![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
-- Igrek ( talk) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the policy on articles that are mentioned more than once, usually in more than one section? Has it been discussed before? Eg History of the Earth is in History and also in Physical sciences - Earth science. I originally thought all articles that appear should appear only once, is this correct?. I imagine the issue may or may not have been discussed before, there might be no strict agreed rule, maybe we should decide a loose rule, if one doesn't already exist.
Some topics might be very important to more than one area. Like History of the Earth or History of science plus many more. But to list some twice would make a nightmare for counting how many articles there are in total, would they be counted twice or only once? Even if a topic is vital to multiple areas like Science and History, I think to list some twice is awkward because a huge amount of topics overlap different areas, thats what wikipedias category system navigates. A huge number of topics could fit easily into two or more sub sections and to list some twice but not others, or to list all twice, either way would be a bad idea.
I wondered if the list is supposed to resemble more contents or index, but this might be a bad comparison. Carlwev ( talk) 05:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
In perticular fiction and fictional character's and worlds are covered more than once. I think characters that are not well known for one work but have appeared accross many different types of media and many titles. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Tarzan, James Bond, Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes are across books TV comics movies and games and are not famous for a single title, the character is more well known than any title or franchise.
Fiction that has multiple inclusion.
Same goes with these: are they too much?
and
not as bad but also
And do we need Metropolis (comics), Land of Oz and Narnia if we have Superman, The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and The Chronicles of Narnia.
Just my thoughts but, some fiction/legend is getting multiple coverage and other quite well known and important fiction/legend no coverage at all. I may delete some of the multiple mentions and add things like. Robin Hood, Zombie, Frankenstein which are currently not here. Also witch goes to witchcraft, they are both included in different sections, maybe I will change Witch to Magician (fantasy), article says it includes sorcerers witches magicians and mages and more, What are others' oppinions? Carlwev ( talk) 15:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Recently, it's come to mine and Carl's attention that that section could use a smidgen of work done. He removed a few articles, most of which should have been removed, but one (the Old Fashioned cocktail, the world's oldest) I'd like put back. Here are a few others I could see dispensing with:
I think 150 items is about the right number, but there are some things missing (including some more types of food) and some things that probably don't belong. For example, we have cake and pie but not cookie p b p 00:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Carlwev ( talk) 12:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Better layout is needed as you mentioned. Main thing I noticed some things are in biology/organisms some under food and drink. Which ever we choose we should be consistant, some seem out of place, or some very similar things are in 2 different lists in different sections.
Thoughts anyone? Carlwev ( talk) 14:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
There are waaaay too many universities in my oppinion, there are 64, and university itself is not in the vital 1000 and we don't even have primary and secondary school or elementary and grade school, and we don't have hospital. Although not as bad, I'm not very keen on having 20 libraries and 19 museums either. Carlwev ( talk) 19:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Just some brief comments:
What are users views on large groups of people that do not have their own specific country or region that covers them? I mean Indian people are losely covered by India and History of India. The "stateless" Kurdish People are losely covered by Kurdistan. Australian Aborigines, don't have a mention of their own except within Australia and History of Australia. Native American people have the same issue, as do Eskimo people and Maasai people.
Also as a whole which ethnic groups do we include and which do not? Race is in the vital 100 so we have kind of said it's important. There are only 12 ethnic groups mentioned in the vital 10,000 like Turkish, Austronesian, Han Chinese.... Some wide covering groups are missed, black, white, Indian, Caucasian..... plus as I said above ethnic groups of people with no state of their own are missed. So who do we include, who don't we include, and where do we stop to prevent there being a long list of "peoples" which could be almost identical to the list of "countries"? We have Han Chinese + China + History of China, same with Turkey, how far do we go?
