( talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Carlwev, I already added the arts to the Level 3 list. Did I misread that discussion when I closed it? Cobblet ( talk) 20:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Medea is primarily a literary figure known form Euripides play, not a mythological figure.
Conan the Barbarian originated as a literary character in 1930s Pulp Fiction by John Howard. He is currently located among the comic book characters.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add mug in place of silverware? under tableware we have knife, fork, spoon, chopsticks and plate. Mug seems to be the missing main eating and drinking utensil. Article in about 36 languages, fairly long article. Not immensely important but just as important as the other tableware and I'm only bringing this up now as a default swap for silverware. But I like posting for votes separately. Carlwev ( talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Cup. that's a valid point. No cup is not in yet. I did take a look at cup and I did think about suggesting it Your right it would make sense. I always thought cup was the general or parent term, but when I looked at the articles " cup" and " mug" I noticed cup was in no other languages at all, mug is in 35 other languages. Rightly or wrongly I thought at the time maybe other languages consider mug the proper word as a translation for their word for drinking vessel, and so I chose that. But thinking now it's probably a translation issue within Wikipedia, as I am surprised cup is in completely no other languages. If I had ignored that I would have posted cup and not mug, the more I think about I agree with you we should probably have cup before mug. I'd support if someone opened that, maybe I'll open it myself a bit later. Carlwev ( talk) 20:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't really see why this was added. I would suggest remove it and adding Linen to textiles. Or we could just remove it outright I don't mind which, whatever we vote. Look at the articles, similar titles but different articles.
The following discussion is closed. 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 Baseball and the MLB. We don't have any soccer leagues p b p 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. 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 current list of companies is biased in a number of ways. Firstly, all of the companies listed are from the US. You expect American companies to dominate but the USA doesn't represent 100% of the world's economy and so companies from other countries should be added. The list is also fairly limited in terms of industry but is a little bit more diverse. There are 3 IT companies (Apple, Microsoft, IBM), one telecommunications corporation (AT&T), one in retail (Walmart), one in oil (Standard Oil) and one conglomerate (General Electric).
The other less obvious bias is recentism. It looks like somebody mostly copied and pasted the list from the top of either List of corporations by market capitalization or List of largest companies by revenue. The current list represent the bigest companies of this decade only. Most of the companies just like most of the other articles on VA should be able to stand the test of time. Historically significant companies should ideally be added.
The types of companies that in my opinion have a strong case include British East India Company, Toyota, Royal Dutch Shell, Volkswagen and Nestlé. But there will be many more companies which I haven't thought about which is why I think having an open discussion first is better than going straight into specific swap proposals. Gizza ( t)( c) 23:53, 27 November 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.
How a Secret Spy Pact Helped Win the Cold War
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As Cobblet said, I could probably be talked into supporting just plain "surveillance" if everyone else likes it too. Someone should start the thread for that. Carlwev ( talk) 17:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The most powerful espionage alliance in world history.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Obviously vital, appears to be missing.
I haven't cast a vote yet. I was thinking the phylum it belongs to may be better Nematode. I noticed that's already in Invertebrates, other among the animals (somewhere here), This may or may not effect peoples' views, just thought I'd share my thoughts. Carlwev ( talk) 11:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
These are seven orders and one suborder of insects that don't seem vital to me as a layman. Even if you don't believe 88 articles on insects is too much, surely we can find better entries than these.
The following discussion is closed. 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 commonly used measurement of measuring the size of gems p b p 23:45, 29 December 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 psychological concept that might be worth adding.
