Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remove Kirk Douglas

I'm skipping Buster Keaton since he's more renowned as a director than an actor (he ranks #7 on the Entertainment Weekly list of greatest directors) and the Marx Brothers since they're notable as comedians. Next on the chopping block would be Douglas, who ranks #17 on the AFI list. We still have too many American actors, and I don't see a better place to start than Douglas. If he might be vital for contributing to the end of the Hollywood blacklist, shouldn't Joseph McCarthy be listed first, who was much more central to the "anti-Communist crusade"? Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Michael Caine

Caine doesn't seem that vital to me. He's certainly a prolific and recognizable actor, but he isn't known as one of the best actors of all time. He won two Academy Awards, which doesn't put him leagues above many other actors. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Liza Minnelli

I'm not sure why she has to be listed. We don't list all of the EGOT winners, and she technically didn't win all four. Other than that, she doesn't seem vital. (She also won a few Razzies—those aren't exactly something that one of the greatest actresses of all time would have!) Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Mixed feelings here. Her body of work is kind of so-so, but when she is brilliant, she is brilliant. ("Cabaret", yes, "Arthur" - well, not really) I think it depends on whether you are trying to do something like trim the list from 40 to 20, or if you intend to cut her in favor of someone else. Between her and her mother (Judy Garland) how do others compare the two? Montanabw^(talk) 00:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I would also prefer a swap here, for another female entertainer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Bob Newhart

Newhart ranks #14 on the (US-biased, which should boost his ranking) Comedy Central list. The Button-Down Mind of Bob Newhart may have been the best-selling comedy album of 20th century, but I'm not convinced that comedy albums need representation anyway. And if sales make you vital, shouldn't J. K. Rowling and R. L. Stine be listed? Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
7. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Eddie Murphy

Murphy ranks #10 on the CC list, and being a high-grossing actor doesn't make you vital: we don't list Samuel L. Jackson and Harrison Ford, who have grossed more than Murphy. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Steve Allen

If people don't want to remove Ed Sullivan, what about Steve Allen? I don't think this list needs both him and Johnny Carson, as well as The Tonight Show. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  07:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support agree about the overlap with The Tonight Show, which is separately listed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support No international notability at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Hosts seem to have less notability and fame internationally than movie and music stars. Then from a US point of view many presidents were booted, I don't think he's more vital even if it is apples and oranges comparison.  Carlwev  07:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Paul Scofield

Yeah, he was great in A Man for All Seasons, but he doesn't seem like a necessary person to be on this list

Support

1. Support pbp 13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove John Pilger

He doesn't seem to be on par with the type of people we are currently retaining on the list. Take a glance at the Great Britons omitted above and you'll see what I mean. pbp 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  16:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Pablo Escobar

Al Capone is hardly the only example of a culturally significant gangster. The King of Cocaine played a central role in the narcotics trade that has profoundly affected Central American society for half a century. At the height of his power Forbes estimated he was the seventh-richest man in the world.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Weak Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Escobar still seems more vital to me than many of the other businesspeople listed (Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, Lakshmi Mittal, Larry Ellison, etc.). Malerisch (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neljack (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Escobar was no doubt an influential drug lord, but I don't know if he's more vital than Joaquín Guzmán Loera, who was called the "biggest drug lord of all time" by Forbes and "the godfather of the drug world" by the DEA. Malerisch (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Escobar's network was less international and the portfolio of drugs he trafficked was less diverse, but he did seem to amass more wealth – pick your favourite definition of "biggest", I guess. Escobar was also a folk hero of sorts, financing civil works and football teams, and he remains frequently referenced in pop culture. Loera doesn't seem to hold a comparable amount of cultural significance. Cobblet (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If we have more in the area of organised crime, why not Yakuza, Mafia/Sicilian Mafia, and similar? or things like Ku Klux Klan, estimated up to 6 million members in 1920s, also we have The Birth of a Nation a film in part about the KKK.  Carlwev  11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for businesspeople, not organizations. I don't know why you'd think the yakuza are more vital than zaibatsu, or why crime syndicates would be more vital than all the companies we've nominated to remove. Cobblet (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add Manuel Noriega. He was both a military dictator and a drug dealer. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We have Frank Sinatra. He was both a singer and a mafioso. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Three Mile Island accident

As title, since it is a highly significant nuclear incident in history of the world.

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose History is currently over quota (see Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded), and all of these additions need to be paired with removals. More specific to this nomination, the Three Mile Island incident is ultimately a minor incident in United States history. When things like Louisiana Purchase, Reconstruction Era, Gilded Age, and Roaring Twenties aren't included, I don't see how this is more vital. Malerisch (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, definetly not vital, compared to Fukushima and Chernobyl. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. The only nuclear disasters with some vitality are Chernobyl and Fukushima. There are many industrial and other manmade disasters not listed including Bhopal disaster, Great Smog, Tenerife airport disaster, Church of the Company Fire, 2013 Savar building collapse, MV Doña Paz, more famously but not as deadly the RMS Titanic, etc. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per the others. Neljack (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Not even that significant in Pennsylvania history. Thank you, President Carter. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Sinking of the RMS Titanic

If any shipwreck deserves to be on the history list, then this is the one that should be on it. 1500 people died from the wreck and is perhaps the most notable shipwreck of all time. Multiple movies have been made on the event, and the action of the captain to sail into the iceberg is high satirized to this date, with the phrase "Titanic Ego" being coined from this event.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support with the caveat of "so long as we don't already have a bunch of shipwrecks and naval disasters." Being made into a movie is not a compelling argument for me, but It was illustrative of the hubris of technology, mass loss of life, major cultural impact, and so on. Probably also not a lot of things on that list between 1900 and World War I. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, well put, Montanabw: it's the epitome of hubris of technology. IThe accident was the first big incident after the industrial revolution (that I can think of right now) and made a clear statement about security issues associated with the new technological possibilities. It clearly demonstrated how the consequences of human failure can be multiplied by technology. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Bencherlite^Talk 18:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Slit drum

These seem poor inclusions. Only thing going for it is seems to represent, in a way, music from the non-western parts of the world, although I still think it's weak, and I would prefer another non-western genre of music with some substance, although not from the same region we are missing Samba which I may nominate. We don't have a huge amount of generic drum types. We don't even have Base drum, which could feasibly replace these, or not.  Carlwev  09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --^Melody _Lavender 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Samba

Music as a whole, I'd prefer wider articles like genres, it is not among the oldest genres, but it originates from the turn of the 20th century, which is older than many genres we have, and is the main genre of South America particularly Brazil 5th most populous nation. It's also generally seen good to get representation for an area other than US and Europe. Considering we still have an odd mix of individual songs and albums like 4 Beatles/Lennon works, a Marvin Gaye album in addition to himself, a Fleetwood Mac album and Happy Birthday To You, and the song by the Righteous Brothers, etc etc I think Samba should be higher priority.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Restore Dressage

This article was removed without consulting anyone who actually is part of WikiProject Equine. This is not merely an Olympic level discipline, but it is the classical foundation of all modern riding. It is highly significant and should not have been removed, particularly for the ill-informed reasons given below. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Equestrian at the Summer Olympics

There are significant numbers of competitors at the Olympic level; but noting concerns about too many articles on Olympic sports, I recommend this one be added as the overview. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. If we add this, we probably would have to add dozens more ...at the Olympics articles pbp 21:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per pbp. Jucchan (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per pbp. Ca2james (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose per pbp. This will open the floodgates. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

My instincts on this say it's a bad idea, looking at this category page (here) shows there are 34 sports with their own "sport at the Summer Olympics". Plus another 19 in the Winter Olympics here. We have many of the sports there listed via their "main" article. If we have equestrian main article and Olympic article then logically why not many of the others in the Category links above? The only argument I could imagine which I don't think is that strong, is we could list cycling and swimming plus swimming (sport) and cycling (sport) but not their Olympic articles though, Equestrianism like swimming and cycling is a non competitive activity as well as a sport, but equestrian sports redirects to equestrianism so the olympic article could be seen as representing the sport, but we list Horse riding too.