I think large ethnic groups of "stateless" people should be mentioned such as Indigenous peoples of the Americas, maybe a few more. What are users views on what we should include and what we should not? Carlwev ( talk) 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we definitely need to add Cú Chulainn to mythological figures, and perhaps the reportedly best known story in his cycle, Táin Bó Cúailnge, to books. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I am by no means a supporter, but isnt he the most iconic leader of a new religious movement? I am no longer adding articles, since we are over 10k now. I havent considered who might be removed if he is added, if any.(mercurywoodrose) 76.254.36.185 ( talk) 19:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not understand that there can only be 20 ancient texts, so I added 14 more which are of interest. We can try to single out the 20 most important of these through voting. I've put an asterisk on my suggestions. If others do the same, we may eventually have a result.
Whether it is temporarily important to instantly revert the edits while awaiting a discussion I do not know. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The following might be worth adding. I do not have proposals for what should be replaced in that case. If you want to vote (+ og -) or propose what could be replaced, go ahead.
The modern songs section needs to be globalized more, hence the following suggestions,
Narssarssuaq ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The topic of (Baconian) science is listed only under natural science, which is improperly narrowed to physical science.
The (Baconian) sciences should be grouped under science, in this manner:
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, now that we've split this list up into a bunch of little sublists that aren't being transcluded, I'm thinking we can get away with changing all the Lv. 4 headings to Lv. 3 headings, all the Lv. 3 headings to Lv. 2 headings, and the single Lv. 2 heading in each sublist to a Lv. 1 heading. Thoughts? p b p 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a fascinating project. I find the people section most interesting and sometimes check it out. I'm not too sure about the "criminal" classification though. This is particularly the case with Vlad the Impaler who would surely fit better in the "Politicians and Leaders" section, which is where you find, for example, Hitler and Stalin. I'm not too sure about Guy Fawkes and Osama bin Laden either. Perhaps a move to "Rebels, Revolutionaries and Activists" would be possible, maybe with a name change for that sub-section if it sounds too positive as it is. It seems to me that with its clear political dimension, terrorism is different from other kinds of crimes.
Well, just throwing the idea out there. Any thoughts?-- Rsm77 ( talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed Willis Tower (nee Sears Tower) was recently removed from the Architecture section. I think it should be put back on p b p 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
list is topheavy with ballet dancers. i didnt trim them earlier when the list was below 10k. it can probably be trimmed now. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This topic Thousand Character Classic, seems to be a very important poem in the history of chinese education, and the transmission of chinese characters to korea. I hadnt heard of it, but what do i know, im not a sinologist. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
IT is a subfield (along with computer science and computer engineering) of the general area of Computing and so the subsection should be labelled "Computing" and Computing used as its its main article. For example, computer science (CS) is not a subfield of IT. 121.45.193.118 ( talk) 10:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
...have been BOLDly added to the 1,000 list as representatives of South American music. Likewise, Susan B. Anthony and Golda Meir have been added to political figures; though on this list she'd fall under activists.. I'd note they are not on this list. Should they be? Note I take no position on the composers, but am in favor of adding Anthony p b p 02:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
At present, we have:
Should we move all holidays to the same section, or keep as is? p b p 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It cold go either way, I am not totally sure but I think I would slightly prefer them all in a holiday section of their own including the religious holidays. Some like New Year, Hallowe'en and April Fools' would not go in religion but would have to go in a holiday section as they are now, or be included next to something like ?? year, paganism, and humour ?? which I don't think would seem as right. Also Christmas could be argued although having religious roots is today not only a religious holiday, you could say this about many holidays. If we're going to have a holidays section we may as well put all holidays in it, religious or not. I think Hannakuh probably belongs too. Carlwev ( talk) 13:58, 14 February 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.
Right now, we have 2238 Lv 4 Vital biographies against 10,318 articles. I think that biographies are bloated and far too Amero-centric. I propose dropping the bio count to 2,000 even. Here are some cuts I think need to be made:
p b p 02:54, 6 March 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.
Right now, we have over 120 actors and actresses, and most of the people in that category are people from the U.S.A (5% of world population) active in the last 100 years (<5% of recorded history). GabeMc requested a formal proposal, even though my idea was outlined above, here it is. p b p 15:13, 7 March 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.