Not sure this is the right article. Risk is more about economic risk than a psychological concept (though perhaps worth adding to an economics section of the vital list?). There's clearly something psychological deeper than just risking loss of money, but I'm not sure what article covers it. Anxiety, perhaps? Whatever the psychological concept is, I don't think humans are the only ones to experience it. An animal weighing its thirst versus increased exposure to predators at a water hole is analyzing/experiencing risk. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While certainly a controversial figure, he was a cultural touchstone of the mid-20th century and one of the more successful publishers of his era p b p 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious that there are far more noteworthy Americans than Hugh Hefner not currently on the list. For example, he barely made it into a list of most influential living Americans published by the Atlantic in 2006. Compiled at the same time ( these were the people on the panel) was a list of the 100 most influential figures in all of American history; by my count, our list omits no less than 28 of the people listed there. Of course, I'm not saying that list can't be disputed, but look at just the names in their top 50 we've left out:
It seems obvious to me that Hugh Hefner (not to mention many Americans currently on our list, e.g. athletes, actors and journalists) doesn't hold a candle to any of these folks. Cobblet ( talk) 08:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The cut-off b/w early modern and modern seems to be about 1815. Sitting Bull was active mostly after 1815 p b p 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with this. Looking at other sections of the list although I haven't by any means checked it all, in authors for example Shakespeare is in Early Modern. Modern authors includes people earlier than Sitting Bull, William Blake and Jane Austen where born in the mid to late 1700's and died in the early 1800's, in fact Austen died in 1817, so practically her whole life is before 1815 and she's still classed as modern. Sitting Bull is said to be born c.1831. I wonder if anyone else is seemingly out of place, or out of time, or should we be setting a clear cut off point? The articles on Modern and Early Modern say the cut of is even earlier at c.1800. Carlwev ( talk) 03:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My reading of the history of broadcasting leads me to believe that there are probably only three figures worth having on this list: David Sarnoff (not currently on the list; nominated under Businesspeople), Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.
The following discussion is closed. 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 recently added to the level 3 list to replace History of the Americas.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently added to the level 3 list to replace History of China. The level 4 list does not have History of Mongolia or History of Tibet; this article would ostensibly cover those topics.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
History of England primarily deals with history prior to formation of the Union; subsequent events are treated summarily and only in the context of England itself.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the 10 highest points on earth, & highest in Oceania -- being higher than Mauna Kea. (If New Guinea is considered part of Australia, then being higher than Mount Kosciuszko it would be the highest point in that continent.) I feel the reason it hasn't been included is due to lack of familiarity (I only learned of its existence a little while ago) & quibbling over definitions (is New Guinea part of Australia, Oceania, Asia, or none of the above?) -- llywrch ( talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't voted yet, and I'm not saying how vital or not this is. I would like to point out Puncak Jaya is 4884 m high, the highest 100 mountains of the world are all over 7200 m high. This mountain is one of the highest mountains taking into account Topographic prominence and appears in the List of peaks by prominence as 9th most prominent. The articles explain in more detail, but it's basically because this mountain on a island not a continent, so it's more prominent as it's not overshadowed by other high mountains on the same mountain range or landmass, it has no parent peak as it were. I would like to check which other peaks from the highest and most prominent mountain lists we have or not. Puncak is 9th most prominent, do we have the first 8 most prominent? Carlwev ( talk) 18:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the two main types of literature. We have some types of non-fiction ( dictionary, encyclopedia, thesaurus) but not the overarching category.
I disagree that it's a redundant concept. Surely creative nonfiction counts as "art literature". Cobblet ( talk) 21:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For some bizarre reason the former's listed under Industry in Technology.
I think Scuba diving is definitely more vital and I support adding it. The scuba set article although lower, is fairly significant, and it is kind of a technology. This swap would improve the list, I'm just wandering if I would have both, or is it too much. Although I see the scuba diving article contains sections for the equipment anyway, so it may be enough. Carlwev ( talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would have thought this quite vital, important topic in medicine/biology, I can imagine seeing this in a print encyclopedia.