If Equestrian at the Summer Olympics, why not Swimming at the Summer Olympics, or Basketball, Judo, Field Hockey at the Summer Olympics etc.

I previously suggested Grand National and/or Kentucky Derby as alternatives to the horse and riders we had a while back, but those events, although better than riders, may not be vital either. I would remove Secretariat (horse) too especially now we've removed Show jumping and dressage, Is that horse more vital than many sports, sportsman, even presidents and cities, err?  Carlwev  16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue stronger for dressage than for this article; my only comment is that if you are covering Olympic disciplines as opposed to sport overview articles (i.e. Skiing at the Winter Olympics vs just skiing), then this is the one to use if you don't want to include all three Olympic Equestrian sports.

As for your other comment, my take is that we already have horse racing as a vital article, which though it is not in great shape at the moment, encompasses (or should encompass) the major worldwide races such as the Kentucky Derby, Grand National, Epsom Derby, Melbourne Cup, Prix d' Arc d' Triomphe, and so on (trust me, you do NOT want to get in the middle of a spat over whether Epsom or Kentucky has the real "derby" =:-O ) I didn't raise the issue of Secretariat, I do question if that article is vital, but for different reasons than yours - I do not agree that one single named horse is inherently too irrelevant to be included (particularly looking at how many celebrities are on the list), but the reality is that there is huge debate over the significance of Secretariat when compared to a small number of other horses, such as Man o' War. For that reason, I think any one horse included is too fraught with hazards - I also think "horse racing" could be written to cover significant racehorses as well. even better would be breed articles such as Thoroughbred (which is FA, by the way) or even Arabian horse (a GA) would be more appropriate. Also, do you have Domestication of the horse on your list? That one is vital if no others - even superceding saddles and stirrups - domestication of the horse itself changed human history. Montanabw^(talk) 16:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the horse is important, but other aspects before the sporting horse, like transport, agriculture, work, war. I didn't particularly mind dressage, The number of sportsman bothers me, the number of sports not as much. I never voted to remove dressage or show jumping and even if I voted to keep it, it still would've gone as it would've been 5-1. I tried twice to get horse added to the 1000 list and eventually it was. I also brought up domestication of the horse and Horses in warfare in secretariat thread below. I think the domestication article has a chance and is fairly important, I don't think anyone would disagree, only is it needed as we have horse? would probably be the only comment, is it too much overlap? any other domestication articles worth adding? I don't think any other articles exist, only domestication of the dog which redirects to the origin of the domestic dog. Also Thoroughbred and Arabian horse along with pony among nine horse breeds in total are listed in biology, animal breeds.  Carlwev  18:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, horse is in the vital 1000, so no real issue there. This is the 10,000. So the question is how many articles. Basically, we have, for your consideration, Horses in warfare, Domestication of the horse, Evolution of the horse and so on. Ponies are not a "breed" per se, but see my recommendation in the biology section to replace two of the breeds with the "type" overview articles. Pony fits that classification. I might also suggest they replace equidae with equus (genus). Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Horses in warfare seems like an obvious add since we currently list war elephant—it's pretty clear which is more vital. Domestication of the horse and evolution of the horse are good adds as well, but they should be added along with origin of the domestic dog, which appears to be an article on both its evolution and domestication (it appears in Template:Animal domestication as well as Template:Evolution). I'd also swap Equidae with Equus since Equus includes all the extant species of Equidae, and the extinct species should be covered in evolution of the horse. The WikiProject is also WP:EQUINE, not WP:EQUID! Malerisch (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely support replacing Equidae with Equus! Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, evolution of the horse is less vital than evolution of mammals or evolution of plants, which are in turn less vital than evolutionary history of life. Malerisch (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Open to whatever evolution articles are deemed most significant. Horse evolution is briefly covered in horse, should a decision be made to just include the mammals overview article. The one reason horses are arguably special is their role as one of the clearer examples of progressive evolution from eohippus to the modern equus. But if there is a call that there are no "Evolution of mammal species foo" articles included, just "Evolution of mammals," then no big whoop to me. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick jumbled comment: not to keen of horse collar, something like wagon I was thinking more but seems overlap with cart issues etc, domestication of the horse I like although my gut says some won't like it, again I like horses in warfare, the fact we have war elephant, which I knew but kind of forgot only makes it even more logical to me and a good argument to use in the thread if it ever appears, again arguments I imagine being used are.. well what about Dogs in warfare and Camel cavalry etc etc. (I'm sure general "Cavalry" is among war type articles somewhere BTW). Evolution points about plants mammals etc means that needs a good look at. For birds for example to pick a similar topic. We had things like beak, bird flight, evolution of birds, bird migration, which I thought acceptable as he had over 100 birds so I thought the overview articles were better. But they were quickly removed despite my comments with arguments like, why not evolution of other groups of species, we don't have animal or fish migration etc, why beak we don't have things like antler horn fin etc.  Carlwev  17:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This is getting a bit far afield, and the other articles won't be resolved here, (ping me if I should create other requests) but just to say that the horse in warfare has been a far more extensive "technological advancement" than the camel or elephant, both of which were of limited use both geographically and historically, while the horse has had worldwide impact since its domestication. Wagons and carts are transportation significance beyond any one animal (oxen, goats, even dogs pull wagons and carts). The horse collar, however, is of equal significance to the stirrup and saddle as far as horse tack that was of significant technological influence on human life - the collar revolutionized how horses could be used as draft animals - it allowed the horse to use its full strength when pulling things (actually, the collar basically allowed the horse to push instead of pull, read the article to see the details...) Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Dressage and Show jumping

Seven articles on equestrianism is excessive. The subdisciplines of equestrianism on their own are not vital. If their inclusion in the Olympics is what kept them on the list, more popular disciplines like artistic gymnastics, track cycling and synchronized swimming and Olympics sports on their own including shooting sport and triathlon will have to be added using such logic.

This will still leave us with five equestrian articles: equestrianism itself, horse racing, saddle, stirrup and Secretariat. Of these, the first two are clearly vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Agree that equestrianism is overrepresented. Malerisch (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support We don't have cross-country, the third major discipline. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The exhibitionary nature of equestrian sports made me think of beauty pageant as a possible addition. The number of countries participating in major beauty pageants exceed many of the sports listed. The winners of the big pageants such as Miss Universe and Miss World often become household names in their respective nations and forge successful post-pageant careers. It also complements bodybuilding to an extent. I don't think one article on it would be overkill. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I always thought they were a bit weak and some other user's comments a while back agreed, but I always thought secretariat was by far the weakest. Also there was thought by myself and at least one other that something like Kentucky Derby and/or Grand National would be better than Secretariat. Something similar to Beauty pageant that was on my mind is Model (people). One last thing Saddle and stirrup were previously under animal transport in tech, not sure there their best place is if we definately want them/  Carlwev  13:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing secretariat too. I didn't suggest it because he seems to be an American icon. Having said that, there are highly-revered racehorses that have left a similar legacy in other countries. Phar Lap of Australia/New Zealand springs to mind. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd thought of the Phar Lap comparison too - he's very famous and a big cultural icon in this part of the world - and I agree that Secretariat should be removed. I don't think singling him out as the only horse to be included is justifiable. Neljack (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Three of the seven articles shouldn't be where they are anyways. Saddle and stirrup, which are used on horses not used for sport as well, should go back to transportation. Secretariat is an athlete, not a sport. There are only four articles on the sport of equestrianism. pbp 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But Secretariat is not a person. Broadly speaking, equestrianism is a skill, but we have no "skills" category; so the present arrangement doesn't bother me. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the location of saddle and stirrup. They are similar to other sports equiipment like ball and transportation technology like wheel and tire. Transport is probably better. Archery, another ancient art turned into a modern sport, is not listed with bow and arrow. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Move Saddle and Stirrup to transport