Right now, we have 200 sportspeople, and as with actors/actresses, almost all are from since 1900 and a disproportionate number are American; more than a quarter of them are from the U.S.-dominated sports of baseball, basketball and football. p b p 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Further nom comment: Right now, sportspeople is about 10%. By contrast, the core bios list, which I've included below, has 6 sportspeople (all of whom are already on this list and are in no danger of being removed) and 194 non-sportspeople. Knocking it down to 100 would make it about 5% of all bios, more in line with what Core bios has. p b p 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In team sports, I recommend the allocation be culled to the following: 16 soccer, 10 baseball, 6 basketball, 6 ice hockey, 6 cricket, 5 American football, 1 water polo. I recommend that basketball include:
All other articles would be removed. For baseball:
And cut the rest. For American football:
And cut the rest. p b p 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's the hockey keep list
p b p 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The current list is at 10, which seems about right to me. I don't know how you could get much less then the 8 I have listed above (6 greatest players, 2 greatest coaches), but we are still lacking a woman and a non-American. At this point, I think we should discuss which of these above 8 don't belong, and why they should be removed in favour of someone else (or just removed for brevity), or agree to allow 10 spots, and simply add a woman and a non-American.
GabeMc (
talk|
contribs)
20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we are in near agreement on this one, PBP. I've added one more coach and one more QB. The current list is at 15. FWIW, I could live without Montana, but its seems a bit silly to arbitrarily limit the number of coaches and QBs to one. Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The current list is at 30, so this potential compromise will trim 15 articles while maximising the scope of the coverage. Any thoughts?
GabeMc (
talk|
contribs)
20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I would be inclined to remove Alexander Cartwright. Founder of baseball is... interesting but there is a lot of research on the sports origins and the American creation story for baseball is largely myth. A lot of these players can be understood through other players given the intersections involved. I would also remove Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Sandy Koufax. -- LauraHale ( talk) 02:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to add more, In general I don't like adding biographies, But for example there were 20 Tennis players, but Tennis is not in the 1000 list. Same for baseball not in the 1000 but has 30 players in the 10'000. Chess is or was for a long time in the 1000 list but has no players at all here yet, seems very un equal. Also some but some American sports people I've seen flicking through the list only appear in English and not any other language at all, and many more only in 3 or 4 other languages suggesting they don't have a lot of international recognition. Top Chess players Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov appear in over 70 different language Wikipedias, suggesting they are more recognised world wide. I am only adding 2 at this time I can think of 5 more but will not add them as we are shrinking sports and games bios at the moment. Carlwev ( talk) 08:22, 7 March 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.
Seems like we should lose this entire sub-section as fiction. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:24, 7 March 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.
Perhaps we should attempt to get an accurate count before we decide how many of which articles should be removed. For all we know, we might be at 10,500, or 9,999, but until the individual sections are accurately counted, we won't know. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we trim out several of these, including:
Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 00:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The list of journalists is too Western. Nobody from outside of the West? Crtew ( talk) 12:34, 14 March 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.
There was some mention of deleting the criminals and magicians subsections above. While I support the sections being deleted, I believe the following four should be folded into other sections:
Thoughts? p b p 03:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear music enthusiasts: I came to this discussion because I saw GabeMc's invitation on the WikiProject:Roots Music talk page. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this is the first time I've come across such wide disagreement among experienced editors. The concept of "Vital articles" seems to be a divisive one, especially in a subject area such as music where everything is opinion, anyway. No two people will ever agree on this list. Musicians in different genres could be called "vital' based on their influence on other artists, their influence on historical events, etc. As for "popular" music, maybe sales should be the only consideration. In that case, I nominate for that list Henry C. Work, composer of the song "Grandfather's Clock", which was so popular when it was first released that it was the first piece of music to sell over a million copies (of sheet music). I'll leave this discussion now and go back to editing articles without attention to whether they are considered "vital". — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
-- Igrek ( talk) 20:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What's the policy on articles that are mentioned more than once, usually in more than one section? Has it been discussed before? Eg History of the Earth is in History and also in Physical sciences - Earth science. I originally thought all articles that appear should appear only once, is this correct?. I imagine the issue may or may not have been discussed before, there might be no strict agreed rule, maybe we should decide a loose rule, if one doesn't already exist.