I thought about other cells, they would be covered by their organ/tissue, skin cell by skin, muscle cell by muscle, fat cell etc. Stem cell by its nature has no specific tissue/organ. Carlwev ( talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Drugs are probably encyclopedia material when you get to 10'000 articles. We do list some such as opium, and caffeine although they're scattered abound chemistry, plants and drugs, depending on what they are, plant or chemical etc. But we are missing some fairly well know, used and studied drugs, like morphine, heroin, ecstasy and cannabis. I'll open Cannabis (drug) for now as some other user's have informed me they think it may belong, I may open some more later. What are others thoughts on these? Carlwev ( talk) 20:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
See comment above in drugs
This discussion is relevant. Cobblet ( talk) 20:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We've got alternative medicine and pseudoscience; we don't need all of these 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.
Another missing disease. Although more of an inconvenience in the West like the common cold or flu, which we include anyway, it is serious illness in the developing world, and historically much of the world. According to article, there are 2.5 billion cases of diarrhoea a year, kills 2.5 million a year, killed 5 million a year 2 - 3 decades ago. Second highest cause of infant death, just behind pneumonia. Causes 16% of all infant deaths. Carlwev ( talk) 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, depends on your definition of disease, but yes you're right it's definitely not a germ, virus or organism though correct. Is it still an important topic even though it's not an actual virus? maybe, maybe not. I thought of Gastroenteritis too that is also not there, well thought of. Would you support Gastroenteritis, or do you think this is best left alone? We could put a thread for that too, to see if users prefer that instead? thank you for your help. Carlwev ( talk) 21:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We just added it to the 1000 list. This is surely vital and a must have if it's in the shorter list already. I would put it with anatomy myself but next to human is OK I guess. Carlwev ( talk) 15:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll add this too anatomy, we don't list feather under bird it's under anatomy, human body should be there too. Carl wev 14:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A non-vital type of glacial landform (which has just been added). Compare moraine or drumlin, which are also not on the list.
I wasn't very keen on Glacial landform but I didn't want to be the one to block it, it was on 5-2 my vote would have stopped it but I didn't want to be the baddie. I believe Cirque is pretty decent article standing alone, trying to have the catch'em all phase in this case to save space, I'm not keen on I don't think it does the topic justice. There is an article on Coastal landform that we don't have. That could feasibly replace beach, cliff, coast and peninsula but I don't think that would be good either. Carlwev ( talk) 12:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One of the most important experiments in the history of physics deserves to be a VA.
I agree on its importance, but am a bit concerned with the overlap with wave–particle duality (the experiment being the most concrete proof of this concept), and wonder if we really need both articles. FWIW we also have Thomas Young listed under People, but since Young is known for many things besides this experiment I don't think that's an issue. Cobblet ( talk) 08:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are many significant bridges world wide, both old and new, especially with rapid modern construction in Asia. I'm not sure how many bridges we would want to settle on but at the moment we have 9 individual bridges and 3 of those are in New York, which seems unbalanced. Brooklyn Bridge is probably the most notable, do we need both George Washington Bridge and Verrazano–Narrows Bridge as well, could we remove one or both of them?
Although not my favourite ideas for additions, since we're listing transport structures, we have several bridges, a few canals and a handful of underground train networks, why not balance it with a few of the worlds most notable airports? Again not my favourite idea but why not? Airports are just as notable as bridges and subways aren't they? What do people think? Carlwev ( talk) 18:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cited by the media as India's most popular actor. Second highest paid actor in whole of Asia.