They had previously been in transport before, but seemed to have been moved to sports without any discussion. Since horses are saddled for many other reasons than sport, I believe saddle and stirrup shouldn't be in sports, but in transport. pbp 05:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 05:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support sounds reasonable. --Melody Lavender (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support, I would move the general article equestrianism to, belongs in sport no more than bike car driving etc.  Carlwev  19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose:Horses and their equipment are not mere ancient transport. Most uses of horses today - and their equipment - are for sporting purposes. Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I was probably the culprit. If you're going to move saddle and stirrup you might as well move equestrianism over there as well – the argument is the same in both cases (they're about more than just sport). They ought to go together. Cobblet (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Equestrianism is mostly a sport today, one could argue that proper riding is also an art, but that's more a seventeenth-century viewpoint. What few horses today are not used for some recreational purpose are mostly used for agricultural purposes; a few may be used for transportation, but mostly in the third world, and there, mostly donkeys. Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand your POV, but third world perspective and historical perspective are just as important as modern western perspective. I have a different view. We list ancient and Medieval weapons, transport vessels, and other machines and tools that are not used today in the Western world or at all. We don't move them to history or remove them, hunting is not listed as a sport although it is possibly more known as a sport today in the Modern West rather than a way of life. But the same I would argue the hunting as a way of life or a way of feeding yourself is more important than recreational. I would also argue the skill/use of the horse for transport, work and war, is more important than its sport value, even if most people no longer use horse and carts today, the horse was immensely important in the past, and had a huge impact on the way humans lived.  Carlwev  17:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, equestrianism is the art and science of horsemanship. You could make an equally convincing argument for history or art. I have to say that the horse is still relevant in the modern world and the recreational uses have saved the animal from wholesale slaughter, which was the fate, in particular, for many draft horses. I fear this reclassification runs the risk of the horse, like the buggy whip being relegated as a dead anachronism of history instead of the living, vital companion animal that it is today (in addition to its extensive use in poorer nations, though much of what you discuss is actually work more often performed by donkeys. The stirrup and the saddle were actually even more important for warfare than anything, so there is also a military technology argument to be made. Really, if you want to know what revolutionized the use of the horse in transportation, it was the invention of the horse collar, which changed the way horses could be used to haul plows, making the cultivation of larger fields possible, the hauling of carriages faster and any number of other feats becoming faster and more efficient. Montanabw^(talk) 03:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Massage

Not sure if it would belong in "recreation" or "medicine" area of the list, I lean toward recreation. Massage is pretty significant, known world wide and around for a very long time. I would list topics like this before getting to 12 tennis players and including a race horse etc.  Carlwev  20:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support its addition to recreation. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support please add it to the recreation area.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Virtual currency

Controversial, I know. But virtual currency, such as Bitcoin, are a new way of doing business. Virtual currency is used to sell both legal and illegal goods on the internet without much of a trace. Virtual currency represents a movement towards one worldwide currency, although it has been less successful of late.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose only vital to the extent it is covered by ecommerce. There are so many key concepts being taught to MBA students around the world not in this section, including profit, time value of money, mergers and acquisitions, CAPM, Black–Scholes model, Bond (finance), arbitrage, balance sheet, dividend, Valuation (finance), auditing, depreciation, asset, human resource management, income, private equity, bankruptcy, insolvency, rate of return, cost, productivity (economics), credit (finance), investment banking, forward contract, privatization, franchising, financial market and pricing. Virtual currency is not one of them. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose it's mostly considered a form of investment, even if it's called a currency. Too early to put this on the list - recentism.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per DaGizza. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

"Virtual currency is used to sell both legal and illegal goods on the internet" (emphasis added). Black market would be a better article to add to this section. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Creole language

An important classification of languages and process more vital than many of the listed languages. Some creoles on their own, such as Haitian Creole, are more widely spoken than these listed languages.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Good thinking! Neljack (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support and would support removing Creole people. Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This is a better article than Creole people, since the people do not have any underlying ethnic unity. The type of language is what unites them. If people are hesitant to add this straight, we could swap it out for the Creole people article. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It is much better because creole language is an important linguistic concept which is by the way not defined by being spoken by creole people. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Social security

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Blatant omission. Should medicare and medicaid also be aided? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

In answer to PointsofNoReturn's question, I see no reason to add articles on country-specific social security programmes. In case it is not clear, the article under consideration here is on the general concept of social security, not the particular US programme of retirement benefits. Neljack (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Neljack. I missed that distinction. I still support the addition. With respect to Medicare and Medicaid, is there an international version for these programs that could work? Or does this addition cover it? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the general articles of social security and welfare state are probably sufficient. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that the US is not exactly known for its health care and social security system it would make very little sense to me to add medicare and medicaid.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Structural functionalism , Conflict theories and Critical theory

These three articles are crucial since they all refer to key social science theories. All beginners' pedagogy textbooks mention these theories.

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, vital basic topics in this field, must-haves for the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Completely agree. Neljack (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Mimicry

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Good find. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think any specfic type of camouflage is vital. Is mimicry any more vital than countershading or disruptive coloration? Maybe broader types like military camouflage or zoological camouflage are better. I would also support broader ecological topics such as food web. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Mimicry covers species that mimic something else, not only in appearance but also, sound, scent, location or behavior. The article appears to be exclusive to biology, eg not covering military or other human things that camouflage may include. I found it in Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropædia articles a list of 699 articles that that encyclopedia thought was most vital for inclusion, and I noticed this was missing from our list; if they place in within a 699 list surely we should have it in a 10'000 list? There may be more articles it has that we don't that may be worth considering. Mimicry appears in almost 50 languages and has over 80 references in English, looks like a vital biology to me.