Some topics might be very important to more than one area. Like History of the Earth or History of science plus many more. But to list some twice would make a nightmare for counting how many articles there are in total, would they be counted twice or only once? Even if a topic is vital to multiple areas like Science and History, I think to list some twice is awkward because a huge amount of topics overlap different areas, thats what wikipedias category system navigates. A huge number of topics could fit easily into two or more sub sections and to list some twice but not others, or to list all twice, either way would be a bad idea.
I wondered if the list is supposed to resemble more contents or index, but this might be a bad comparison. Carlwev ( talk) 05:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
In perticular fiction and fictional character's and worlds are covered more than once. I think characters that are not well known for one work but have appeared accross many different types of media and many titles. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Bugs Bunny, Tarzan, James Bond, Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes are across books TV comics movies and games and are not famous for a single title, the character is more well known than any title or franchise.
Fiction that has multiple inclusion.
Same goes with these: are they too much?
and
not as bad but also
And do we need Metropolis (comics), Land of Oz and Narnia if we have Superman, The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and The Chronicles of Narnia.
Just my thoughts but, some fiction/legend is getting multiple coverage and other quite well known and important fiction/legend no coverage at all. I may delete some of the multiple mentions and add things like. Robin Hood, Zombie, Frankenstein which are currently not here. Also witch goes to witchcraft, they are both included in different sections, maybe I will change Witch to Magician (fantasy), article says it includes sorcerers witches magicians and mages and more, What are others' oppinions? Carlwev ( talk) 15:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Recently, it's come to mine and Carl's attention that that section could use a smidgen of work done. He removed a few articles, most of which should have been removed, but one (the Old Fashioned cocktail, the world's oldest) I'd like put back. Here are a few others I could see dispensing with:
I think 150 items is about the right number, but there are some things missing (including some more types of food) and some things that probably don't belong. For example, we have cake and pie but not cookie p b p 00:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Carlwev ( talk) 12:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Better layout is needed as you mentioned. Main thing I noticed some things are in biology/organisms some under food and drink. Which ever we choose we should be consistant, some seem out of place, or some very similar things are in 2 different lists in different sections.
Thoughts anyone? Carlwev ( talk) 14:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
There are waaaay too many universities in my oppinion, there are 64, and university itself is not in the vital 1000 and we don't even have primary and secondary school or elementary and grade school, and we don't have hospital. Although not as bad, I'm not very keen on having 20 libraries and 19 museums either. Carlwev ( talk) 19:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Just some brief comments:
What are users views on large groups of people that do not have their own specific country or region that covers them? I mean Indian people are losely covered by India and History of India. The "stateless" Kurdish People are losely covered by Kurdistan. Australian Aborigines, don't have a mention of their own except within Australia and History of Australia. Native American people have the same issue, as do Eskimo people and Maasai people.
Also as a whole which ethnic groups do we include and which do not? Race is in the vital 100 so we have kind of said it's important. There are only 12 ethnic groups mentioned in the vital 10,000 like Turkish, Austronesian, Han Chinese.... Some wide covering groups are missed, black, white, Indian, Caucasian..... plus as I said above ethnic groups of people with no state of their own are missed. So who do we include, who don't we include, and where do we stop to prevent there being a long list of "peoples" which could be almost identical to the list of "countries"? We have Han Chinese + China + History of China, same with Turkey, how far do we go?