I wonder how his legacy will compare with Raj Kapoor or Guru Dutt, neither of whom are on the list. Cobblet ( talk) 08:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Maunus has argued for the inclusion of a large number of Latin musicians. Meanwhile after the removal of Yo-Yo Ma there is not a single person of East Asian extraction on the list. If diversity is a primary concern for us, then Teresa Teng has a strong case to be on here. She was the most famous Chinese musician of any kind in the 20th century, and possibly in all of Chinese history (for some reason, despite a rich musical history, the Chinese don't have much of a tradition of venerating individual musicians). Her songs (her signature being The Moon Represents My Heart) are well known throughout East and Southeast Asia.
reopen this one, has only been open 10 days this one, I can see how it was overlooked. I will support this because I don't think the add is brilliant, but I think it's OK, I wouldn't want a 4-0 thread closed as failed I don't think it is following consensus, and I almost feel a little bad for the voters. If we are trying to be more "global" and as China has over one sixth of the world population, perhaps their top modern musician, should have a shot. Carl wev 16:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think the only singer before the recording era who might deserve a place on this list might be Farinelli, the most celebrated of the castrati. Lind is essentially remembered only as part of a publicity stunt staged by P. T. Barnum. She is not otherwise more notable than other once-famous but now-forgotten opera sopranos of the 19th century such as Thérèse Tietjens and Adelina Patti.
Sorry, I should have said "essentially remembered today". Any modern-day reference to Lind is made almost invariably in conjunction with her US tour. Cobblet ( talk) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do we really need a classical flautist on this list? I'm not even sure Rampal's the most important flautist in history – he has to contend with Johann Joachim Quantz. Classical music has many examples of people who put their instrument on the map – classical guitar has Andrés Segovia, the horn has Dennis Brain, the double bass has Domenico Dragonetti, etc.; I'm not sure Rampal has a better or worse claim to be on this list than any of them. Also we already have several examples of woodwind instrumentalists among the jazz musicians.
The following discussion is closed. 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.
Pivotal female tennis player from France. She was arguably the first female tennis superstar and the one who put women's tennis on the map in the 1920s. She was the world's number one female tennis player for at least six years and was almost undefeated during this time. She won Wimbledon and the French Championships six times each. The French Open Women's Singles trophy is named after her (Coupe Suzanne Lenglen).
User:Wolbo, there is a general feeling that athletes are overrepresented on this list at the expense of other types of historical figures. To pick some random examples from French history, we don't have Louis IX of France, Jean de La Fontaine or Abbé Pierre. Obviously it's not easy to compare people from totally different areas, but are there any tennis players on the list you would consider removing to make room for Lenglen? Cobblet ( talk) 19:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since User:Wolbo and User:Fyunck(click) have agreed on one person to remove, I'll make the proposal here. Initially I had my doubts – Gibson's role in tennis has been compared to Jackie Robinson's in baseball – but African-American athletes actually seem to be quite well represented, and I think it's likely there are more deserving African-Americans in other fields to include on the list – W. E. B. Du Bois, Thurgood Marshall, Zora Neale Hurston, etc. Gibson's achievements don't quite measure up to those of the other tennis players we have here.
I am seriously thinking about supporting the other tennis player add, seeing as 4 of you like her already, and this one is kind of a swap. How many tennis players do we really want though, I would have thought 10 or less, what number do other's think. I ask the expert among us for guidance on who the weak links may be, and who the top 10 most vital players are in order, in your opinion, so we can consider, a more enlightened opinion before making our minds up. Clearly one of us is much more knowledgeable about this topic which is very helpful. The number of tennis players is not the only sportsperson list which I'm questioning the number for either. Also would we trim sportspeople even more or keep the total number similar and just redistribute the numbers among people from different sports instead? Or leave it alone? Carl wev 10:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Same rationale as above.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Same rationale as above.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Investigative journalism is well represented on the list by Nellie Bly, Upton Sinclair, Ida Tarbell, and in the modern era, Bob Woodward. I think we can afford to remove Hersh to include Noah Webster, #71 on The Atlantic's 2006 list of the most influential Americans. Through his eponymous dictionary and his American Spelling Book (which taught five generations of Americans how to spell and has been estimated to have sold over 100 million copies), he is credited with "giving America a language of its own." He enthusiastically championed the cause of American nationalism through his pamphleteering and journalism (he's regarded by some as a Founding Father), and he founded New York City's first daily newspaper.