We do have Camouflage. Although I added it myself years ago, and I think we should definitely have camouflage, I'm not sure where, maybe somewhere else not biology maybe with optics or light or colour? ideas? Camouflage topic includes natural camouflage of animals and plants, military, and civilian/industrial camouflage (eg camouflaging masts in woodland etc). Not 'only' biological, but it does look OK where it is, as mimicry may not include animals not technically mimicking another but camouflaged to blend into sea bed, or tree bark for example.  Carlwev  13:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the article leads despite the similarities, both covers something the other does not, and if anything camouflage is a type of mimicry not the other way round, as mimicry includes similarities including visual appearance, sound, scent, location and behavior. Camouflage is pretty much visual similarity alone, including blending into a background as well as visually looking like another species, the mimicry article I don't think mentions blending into background, unless I missed it as a reader, or editors missed it when writing. I understand that the overlap and similarity may be an issue, but so many species do things like this, I think we need both.Counter-shading etc are just types of camouflage, and cover less than mimicry and camouflage, and could be, and are, covered in camouflage. I do take your points on board. I think correctly informed opposition is better than opposition from slightly incorrect or misleading reasons. I'm not an expert though, I only read the leads and skip read the rest of the articles, if I am the misinformed one, I know look silly.  Carlwev  19:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Re-add Coccinellidae (ladybug)

The majority of beetles were removed in bulk in one go, I think the Ladybird should stay. Beetles are the most numerous insect, with the most species, and one of the most numerous animals altogether. At the moment beetles are outnumbered in our list by the Flies and also Butterflies/Moths which I will shortly nominate some for removal too. The ladybug has over 5000 species described, they are significant to pest control and one of few insects that sometimes appears in popular culture being books, movies and other imagery etc. I think if the number of insects were to be reduced further, coccinelidae would still fit in.  Carlwev  16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support: Major beneficial insect. Montanabw^(talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support pbp 15:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Skipper (butterfly)

I'm no expert but butterflies/moths have 9 articles outnumbering others such as beetles, and the skipper butterfly seems like one of the least vital insects, or organisms in general we have.  Carlwev  16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Skippers are a less vital family of butterflies than Nymphalidae (not listed), which is the largest family and includes famous species like the monarch butterfly, the painted lady, and the blue morpho. Swapping Pieris brassicae for Nymphalidae might be a good idea. I should note that Nymphalidae was removed en masse here, though. Malerisch (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support For me we could simply keep Butterfly and remove all the articles on individual species.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Human heart

This article was redirected to heart a month after it was added to VA/E (see here for the merger discussion). Should it be removed? Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it. If the people who work on medical articles decide we don't need both articles, then we don't need both articles. Surprised that the merge did not generate more discussion though. Cobblet (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support as long as the merge stays intact. Cobblet (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per Cobblet PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support the dysfunctionalities within the Anatomy project will keep us from having reliable information on the human heart for a long time. Since we can't possibly list a redirect, let's axe it. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I believe redirects, once discovered, should be automatically removed. I can't think of a single reason why a redirect to an already vital article should be kept on the list. The person removing the redirect can post a message about it on this talk page so the participants of VA are notified. I don't think doing anything beyond that is necessary. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah agree, voting not necessary. also any article that appears twice, if there are still any left? should be a non discussion and fixed automatically along with renamed articles redirects and merges etc. This is even more straight forward than the automatic nesting that we're doing. I suppose it was seen as polite in this single case, as human heart had only just been added, perhaps?  Carlwev  13:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Ophthalmology

Ophthalmology is the branch of medicine that deals with the anatomy, physiology and diseases of the eye, the area of medicine that also includes opticians. We have Eye test listed. I can't help but think this is a little weak, and we should have an overview article. I thought of optician it's better than eye test but it didn't look quite good enough to me, Ophthalmology seems better than optician and much better than eye test. I probably wouldn't oppose removing eye test as a kind of swap, but there are several tests, including blood test and pap test we should be consistent, as they are maybe similar importance, I am unsure of them. We also previously had urine test but I got it removed and urinary system added. Would anyone prefer Optician?  Carlwev  20:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  20:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Beaufort scale

Same rationale as removing Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. There is simply not enough space to list all major hazard scales as vital. Not all major hazards are even listed yet.

Support

1. as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Malerisch (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  07:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Rwessel (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Other hazard scales can be seen in Category:Hazard scales, there are a fair number. Probably shouldn't have one or many of them.  Carlwev  07:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add more geological periods: Permian, Carboniferous, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician and Cambrian

We have the subdivisions of the Mesozoic era (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous). We also have the Permian–Triassic extinction event, even though we don’t have the Permian period, or for that matter any of the periods of the Paleozoic Era. I’d be open to the removal of the extinction event to make room for these. If we can have 170 articles devoted to the last 200 years of world history, we can have six more articles on 250 million years of Earth’s history

Support

1. pbp 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Permian and Cambrian only I'd like to see a proposal to increase the quota of this section before I support adding the other periods, particularly when Paleogene and Neogene have similar cases to be made for them, as do the Precambrian eons. Cobblet (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think these are important encyclopedic material, I would personally keep the PT extinction event, the event that ended the dinosaurs reign among other species, changed the world, seems more significant than listing 10 dinosaurs separately and individually. I also think Cambrian explosion to be very significant, and worthy of the list, I would support that too, in addition to Cambrian itself. May open that one myself if no one else does.  Carlwev  12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Pleistocene

Support

1. Support pbp 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too close in scope to the Quaternary in general. IMO this type of redundancy should be avoided where possible. Frankly I don't think the Holocene needs to be listed either. Cobblet (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose: and other Epochs also; per Cobblet, seems to be that we should have all the periods, but few to none of the epochs, save perhaps for the present day. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Cobblet and Montanabw. There is a lot of overlap between Quaternary and Pleistocene. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Are you supporting this yourself?  Carlwev  12:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yessir. Good catch! pbp 23:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Linear motion

A vital concept mentioned by many junior high school science and physics textbooks, however the list lacks this vital article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add centrifugal force

A concept more commonly heard than centripetal force, however the list does not contain this article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose This article was just removed less than a month ago. Malerisch (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Malerisch. No convincing rationale to reinstate the article. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add tetration, imaginary unit and imaginary number

tetration is interesting and not unimportant, and imaginary unit is as important as -1. Imaginary number is the opposite of real number. Therefore they all should belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support imaginary unit and imaginary number, Oppose tetration. Tetration is only mid-importance in wikiproject mathematics. PointsofNoReturn (talk)
3. Support imaginary unit and imaginary number, Oppose tetration per PointsofNoReturn. Jucchan (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support imaginary unit and number. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support imaginary unit and number.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose tetration. Very interesting but not vital. Addition, multiplication and exponentation are the only hyper operators that are vital. Stick to the Elementary functions. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add resultant

This topic is crucial, however this list does not have resultant.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Resultant is crucial to algebra. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Field theory (mathematics)

This article has been a redirect to field (mathematics) for over a month now, which is already on the list. Malerisch (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  13:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Rayon

Rayon is a widely used fiber and has been used as replacements for both silk and and cotton. It's also unique in that it's a semi-synthetic fiber.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Ca2james (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Victor Jara

Chilean folkmusician who was tortured and executed by Pinochet's forces during the 1973 coup against Allende. More than anyone he became the symbol of the injustice of the Chilean revolution in the West and is among the best known Latin American trova artists outside of the continent.

Support

1. Support
2. Support A key figure in the development of the nueva canción genre of music, which is widely recognised to have played an important role in revolutions and social upheavals in Latin America, Spain and Portugal in the 70s and 80s. He became an international symbol of the struggle for human rights and democracy, not only in Chile but around the world. Neljack (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Adding Jara will definitely improve the list of musicians as it stands. I support removing one of the bossa nova musicians and adding perhaps Vicente Fernández, Tito Puente or Shakira (as a female Latin representative even though she's quite recent). Dunno how many should be added as I think the overall number of musicians should probably go down somewhat. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The next Chilean added to the list should be Bernardo O'Higgins: if he isn't vital no exponent of nueva canción ought to be. Cobblet (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss

Apples and Oranges. Jara obviously doesnt go towards filling the quota of Chileans, but the quota of Latin American musicians which is entirely empty. O'Higgins have no chance to ever come on the list since he is competing with both Allende and Pinochet - another Chilean leader would be entirely unreasonable. A single Latin American musician on the other hand is very reasonable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because apples and oranges are different doesn't make it acceptable to include one apple and five oranges. Antônio Carlos Jobim, Celia Cruz and João Gilberto are three Latin American musicians already on the list. Cobblet (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is absurd to have noth Jobim and Gilberto on the list. But more absurd to limit the coverage of Latin American music to three persons. Compare that with the number of Latin American leaders and you will see how the weight is skewed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want a propose a swap, I'd be more open to that. I think there are more internationally well-known Latin American leaders than Latin American musicians. I'd regard Evo Morales (to name someone not on the list) more vital than Jara. Also, compare the number of Latin American musicians to the number of African, Arab, East Asian and Southeast Asian musicians. Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, bossa nova is very well represented. The genre itself is listed and two of the three Latin Americans are bossa nova musicians. I'd support swapping bossa nova with samba and adding son cubano. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Wilhelm Wundt to psychologists

Wundt was the first person to use the term psychologist and is (with William James - already listed) a central figure in the early development of psychology as a science of its own (late 19th century). He established the first experimental psychology laboratory in the world and was one of the first who argued for objective measurements in the newly founded science of psychology. Many of his students became influential scientists. Arnoutf (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.-- Arnoutf (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The father of experimental psychology. Neljack (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support a highly influential figure in the history of psychology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
4. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Battle of the Somme

• Over 1 million people died in the battle and I think it's encyclopedia material equal or higher to articles have on the world wars and other history topics below. We do have Western Front (World War I) which it is included within, but then we include Attack on Pearl Harbor and Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though they are covered in Pacific War which we have. I'm not saying they should get removed but just an example that some events, if vital enough, should be included even if their parent article is too.

• WW1 articles now are Balkans Campaign (World War I), Eastern Front (World War I), Italian Front, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, Western Front (World War I)

• WW2 articles Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Battle of the Atlantic, Eastern Front (World War II), Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II, Pacific War, Western Front (World War II), Yalta Conference, another random battle

• I dislike the inclusion of is Wounded Knee Massacre with aprox 400? deaths, is surly lower priority than Battle of the Somme?

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose If you're just looking at casualties, Siege of Leningrad should be on the list first. In terms of historical and cultural significance from a global point of view I'd be perfectly comfortable removing Pearl Harbor and Wounded Knee – where's Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria or Nanking Massacre? Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose The most significant individual battle currently omitted from the list in terms of causing political change, cultural change, having symbolic value and a large death count is the Siege of Baghdad (1258). I'm open to removing Pearl Harbor and Wounded Knee as well but probably not the atomic bombings. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet and Maunus. Jucchan (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Cobblet. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The vitality of a battle is not determined by death count but by its historical and cultural significance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Wounded Knee Massacre

