Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45
FAILED
1-3 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ken Watanabe and Takashi Shimura

The former is vital since he has won many awards, and widely known in the Anglosphere. The latter is vital since he was known for his appearance in 21 of Akira Kurosawa's 30 films, including as a lead actor in Ikiru (1952) and Seven Samurai (1954).

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Neither of those rationales seem to establish the actor's vitality, to my mind. Neljack (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose If any Japanese actor is vital it is Toshiro Mifune, and since the vitality of Kurosawa himself is frequently questioned it is a safe bet that neither Mifune nor these two gentlemen should be included. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
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.
PASSED
Added, 7-0 pbp 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Joseph Goebbels

Above, there's been support to add PR men. If we're going to add people who are significant in the field of PR and propaganda, I guess we should add this guy, who was also significant in Hitler's Nazi regime. Was he repugnant? Hell yeah. Was he significant? Probably. pbp 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, a "PR man" is not how I remember him, haha. ~Mable (chat) 18:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Perhaps the most notorious propagandist of all time. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Certainly more notable than Klaus Kinski. Malerisch (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Indeed it would be an odd encyclopedia that didnt have him.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 days Jucchan (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 C. V. Raman

One of the most important scientist from India whose ground breaking work in the field of light scattering earned him the 1930 Nobel Prize for Physics. In 1954, he was honoured with the highest civilian award in India, the Bharat Ratna.

Support
  1. Support : As nom. Logical1004 (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

While his discovery is undoubtedly very important, I wouldn't necessarily call it fundamental to our understanding of science. We don't list Raman scattering or Raman spectroscopy even though the latter is used quite frequently in academia – there are many even more significant spectroscopy techniques we're missing. On such a short list of scientists I don't think he makes the cut. Cobblet (talk) 23:50, 31 December 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.
FAILED
1-4 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mathieu Orfila

A Spanish-born French toxicologist and chemist, the modern founder of the science of toxicology. He made significant contribution to forensic toxicology.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Neljack (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Honestly...User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose a little bit too niche to be vital IMO though I may change sides if a more detailed rationale is given. Gizza (t)(c) 05:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
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.


FAILED
1-3 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Austin Bradford Hill

Sir Austin Bradford Hill FRS (8 July 1897 – 18 April 1991), English epidemiologist and statistician, pioneered the randomized clinical trial and, together with Richard Doll, demonstrated the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Hill is widely known for pioneering the "Bradford Hill" criteria for determining a causal association.

Support
  1. As nom. Though it was rated low-importance by the science and academia work group before, it is still crucial since he proved that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer with Richard Doll and pioneered the Bradford-Hill criteria which are still widely accepted in the modern era as a logical structure for investigating and defining causality in epidemiological study.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Let's talk about adding clinical trial instead. IMO Doll and Hill are clearly less notable than James Lind, Claude Bernard, Ambroise Paré, Charaka, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Li Shizhen, Christiaan Barnard, and a whole host of other figures from the history of medicine that aren't included on our list. Cobblet (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Does not have the wide range of important contributions that Doll does. Neljack (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
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.
FAILED
1-5 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Robert Atkins (nutritionist)

Robert Coleman Atkins (October 17, 1930 – April 17, 2003) was an American physician and cardiologist, best known for the "Atkins Nutritional Approach", or "Atkins Diet", a popular but controversial way of eating that requires close control of carbohydrate consumption, emphasizing protein and fat as the primary sources of dietary calories in addition to a controlled number of carbohydrates from vegetables. Although the success of Atkins' diet plan, weightloss books, and lifestyle company, Atkins Nutritionals, led Time to name the doctor one of the ten most influential people in 2002, his critics in the medical and fitness communities continue to criticize Atkins' approach to weight loss.

Support
  1. As nom. There are Chinese translations of his books in Taiwan, so this person is not just vital in the Anglosphere.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for the love of all that is holy Cobblet (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose More a marketing phenomenon than a figure of scientific importance. Neljack (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Just no ~Mable (chat) 08:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. !. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. NO Jucchan (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