The following discussion is closed. 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 removing another relatively obscure figure (other foreign correspondents on the list are Robert Fisk and Ernie Pyle) for the man who has been credited with writing both the first modern English novel ( Robinson Crusoe) and the first piece of modern journalism ( The Storm).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Portugal role on the global stage was larger in history, it had an empire, colonized parts of Asia, Africa and S. America. Is one of the oldest nations in the world, and made Portuguese a major language, mostly in Brazil. Carl wev 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
How about removing History of the European Union? The EU was only created in its present form in 1993, and European history is over-represented on the list to begin with. Cobblet ( talk) 07:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Two articles about peoples/civilization in the wider ancient Middle East area.
Canaan is B-class article and exists in 58 languages, Canaan arose anywhere from 6000 BC to 3000 BC depending on definition and sources and lasted to about 500 BC, covered virtually the whole Levant, the history of a large area of people for 1000's of years spanning from nomadic stone age, and Chalcolithic prehisory to agricultural bronze age and iron age, with information about them coming from modern archaeology, and traded with and where recorded by several other civilizations texts, like Egyptians, Hittites, Sumer and Assyria.
The Sabeans were a people who around for less than 1000 years in a smaller area both sides of the Red Sea's Bab el Mandeb straight, in modern day Djibouti and Yemen, they were conquered twice by the Himyarite Kingdom which seems more notable and we don't have. Their history is harder to come by and half our articles history on them is quoted from the Quran and the book of Job, Sabiens is a start class article and appears in 23 languages. Smaller in area, smaller in time span and smaller in available historical texts to read from. Carl wev 18:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If you're looking for something to swap with, I'd ask whether we need Pharaoh when I don't think we have any other articles on generic rulers of a specific civilization – no Roman emperor or Roman Senate for instance (or Senate for that matter). Cobblet ( talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The concept and modern nations of North and South Korea have only existed since World War 2. But Korea has existed in some form since Ancient times. I know I have good and bad ideas but this is one I truly believe is very vital. We have Korea Strait and Korean Peninsula, both of which are less vital and could go in a swap if people prefer. Here and probably print encyclopedias most relevant info is/would be at Korea not Korean Peninsula. I don't think it's redundant to the nations as we would remove Scandinavia, British Isles, Great Britain or Ireland as we also have the nations of those regions too. Plus the nations are relatively young compared to Korea. The history, culture, language of Korea is huge, and usually covered as a single entity not two. (Eg here we have history of Korea, not history of North and South Korea.) I suggested it as a swap in July see here for an Antarctic Territory, in fact it was closed as failed with 6-3 support, which would actually be a pass now. I am also considering some removals from geography like peninsulas that may be redundant like Scandinavian, and Korean peninsulas. Carlwev ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
OK thank you for your input. Only I always thought Korea to be a very significant region, if you use only that logic, one cold argue we should have no region at all anywhere that is not a nation, as every patch of ground everywhere is covered by a nation. No Scandinavia, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Caribbean, Latin America, England, Great Britain etc.
The article on Korea seems so much better to have than Korean Peninsula, at least to me. To alleviate that problem, would this work as a swap for the peninsula then? Would that be better? I may suggest that instead. Or do you think this is best left alone? Carlwev ( talk) 18:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In terms of geographic extent, Korea and the Korean Peninsula are completely contiguous with one another. It's just that the latter is strictly a geomorphological term while the former can refer to the culture as well. Any discussion of a culture must include its geographical context, so I think including a separate article on the peninsula isn't necessary. It's like having both Korea and Geography of Korea (which could easily be merged with the article on the peninsula).
I was just starting a swap thread in another tab but you beat me to it. I support the remove, only if Korea itself is added. Supporting a swap in 2 halves as it were, same thing. As Gabe said the article on Korea is much better written and fleshed out, and it's what I would expect to find in an encyclopedia, and agree with Cobblet's comments too. Carlwev ( talk) 20:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For extended family relationships we already list cousin, aunt and uncle. I don't think we need this too—it would be like listing grandchildren in addition to grandparents. Indeed the article itself is very weak.