Although I don't think topics involving Indigenous peoples of the Americas are over-represented I don't think an article like this is the best to represent their history. This battle saw about 331 deaths, including 200 woman and children (300 on one side 31 on the other). I can't help think there must be a huge number of similar battles and/or wars with higher numbers and importance that are missing, from American history and other areas. We don't have Sioux Wars, Great Sioux War of 1876, Battle of the Little Bighorn, look also at categories Category:Wars between the United States and Native Americans and Category:Battles involving Native Americans, There are over 60 wars and over 60 battles in those, plus more within sub categories of those. Although not the least significant, The wounded knee Massacre doesn't stand out to me as the most vital of those either. Also perhaps articles on the "peoples" themselves who are/were around for 100s or 1000s of years may be better to have than one battle where they happened to fight the US in their later history. There are Native American Peoples and other native peoples missing that seem higher importance than battles/massacres like this. If I have missed a reason why this article is more important compared to those in the categories above then I'm sorry and please share.  Carlwev  18:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  18:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I think the listing of very specific incidents like these should be kept to a minimum. See comments below. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per nom and Cobblet. Malerisch (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Supportper nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The massacre is not significant because of the number of dead, but because it marked the end of the North American indian wars and the major shift of public opinion from seeing Natives as enemies to seeing them as victims. It is recognized worldwide as particularly salient example of the atrocities committed by the US state globally, and by the natives themselves - probably only the Sand Creek Massacre is comparable but that is not nearly as well known world wide, and the Battle of Little Big Horn. It gives its title to Dee Brown's seminal work "Bury My heart at Wounded Knee" which was the first major attempt of revisionist history writing about the American Indian wars - and this books immense popularity made Wounded Knee a symbol of the atrocities and of this view of history (which I think is by now the mainstream). I might be convinced to vote for a Swap with the Battle of Little Big Horn if a very good rationale for why this should be considered more important is provided, but there is no way that I could vote for a straight removal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Maunus PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Maunus. This may not be best listed as a "battle" as it was an attack on unarmed civilians, but it is of extremely significant importance in the history of Native Americans. Yes, Trail of Tears should be added, in fact, if we had to list a very small list of the most significant incidents in white-Native history in the Americas, I'd put these two right after the Columbus encounter and before the Battle of the Little Bighorn as far as impact on indigenous people goes (and really, three articles is not too many here, presumably Columbus is already here, linked elsewhere!. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above. Could support a swap with another Native American topic. Gizza ^(t)(c) 06:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose in any case, but would consider moving to another tab (ethnology, politics, or anthropology). --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We list an extremely limited number of specific battles (where's Battle of Marathon, Battle of Yarmouk or Battles of Tarain?) and as important as Wounded Knee may be, it's difficult to argue that it belongs in such select company. I'd support a swap for Trail of Tears – it certainly isn't inferior to Wounded Knee in terms symbolizing the US's treatment of its natives and I prefer listing the topic that had a deeper impact on the lives of native Americans. I think a more general topic like Demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas would also be a better choice. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wounded Knee is not notable as a battle, indeed by most accounts it wasnt a battle at all but a massacre. Trail of tears would be a good addition. I wouldnt want to compare what had a deeper impact on the lives of Native Americans. Wounded Knee was the last element in the process that finally confined the Sioux tribes to the federal reservation system and the control of the BIA. Indian Removal could be a good addition as well. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment above, Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee should both be included, though perhaps "battles" is the wrong category - is there a better category for moving both of them? They are distinct atrocities, very different in nature, but both linked to American Indian policy and representative of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" struggle of native people - the Cherokee went out of their way to attempt to save their land by assimilation, the Sioux went out of their way to preserve their way of life by resisting assimilation. Both were mercilessly crushed. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw I think that the problem with adding Little Big Horn, Wounded Knee and Trail of Tears as representing Native American history is that it leaves out natives in all other countries than the US. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether you call it a battle or a massacre, the point remains that it was a discrete incident that was emblematic of a larger phenomenon. I'm speaking of the difference between the Bosnian War and Srebrenica, the Holocaust and Auschwitz, the Armenian genocide and the Hamidian massacres, the Cambodian genocide and the Killing Fields, the Sino-Japanese War and Nanking; if you say we cannot even call the Cambodian and Armenian genocides vital (see discussion below), I think we have to be extremely picky when it comes to such events-within-events (the second of each pair of events I mentioned is not on the list). Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that Native American history is already underrepresented - we are talking about the population of two continents. For the record I didnt say that we couldnt call Armenian and Cambodia genocides vital - I said that doing so opens up to a pesky discussion of why one genocide would be more important than another. I am not interested in that discussion since all genocides are equally important to different people. Wounded Knee is important as a global cultural icon of the fate of Native Americans - not simply because it is its one of the many genocidal atrocities of US imperialism. If that were the rationale then indeed the list would have to be a lot longer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed you opposed the nomination, that's all. Again I compare Wounded Knee to Auschwitz and Nanking and ask what makes one more vital than the other two. OTOH, for a topic like hacienda/peon or Potosí I have a harder time making valid comparisons to events unrelated to native American history, which says to me that there might be something more vital about them. Cobblet (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, when I make decisions I don't compare the historic significance of events, I find that a futile and subjective exercise, but I try to compare the cultural significance of the knowledge of the event - by doing that we are gauging not how important events are but how important other people are likely to think they are, and hence how likely they are to look for them in an encyclopedia. This does mean that I tend to estimate "iconic" events and persons higher than "high impact" events and persons. It is an act of balance, but I think that, and then making decisions about weighing coverage, are the only meaningful ways to say that we should include one President and not another, or one massacre and not another. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be guinness book of records "three most important presidents", "three biggest massacre", "five most winning athletes" etc. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your distaste for such comparisons. But the "cultural significance of the knowledge of the event" frequently depends on the significance of the event itself; so I think your criterion essentially introduces an additional element of subjectivity. When you say "cultural", whose culture are you referring to? To whom is serfdom more "iconic" than peonage? Cobblet (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And very frequently the cultural significance is entirely unrelated to objective measures. I recognize that it is a problem to that any judgment of cultural significance is located in a specific culture, but since this is inevitable in any case it makes more sense to be cognizant and explicit about that fact. So the answer to "whose culture?" would be "the culture of those who make encyclopedias".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If that's what you believe, and since Americans and Britons constitute 51.5% of Wikipedia's editorship, does it then follow that half the topics on the list of vital articles should be relevant primarily to an Anglo-American audience? Cobblet (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is already the case, and also for more than 51,5% - I'd say probably all of the articles are primarily relevant for an Anglo-American audience and reflect Anglophone upper middle class interests and worldviews. And I think that is what is should do. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think such a stance is incompatible with Wikipedia's stated intention to be the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever written, and the spirit of policies like NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It very clearly is not since I am not arguing that any articles should not be included or that our coverage of any specific topics should be weighted towards any particular viewpoint. There is no neutral view of the world, and wikipedia by design can never come to reflect all views. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That Wikipedia cannot reflect all views does not mean it cannot reflect more than one view. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And that is of course not what I am arguing, there is not a single monolithic western view, everyone who is arguing here represent Western views, and there is no way to escape that. You do seem intent on not understanding what I am actually saying, I really dont think I can be any clearer in my statements here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You assume too much of the people who contribute here if you think they all necessarily represent Western views. You said the articles on the list are "primarily relevant for an Anglo-American audience and reflect Anglophone upper middle class interests and worldviews" (I take it you did not mean to distinguish between "Anglophone" and "Anglo-American"), and that you are comfortable with that; I'm not. Cobblet (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how you could read that out of Maunus statement. Apart from that, Maunus is saying exactly what I have tried to say so many times. I'd choose "iconic" over high significance within a scientific discipline. Melody Lavender (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The majority of Wikipedia's editors live in the US and UK: these are the people who "make the encyclopedia." Should Wikipedia therefore prioritize improving articles that are relevant to people from those two countries? Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is already the case and necessarily so. In fact the priority given currently is even narrower than that, focusing primarily on the interests of youngish American white upper middle class men. This does not mean however that articles about English speakers are more vital than articles about speakers of other languages, because luckily English speakers have fairly wide interests and also look outside the English speaking world. But if the Encyclopedia was written by Hindi speakers, Danes or Zulus it would certainly look very different. Realizing that our audience has a cultural background that we need to take into account is not the same as giving into parochialism, because encyclopedias also have an educational function - it makes a statement about what people "ought to know" - again from the perspective of a particular culture. And that is the balance we are trying to strike here, in my opinion. If you are an English speaker who doesn't know about Wounded Knee, then you are intellectually empoverished, and that is what the encyclopedia should be able to help you with. If you don't know about the Sand Creek Massacre or the statistics of how many Natives died due to colonization you can be more easily excused. That is why we need to keep this article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that expressing an opinion on what people "ought to know" based on the perspective of one culture is the very essence of parochialism. But for the sake of this discussion, let's pretend to agree we're OK with that, whatever we call it. From a Western perspective, I agree you are intellectually impoverished if you don't know about Wounded Knee. But I think you are equally intellectually impoverished from the same Western perspective if you don't know about Auschwitz or the Killing Fields. I see no reason to include the first topic as a specific example of ethnically motivated violence but not the other two. Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That is nonsense, because there is no other perspective from which we can make statements about what people ought to know. There is no "view from nowhere". As for Auschwitz and the killing fields, we are not discussing those topics here. I would personally be inclined to support their inclusion. But Wounded knee is, as I have explained, not just an example of ethnically motivated violence, it is an iconic event in Native American history (which is underrepresented), and also an iconic event within the study of US history and within the study of ethnically motivated violence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I Realize that any people here like to pretend that they are not making decisions based on their on particular worldviews and cultural backgrounds by making reference to seemingly objective facts when they make decisions "Number three on X list of best American actors", "disaster with X most casualities", "every household has one of these", "caused this event which is surely vital" etc. These types of rationales for me are simply selfdelusional because they do not escape the cultural situatedness anyways. It is much better to be explicit and say "this topic" is one that no reasonably educated person of my wider social group should be able to get away with not knowing about", because that is the basic rationale for even having an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, there is no "view from nowhere"; but it does not follow that we must adopt the view of only one particular culture. I think an approach that includes perspectives from multiple cultures is more desirable. I think you are incorrect to lump together all the arguments you mentioned as self-delusional. For example, it is evident that listmakers have their own biases and I think the contributors here have the intelligence to be able to take that into account; and there is nothing "culturally situated" about a casualty figure. All the things you say about Wounded Knee are true, but equally valid statements can be made about other instances of ethnic violence that are equally vital to the histories and cultures they represent. To single out Wounded Knee when American Indian Wars is also listed reeks of American parochialism to me. Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is something culturally situated about a casualty figure. First of all the decision to focus on casualties is a culturally situated decision, the historical events for which we have casualty figures available is also a culturally filtered set of events. It is a valid argument that including Wounded Knee can be considered parochial, I understand that argument and accept it as valid, but disagree. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference from what perspective we are judging and what we are looking to include. I think there is an implicit understanding that we are looking for a worldwide perspective, but we are (or should I say most of us are) trying to make that judgement from a UK-US cultural perspective.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the former is not meaningfully possible if you are using the latter approach. It would suggest, for example, that Psy is the most important Asian musician of all time. Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that would be giving into parochialism, because this is only the case in this particular moment. And also it disregards the fact that Encyclopedia have an educational role, it is not necessarily the case that Psy is the single East Asian artist that we think English speakers "ought to know".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought you believed it was important that people be educated about iconic figures. Psy is the one East Asian musician that approaches "iconic" status in the West; if he is not vital (from the perspective you and Melody seem to be advocating) then no East Asian musician is, and we should remove Teresa Teng from the list immediately. Cobblet (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that suggests a very limited view of what "iconic" means, and again you dismiss the educational role. It is not a question of which figure our readership is most likely to already know, but about whom we would prefer them to know. Knowing about Teresa Treng, gives them a better understanding of East Asian music and its history, adding Psy is unlikely to do so unless he keeps up his current trajectory for decades to come. It seems that you are trying very hard not to understand what is being argued, instead trying to find apparent contradictions you can try to make the argument look absurd. That is not a very interesting kind of argument to me, so pardon if I stop having it. In the end I dont have to justify my votes to anyone, and I am clearly not going to convince you that Wounded Knee should stay. Lets agree to disagree as the saying goes. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I find your positions self-contradictory: they allow you to accuse others of Western bias in some discussions while excusing yourself when you fall into the same trap in others. As members of Anglo-American society, I think it's duplicitous to say that we favour cultural diversity when we also say we prefer an Anglo-American perspective. "Cultural diversity, but only on our terms" is just bald-faced parochialism. I don't see anything in Wikipedia's core principles and policies that suggests we espouse such a worldview. This is a problem we take on when we try to assess everything only in terms of what is "culturally significant", and it's magnified when we take "culturally" to mean "to our own culture".