I think large ethnic groups of "stateless" people should be mentioned such as Indigenous peoples of the Americas, maybe a few more. What are users views on what we should include and what we should not? Carlwev ( talk) 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we definitely need to add Cú Chulainn to mythological figures, and perhaps the reportedly best known story in his cycle, Táin Bó Cúailnge, to books. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I am by no means a supporter, but isnt he the most iconic leader of a new religious movement? I am no longer adding articles, since we are over 10k now. I havent considered who might be removed if he is added, if any.(mercurywoodrose) 76.254.36.185 ( talk) 19:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not understand that there can only be 20 ancient texts, so I added 14 more which are of interest. We can try to single out the 20 most important of these through voting. I've put an asterisk on my suggestions. If others do the same, we may eventually have a result.
Whether it is temporarily important to instantly revert the edits while awaiting a discussion I do not know. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The following might be worth adding. I do not have proposals for what should be replaced in that case. If you want to vote (+ og -) or propose what could be replaced, go ahead.
The modern songs section needs to be globalized more, hence the following suggestions,
Narssarssuaq ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The topic of (Baconian) science is listed only under natural science, which is improperly narrowed to physical science.
The (Baconian) sciences should be grouped under science, in this manner:
Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, now that we've split this list up into a bunch of little sublists that aren't being transcluded, I'm thinking we can get away with changing all the Lv. 4 headings to Lv. 3 headings, all the Lv. 3 headings to Lv. 2 headings, and the single Lv. 2 heading in each sublist to a Lv. 1 heading. Thoughts? p b p 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a fascinating project. I find the people section most interesting and sometimes check it out. I'm not too sure about the "criminal" classification though. This is particularly the case with Vlad the Impaler who would surely fit better in the "Politicians and Leaders" section, which is where you find, for example, Hitler and Stalin. I'm not too sure about Guy Fawkes and Osama bin Laden either. Perhaps a move to "Rebels, Revolutionaries and Activists" would be possible, maybe with a name change for that sub-section if it sounds too positive as it is. It seems to me that with its clear political dimension, terrorism is different from other kinds of crimes.
Well, just throwing the idea out there. Any thoughts?-- Rsm77 ( talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed Willis Tower (nee Sears Tower) was recently removed from the Architecture section. I think it should be put back on p b p 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
list is topheavy with ballet dancers. i didnt trim them earlier when the list was below 10k. it can probably be trimmed now. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This topic Thousand Character Classic, seems to be a very important poem in the history of chinese education, and the transmission of chinese characters to korea. I hadnt heard of it, but what do i know, im not a sinologist. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
IT is a subfield (along with computer science and computer engineering) of the general area of Computing and so the subsection should be labelled "Computing" and Computing used as its its main article. For example, computer science (CS) is not a subfield of IT. 121.45.193.118 ( talk) 10:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
...have been BOLDly added to the 1,000 list as representatives of South American music. Likewise, Susan B. Anthony and Golda Meir have been added to political figures; though on this list she'd fall under activists.. I'd note they are not on this list. Should they be? Note I take no position on the composers, but am in favor of adding Anthony p b p 02:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
At present, we have:
Should we move all holidays to the same section, or keep as is? p b p 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It cold go either way, I am not totally sure but I think I would slightly prefer them all in a holiday section of their own including the religious holidays. Some like New Year, Hallowe'en and April Fools' would not go in religion but would have to go in a holiday section as they are now, or be included next to something like ?? year, paganism, and humour ?? which I don't think would seem as right. Also Christmas could be argued although having religious roots is today not only a religious holiday, you could say this about many holidays. If we're going to have a holidays section we may as well put all holidays in it, religious or not. I think Hannakuh probably belongs too. Carlwev ( talk) 13:58, 14 February 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.
Right now, we have 2238 Lv 4 Vital biographies against 10,318 articles. I think that biographies are bloated and far too Amero-centric. I propose dropping the bio count to 2,000 even. Here are some cuts I think need to be made:
p b p 02:54, 6 March 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.
Right now, we have over 120 actors and actresses, and most of the people in that category are people from the U.S.A (5% of world population) active in the last 100 years (<5% of recorded history). GabeMc requested a formal proposal, even though my idea was outlined above, here it is. p b p 15:13, 7 March 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.