The following discussion is closed. 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 listed under programs but it's a channel, not a program, and we don't need it when we already have BBC.
Yes as it's a channel not a show, if we had a channel wouldn't it be BBC1? but no that's redundant to BBC also. Seeing as we removed all networks other than BBC, we can't leave 2 BBC slots. For TV/film, could we have Documentary film or Movie theater as a replacement? Carl wev 11:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To mass media or film? One of the basic program and film formats. There are lots of documentaries about many many things on terrestrial and cable/satellite television, and some in theatres too. Cable/satellite TV have lots of channels dedicated to just documentaries. Some very notable people are known primarily from documentaries, such as David Attenborough. While maybe no single documentary film, program, series or channel may be worth including, I believe the overall topic is.
If we include over 100 fiction film actors in addition to many film directors, should we have a person from the documentary film area? I've had my mind on David Attenborough, a decorated "Sir" of over 60 years work. Anyone like the idea of him, I believe him more notable than most journalists, some of which are going, both areas document things, one news and the other nature. Carl wev 11:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Starfish is today's featured article, I thought I'd check if we have it and we don't. Much more important than half the plants, bugs and insects we have. Interesting to general readers and experts. Carlwev ( talk) 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recommended by Cobblet, but I agree this. Sponge and Echinoderm are important, well known and missing animal phyla, with several insects and plants being removed soon, I believe we would improve the list by adding these. Nothing really covers these well at the moment apart from the very wide articles "animal" and "invertebrate". Carlwev ( talk) 11:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. 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 relatively minor order of arachnids (~1000 species). All larger orders (ticks and mites, spiders, harvestmen, pseudoscorpions, scorpions) are 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.
A minor order (~800 species) within Entognatha, which is also on the list.
A minor order (~700 species) within Entognatha, which is 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.
Earthworm and Flatworm got more support than I expected, Leeches I think are important, with their use in medicine for thousands of years making them more notable. There are 700 species known, which not the highest compared to other groups we do list smaller groups like tsetse fly with 23 species, or many many individual species of birds and mammals. Carlwev ( talk) 13:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tetra is a common name for fish in 3 different families, many of which are popular aquarium fishes. The article is essentially a list of species to which the common name is applied. This is not vital article material. Articles on the "tetra" species most important to aquarium hobbyists (e.g. Neon tetra) would be more appropriate for inclusion.
The following discussion is closed. 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 barreleye, batrachoididae, cetomimiformes, beardfish, beryciformes, gonorynchiformes, gymnotiformes, esociformes, gasterosteiformes, gobiesocidae, jellynose fish, lampriformes, percopsiformes, stephanoberyciformes, synbranchiformes, zeiformes. These orders contain between 10 and 200 species (for comparison, there are currently about 33,000 fish species known), and some of them are already represented on the list by a particular genus or species. None of these orders look particularly vital in an ecological, economic or evolutionary sense. There's the occasional species, genus or family that's fished commercially – Zeidae for example – but when we're also missing things like menhaden, shad, Sciaenidae, Scomberesocidae or hake (to name some random examples off this list of commercially important species), I don't think we're removing anything terribly important.
Building the organism section of the vital list by top down inclusion of high taxonomic ranks is not the way to go. Orders are fairly important taxonomically, but not every fish order is vital, although it appears that every fish order is currently on the vital list. Stephanoberyciformes are "45... mostly uncommon deep-sea species with little, if any, importance to commercial fishery". That's not a subject that is vital article material. In my mind, there are 3 general ways an article on an organism might be vital: evolutionary significance, ecological significance and human significance. And human significance generally outweighs ecological which usually outweighs evolutionary. Orders (and families and phyla) are de facto evolutionarily significant groups of organisms, but I'd argue that species number is another aspect of evolutionary significance (a family with 10,000 species is probably more important than an order with 45). Ecological significance depends on how widely distributed organisms are across the globe, how common they are in the areas they occur, and their interactions with other important organisms. Human significance should really be the kicker for whether something is on the vital list (I assume we're writing an encyclopedia for humans to read). That can take a number of forms; organisms significant to humans could be pets, food sources, disease vectors, national symbols, model organisms in lab research, or even just marvels of nature.