On your other point: if you're really that concerned about educating a reader on the importance of the demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas or Chinese music, wouldn't those articles themselves give a fuller understanding of the topic than articles on Wounded Knee and Teresa Teng? Yet it seems you and others are opposed to including such general topics in favour of including "iconic" people and events. The standard argument has been that people are more interested in specific articles rather than general topics. That's debatable on a case-by-case basis, but even when true, this means we are suddenly deferring back to our readership to decide what they want to know. I see no consistency in our application of such arguments: it's odd to see Teresa Teng listed over Chinese music and Dixie (song) listed over national anthem on the one hand, but Peking opera listed over Mei Lanfang on the other; and I daresay most of our readership is much more interested in K-Pop and Gangnam Style than any of these topics. Cobblet (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I do understand why you think of that as self contradictory, I think of it more as an development, I came here to try to make the list more inclusive of the non-Western world, adding all kinds of things that in retrospect I can see would probably fit better in a different kind of list. But when I went through the process of actually thinking what an encyclopedia is and what its job is I realized that it cannot escape having a worldview integrated into it and that this will color its contents. I do still think it is important to have "diversity" and include a wider scope of knowledges than just prototypical Western knowledge - and that is what I mean by the educational function of the encyclopedia. I think it should explore the boundaries of typical western knowledge and that there should be some articles that challenge traditional western knowledge, but on the other hand the core function of an encyclopedia is to communicate a particular culturally situated view of what things in the world are important to know about. So know I approach this project by thinking of what I, as a western person who is aware of an interested in diversity, think it is important that the ordinary wikipedia reader should know about. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia in the history of the medium that has the means to escape the straightjacket of a worldview imposed on it by a handful of similarly-minded editors. Such an opportunity should be welcomed and acted on: I believe it is, and I believe this is the reason for Wikipedia's success. I see no reason why we must qualify the concept of diversity with quotation marks. We can do better, even if we cannot yet agree on exactly how. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Btw. I do agree that if we look at the list as a whole it is highly arbitrary what gets listed based on the quota system and what we compare with in a specific case. I don't see a good solution to that problem (except as I have suggested many times, to make simple quotas and let the WPS decide what gets included in their quota). Either we will have a list of only general broad topics that noone are looking for, or a list of specific iconic topics. Modernist architecture or the Eiffel Tower? No good solution, that we can carry out here in a concerted and homogeneous way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think there's quite a simple solution that may be applicable (or at least taken into consideration) whenever the topics to be compared aren't related to current events: look at their respective page views. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That is simply another copout argument that does nothing to avoid the cultural bias, but everything to perpetuate it - while jettisoning any educational function of the encyclopedia and sanctifying the interests of 14 year old American boys as being the core of the project. An entirely irrelsponsible and absurd proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Absurd and irresponsible only if you ignore context. I don't think "cultural bias" is the only reason one might prefer to read the article on the Eiffel Tower over the one on Modernist architecture. And we are not comparing the Eiffel Tower to Pokemon, or to the Ajanta caves. Cobblet (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw. The articles should be moved/nominated in a different section. Maybe politics, or better ethnology. Does anybody even know that we have an ethnology section? It has 29 articles. What makes ethnology any less important than other disciplines? The articles that are mentioned here might find a better home there. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a very bad idea, just because an historical event happens to an ethnic minority that doesnt mean that it falls under ethnology not history. The section on ethnology is not for this kind of thing, it is for concepts and findings from ethnological research.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There were two sides involved, it didn't 'happen to a minority'. Ethnology analyzes the relationship of two cultures, and that is exactly the issue at hand. It was a turning point in the relationship between two cultures. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all that is not what ethnology does, you must be thinking of a different discipline. Ethnology is the theoretical and comparative study of human cultures. And yes the Wounded Knee Massacre did happen to a minority ethnic group, the fact that it was perpetrated by a majority ethnic group does not make it any more an example of "relationship between two cultures" than the holocaust or the Vietnam war. This is an historical incident, with historical ramifications.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving this into ethnology doesn't make much sense unless you want to get rid of the history section entirely. Using similar reasoning, all of the wars can be moved into the military section and the Renaissance can be moved into art. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I hate to add to the extensive bandwidth here that generates more heat than light, but Native Americans and Native American issues are given horribly short shrift on WP in general. Living people with living history need to be given due respect. While other indigenous people also need inclusion, this is a group of people who did survive genocide and are still here today; significant events in their history need to be added, and where they are added is not something I am worried about, just that is is added. This was not a military battle, it was a civilian attack. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Baroque architecture

Baroque architecture is very popular in the world, including Taiwan, where many buildings erected during Japanese rule use this style.

Support

1. as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Julius Caesar (play)

I do not see how the play about Julius Caesar is any less vital than Hamlet or Macbeth. Julius Caesar is one of Shakespeare's masterpieces. A list of literature is not complete without the play Julius Caesar.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Two shakespeare plays is enough for this list methinks. I wouldnt swap either Hamlet or Macbeth for this one, and if I were to add a third it wouldnt be Julius Caesar either. Evaluating the quality of a play is a subjective exercise, and as such it isnt what inclusion in the list should be based on. Hamlet and Macbeth are bvy far the best known and most frequently performed of Shakespeares works - followed probably by Richard III and A Midsummer Night's Dream. But as I said, two of his play is enough for this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Per Maunus. Adding another Shakesspeare won't add anything to the list, except make the section more skewed towards the English language. There still might be works of literature in the English language missing from the list but the Julius Caesar play isn't one of them. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose We have nine Shakespeare plays as it is, and should be looking to cut some. Julius Caesar is one of the more important Shakespeare plays, but not right in the absolute top echelon of importance. Neljack (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose There are more than enough Shakespeare plays on the list and while Julius Caesar is important, it's not more important than the ones already listed. Ca2james (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: If any author should have multiple works on this list, it's William Shakespeare. If you look at influences on English language and literature, the only thing more influential than Shakespeare is the Bible (and Shakespeare purportedly consulted on the KJV). That being said, I think 5-6 Shakespeare plays should be sufficient, and I'm proposing a removal. pbp 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple works, yes, but even three would be more than any other writer. If both proposals pass, there will still be nine of his works - over four times as many as the next most mentioned author. That's overboard. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Das Kapital

A crucial book written by Karl Marx whose corresponding article is not included in the list.

Support

1. as nom. I'm very surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Marx's magnum opus. Hard to deny its importance, whatever you think of him and his ideas. Neljack (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support globally influential. In this case, I don't think it is overkill to have both Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto. Any more definitely will be. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support good catch. Definitely an omission. Marx's ideas in their authentic, original form should be represented because they are often misunderstood/misinterpreted and abused. Marx's own ideas differ from the political system that was build on them. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support pbp 13:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
8. supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
9. Support Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

A book of history written by the English historian Edward Gibbon, which traces the trajectory of Western civilization (as well as the Islamic and Mongolian conquests) from the height of the Roman Empire to the fall of Byzantium. It was published in six volumes. Volume I was published in 1776 and went through six printings. Volumes II and III were published in 1781; volumes IV, V, and VI in 1788–89. The original volumes were published in quarto sections, a common publishing practice of the time. The work covers the history of the Roman Empire, Europe, and the Catholic Church from 98 to 1590 and discusses the decline of the Roman Empire in the East and West. Because of its relative objectivity and heavy use of primary sources, unusual at the time, its methodology became a model for later historians. This led to Gibbon being called the first "modern historian of ancient Rome".