Right now, we have 200 sportspeople, and as with actors/actresses, almost all are from since 1900 and a disproportionate number are American; more than a quarter of them are from the U.S.-dominated sports of baseball, basketball and football. p b p 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Further nom comment: Right now, sportspeople is about 10%. By contrast, the core bios list, which I've included below, has 6 sportspeople (all of whom are already on this list and are in no danger of being removed) and 194 non-sportspeople. Knocking it down to 100 would make it about 5% of all bios, more in line with what Core bios has. p b p 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
In team sports, I recommend the allocation be culled to the following: 16 soccer, 10 baseball, 6 basketball, 6 ice hockey, 6 cricket, 5 American football, 1 water polo. I recommend that basketball include:
All other articles would be removed. For baseball:
And cut the rest. For American football:
And cut the rest. p b p 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's the hockey keep list
p b p 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The current list is at 10, which seems about right to me. I don't know how you could get much less then the 8 I have listed above (6 greatest players, 2 greatest coaches), but we are still lacking a woman and a non-American. At this point, I think we should discuss which of these above 8 don't belong, and why they should be removed in favour of someone else (or just removed for brevity), or agree to allow 10 spots, and simply add a woman and a non-American.
GabeMc (
talk|
contribs)
20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we are in near agreement on this one, PBP. I've added one more coach and one more QB. The current list is at 15. FWIW, I could live without Montana, but its seems a bit silly to arbitrarily limit the number of coaches and QBs to one. Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The current list is at 30, so this potential compromise will trim 15 articles while maximising the scope of the coverage. Any thoughts?
GabeMc (
talk|
contribs)
20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I would be inclined to remove Alexander Cartwright. Founder of baseball is... interesting but there is a lot of research on the sports origins and the American creation story for baseball is largely myth. A lot of these players can be understood through other players given the intersections involved. I would also remove Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio and Sandy Koufax. -- LauraHale ( talk) 02:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to add more, In general I don't like adding biographies, But for example there were 20 Tennis players, but Tennis is not in the 1000 list. Same for baseball not in the 1000 but has 30 players in the 10'000. Chess is or was for a long time in the 1000 list but has no players at all here yet, seems very un equal. Also some but some American sports people I've seen flicking through the list only appear in English and not any other language at all, and many more only in 3 or 4 other languages suggesting they don't have a lot of international recognition. Top Chess players Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov appear in over 70 different language Wikipedias, suggesting they are more recognised world wide. I am only adding 2 at this time I can think of 5 more but will not add them as we are shrinking sports and games bios at the moment. Carlwev ( talk) 08:22, 7 March 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.
Seems like we should lose this entire sub-section as fiction. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 22:24, 7 March 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.
Perhaps we should attempt to get an accurate count before we decide how many of which articles should be removed. For all we know, we might be at 10,500, or 9,999, but until the individual sections are accurately counted, we won't know. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 23:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we trim out several of these, including:
Any thoughts? GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 00:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The list of journalists is too Western. Nobody from outside of the West? Crtew ( talk) 12:34, 14 March 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.
There was some mention of deleting the criminals and magicians subsections above. While I support the sections being deleted, I believe the following four should be folded into other sections:
Thoughts? p b p 03:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear music enthusiasts: I came to this discussion because I saw GabeMc's invitation on the WikiProject:Roots Music talk page. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this is the first time I've come across such wide disagreement among experienced editors. The concept of "Vital articles" seems to be a divisive one, especially in a subject area such as music where everything is opinion, anyway. No two people will ever agree on this list. Musicians in different genres could be called "vital' based on their influence on other artists, their influence on historical events, etc. As for "popular" music, maybe sales should be the only consideration. In that case, I nominate for that list Henry C. Work, composer of the song "Grandfather's Clock", which was so popular when it was first released that it was the first piece of music to sell over a million copies (of sheet music). I'll leave this discussion now and go back to editing articles without attention to whether they are considered "vital". — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)