Stephanoberyciformes are not evolutionarily significant (45 species), ecologically significant ("mostly uncommon"), or significant to humans "deep-sea...little if any, importance to commercial fishery", and the other nominated orders are pretty similar. Several of the nominated orders are deep sea fishes, and I'd rather see deep sea fish on the vital list (as a general interest broad concept article covering some "marvels of nature") than listing every taxonomically minor order of fishes. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To complement the proposed removal above which includes several predominantly deep sea fish orders ( barreleye, cetomimiformes, beardfish, beryciformes, jellynose fish, lampriformes, stephanoberyciformes). Deep sea fish is a broad concept article that is of more general interest. Deep sea fishes include many wonderously bizarre organisms that aren't vital individually, but may be of sufficient interest to be vital collectively. The deep sea is by far the largest habitat on earth, and the fish that live there are (by some measures) the most ecologically dominant organisms in that habitat.
I agree with this, the same way an article like seabird, is good instead of having several or one seabird. Deep sea fish article looks good not in many languages but maybe they may follow?? general wide topic is better than picking or two in this case, although anglerfish and lanternfish (possibly 65% of deep sea biomass, surprising) are not bad. Deep sea fish would be good if we do or do not list any examples. Carl wev 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I haven't got much to say on this other than, it's a variety of celery which we already have, I'm not sure how many slots we want for plants or food but I don't think this one is the most vital within our current space. There must be a few more important species and foods or drinks we don't have. Champagne anyone?
I might support this but I want to find some production statistics first. Celeriac is a variety of celery in the same way that cabbage is a variety of broccoli; they are different vegetable varieties of the same plant species. Cabbage, broccoli and Brassica oleracea each have separate articles. Celery and Apium graveolens are at the same article. While celery is by far the most common A. graveolens vegetable in North American supermarkets, I understand that celeriac is pretty common in continental Europe, and Chinese celery is more common in Asia (and not exactly rare in Europe). And I'm open to considering that celery/Apium graveolens doesn't belong on the vital list either; the list of vegetables could certainly be cut further. Plantdrew ( talk) 05:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure why we would edible seaweed before seaweed itself. The seaweed article covers biological information the edible article does not plus it contains sections about its use as food anyway and other uses in industry like fertilizer. The Japanese and Korean language Wikipedias, areas where seaweed is perhaps more widely eaten, do not even have a separate distinct article for specifically edible seaweed, only seaweed itself, and some edible varieties like Arame. Carl wev 09:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A subfamily of only 30 species. Very minor importance as food for humans, some importance as food for wildlife. They do occur throughout the world, but these really aren't very important plants overall.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fairly minor importance as a food plant. A significant agricultural weed, but I'm not sure it is vital as a weed (and weed ought to be added to vital list before any particular plant is a "vital weed").
If weed were added, where should it go? Under plants? Agriculture? Plantdrew ( talk) 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is already on the level 2 and 3 lists: it's the terrestrial complement of sea.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add Linen to textiles. To replace Linens in everyday life. Not up there with cotton or silk but important; important enough though? lets see, much better choice than linens though. Carlwev ( talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Flax was recently added after this discussion. I'm not sure that including both flax and linen is necessary, but don't have any strong opinion about which to include if only one is listed. Here is a link to some production statistics for natural fibers. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If we're going to add linen as a natural fiber then we definitely need jute, which is second only to cotton in terms of world production.