Support

1. as nom. I'm quite surprised by the fact that this crucial article is not include in the Level 4 list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Probably the most famous and acclaimed work of history in the English language. I think both Gibbon and the book are vital. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support On the very short list of essential books about western civilization. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Would support swap with author as this is his main source of notability.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• If we are to have famous works of historiography rather than just the actual history, then I do think this might be a good candidate. But I am not convinced that we need the most significant works of historiography on this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gibbons is listed; this is the work on which his legacy rests. I could support swapping the author for the work but listing both seems redundant. Cobblet (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Goood point, I would support a swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO the next work of historiography that should be listed is the Records of the Grand Historian since we currently list the Histories. Malerisch (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Records of the Grand Historian should be added to the list. By the way, Edward Gibbon wrote not only The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but also other works, e.g. his memoir.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a seminal enough work that I am comfortable having both it and Gibbon on the list. pbp 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Scale (music)

Basic concept that strikes me as an obvious omission. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I suggested this a long time ago. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per Cobblet. Malerisch (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Jucchan (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

An even more basic concept is note, which I think should be added first. Malerisch (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes aren't vital (musical notation is listed); pitch (music) is a little better. However, in the vast majority of musical traditions it's not the pitches themselves that matter, but how they're arranged into intervals and tonal centres. That's what scales are about. Cobblet (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Malerisch (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Swap: Remove Singer-songwriter, add songwriter

Just seems disingenuous that we have one but not the other pbp 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 20:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The former is am=n identifiable style of music, whereas any composer who has written a song whatever the genre is a songwriter. Former is arguably vital, the second redundant with composer. I could be convinced to vote for removal of the former though.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack)

We have talked before about cutting modern music works. Here's a start. This is more notable for sales than critical acclaim. I think having the Bee Gees on the people list is enough to cover this.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Bee Gees and Disco cover the phenomenon well enough. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support pbp 01:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Snow support on steroids. Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We do have Bee Gees and also Disco. We also removed the star of the movie John Travolta, who seems more important than the sound track.  Carlwev  14:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Remove All You Need Is Love

With the Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, I Want to Hold Your Hand and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on the list, the Beatles are fairly well covered even if this is removed. It seems a bit of a funny choice to me anyway, as there are several more critically acclaimed or popular songs like Strawberry Fields Forever, Let It Be, Eleanor Rigby or Hey Jude.

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  14:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Would support removing I want to Hold Your Hand as well.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Agree that it is an odd choice and we already have quite enough about the Beatles. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
6. SUpport:Frankly, all we really need is the Beatles, we really don't need any of the songs or albums at all. Montanabw^(talk) 16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• IF we want to balance this list to be less pop-culture centered IMHO, the only time a song or album should be on this list at all is if the song or album was a major one-off that is more significant than the performer(s). (i.e. perhaps "Born to be Wild" but not Steppenwolf; Disraeli Gears but not Cream) Montanabw^(talk) 16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Celibacy

Widespread and ancient idea, appearing throughout most of history up to modern day, in some form, mentioned in the teachings of most religions in many cultures of the world. Some promoting it and also some opposing it. Could go in sexuality or religion, but appears primarily a religious topic it seems. Fasting is under religion, not with dieting under food, for example.  Carlwev  09:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  09:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Econometrics

A crucial article (anyone who is not good at econometrics can not excel in microeconomics and macroeconomics).

Support

1. as nom. I'm surprised by the fact that it's not included in the Level 4 list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support it's basically the math behind economics and is vital as such. Most countries have government statistics offices that deal with trying to measure, calculate and interpret the real numbers to make the theories of microeconomics and macroeconomics applicable. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support #BigData #MPP pbp 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I agree that the nominator's rationale wasn't expressed very well but econometrics is vital. It complements economic theory by adding an empirical, measurable dimension to the discipline. A basic understanding of econometrics is essential to anybody studying economics. Definitely more vital than the stock exchanges. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  07:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Important subdiscipline of economics. Considering the number of subdisciplines mentioned for other sciences economics lists only very few - so I can support adding one, and econometrics is an important one. Arnoutf (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Not vital. Your surprise is not an argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Sugarcane

Sugarcane is the most produced crop and 9th most valuable agricultural commodity in the world Source - FAOSTAT. Similar to cotton, the sugarcane plantations set up during the colonial period led to the migrations of various people from Africa and Asia to the tropical islands of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans and thus played a major role in shaping the ethnic makeup of many modern day nations.

Apart from being the main source for sugar and rum production (both of which are listed), it is a major source of the world's biofuels, which itself provides a greater supply of energy than solar energy and wind power and isn't listed. If there are 80 or so other edible plants on the list, sugarcane should clearly be included as well.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
3. SupportI'm surprised by the fact that it is not included in the Level 4 list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  13:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support pbp 20:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Sugarcane would fit in even on the L3 list as it stands IMO. I would consider it slightly more vital than soybean and potato for instance (although the alternative would be to remove those articles). Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The L3 list still contains fewer than 1,000 articles, so sugarcane can be added to it without removing soybean and potato.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, lev4 definitely surprized it was missing and no one noticed til now, lev 3 not sure but definitely worth trying and discussing I was thinking about cattle for lev3, we have no food animals only food plants there.  Carlwev  13:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Parallel (geometry) and Perpendicular

Some of the most basic ways to describe lines. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Basic terms do not necessarily make for vital encyclopedic topics. Compare right angle, acute angle, obtuse angle, equilateral, isosceles, scalene, divisor, remainder, denominator, numerator, greatest common denominator, lowest common multiple, slope, intercept, local maximum and minimum, inflection point, radius, diameter, circumference, centre, centroid, circumcentre, incentre, orthocentre, sine, cosine, tangent, cosecant, arcsine, hyperbolic sine... I hope you get the idea. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Rectangle

Possibly the most commonly used shape. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Triangles are everything. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. Circles are also far more vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If we're planning to add all of these 4-sided shapes, I think quadrilateral should be included. Malerisch (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I support adding quadrilateral but there are too many special cases of quadrilaterals to list any of the specific ones IMO. Apart from square which has many unique properties. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Parallelogram

Common basic shape whose properties are applicable to fields outside of math. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Trapezoid

Common basic shape, can also be used to approximate definite integrals. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Cylinder (geometry)

Common basic shape. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Next you'll be telling me that rectangular prisms are "possibly the most commonly used" solid. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Cylinder is a disambiguation page I'm guessing Cylinder (geometry) must be the article intended. I have changed the thread to that, if I was wrong please alter.  Carlwev  05:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be open to supporting cone instead as conic sections are a significant field of study within mathematics. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Conic section is on level 3, but just because it happens to be possible to derive them from slicing a cone does not make cones vital. Quadrics would be a more vital topic. Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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.

---

Add Hexagon

Common basic shape, one of the shapes that is widely naturally occurring. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Again, common and vital are not synonyms: just because every DNA molecule in every cell of your body is in the shape of a helix does not make helix a vital article. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Particular individual shapes, or even small classes of shapes, are not vital. Rwessel (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.