If we'd list the top ten most influential people of every year of the past hundred years, we'd end up with a thousand people. And then we'd still have the rest of history to go through. ~Mable (chat) 08:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Even adding the most influential person every year according to Time is problematic. As Time Person of the Year, their selections are skewed towards the US and the short-term. Non-Americans for the most part are chosen in reference to their relevance to America and not a worldwide encyclopedia looking at the long-term. Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If the TIME yearly list is relevant, then the TIME Century list should also be relevant...yet several of those people we've never had on the list and one of the (Billy Graham) is on the block right now. pbp 15:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Point is, we have the decide for ourselves who we find important, and can only use lists like these as examples and references to add to their legacy. As we've done thus far. ~Mable (chat) 09:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a point about the oppose notes. they seem to be a little uncivil. A simple oppose is all that is required. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:29, 22 December 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.
FAILED
3-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu

Article about the oldest known works of copper and its alloys in West Africa. They are ranked among the most technically accomplished and inventive castings ever made and are marked by a level of technical accomplishment that is notably more advanced than European bronze casting of the same period. They lack known parallels in any other part of the world and are said to be without comparison to anything else known in the world of arts or technology. Despite this the artifacts are not well known. The artifacts demonstrate the little known fact that trade relationships existed between Egypt and the West African hinterland as early as the 9th Century and that there existed a flourishing and technically sophisticated bronze industry well before European contact. The article should be added for the same reasons that Nok culture is on the list as, it is a missing link to a period of African history that has been largely ignored by research and enjoys comparatively little geographic representation. Ochiwar (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

#Support as nominated. Ochiwar (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support. Early technical accomplishment in metal working, we have an article on historic use of fire by homo erectus, I think we should include such major points in human development.--Melody Lavender 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support as nominated. Ochiwar (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, Ochiwar definitely managed to give some increedibly rationale down there. However, if the article will be merged into Igbo-Ukwu itself, it still seems more obvious to pick that. If Archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu happens to become a re-direct, then the choice will be obvious, I guess. ~Mable (chat) 21:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, I'd much rather support Igbo-Ukwu itself instead. The act of digging up the artifacts of the Igbo-Ukwu would be redundant with that article. Interesting choice, though, and Igbo-Ukwu would probably be a pretty good addition! EDIT: Perhaps Kingdom of Nri would be an even better addition, but I don't know. ~Mable (chat) 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not convinced that the site of the oldest bronze artifacts known in West Africa is vital. Why not the site of the oldest bronze artifacts from Southeast Asia? Or the site of the oldest bronze artifacts from China? I question if this is really an early technical accomplishment in metalworking—900 AD is pretty late for bronze development in the scope of world history, as a quick skim of Bronze Age and lost-wax casting will show. There are more significant "earliest" milestones in human history not listed: what about Gerzeh culture (earliest artifacts of iron)? Or Natufian culture (earliest evidence of agriculture)? Or Homo habilis (earliest species of Homo)? Within historical cities, I don't think it's the next one to be added either, not when Eridu (arguably the earliest city) or Uruk (largest city in the world for over a millennium) aren't listed. I support keeping Nok culture though, which is significant not only for its early use of iron but also for its terracotta figurines and its role as one of West Africa's earliest civilizations. Malerisch (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'd take Igbo people and Kingdom of Nri first. Cobblet (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above I prefer Kingdom of Nri. There were other achievements and important developments from the Igbo people at the time. Not just their bronze work. Gizza (t)(c) 01:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I would like to withdraw the nomination for now. There are copyvio issues that just arose with the article and it has been reverted to an older version from 2012 by an admin. I hope I can salvage it, but as it stands now it does not qualify for inclusion in the vital articles list. Ochiwar (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ochiwar, the current status of an article doesn't make an article vital or not vital. If we think the topic should be developed with high priority it is vital even if it's a stub.--Melody Lavender 18:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We have Industrial revolution and Control of fire by early humans , Information age , and this article would fit well with the existing technology topics on the list. Also, there are several major excavation sites listed.--Melody Lavender 18:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The article has been deleted, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#GA with copyvios in Queue. I am working on re-writing the article from scratch. Will resubmit the new article for nomination in a few days. Ochiwar (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Articles do not have to exist to be considered vital. Red links are completely fine as vital articles. However, I still don't understand why this article would be more vital than Igbo-Ukwu itself... ~Mable (chat) 14:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It is because the article Igbo-Ukwu is more about the modern day town, while this article was about the ancient culture, art, archaeology, metallurgy, the corresponding artifacts and their relationship to the kingdom of Nri and present day Igbo culture and the trade relationships that existed with ancient Egypt. There had been a merger discussion to join both articles in the past but it was decided to keep both articles separate (see the talk page). I am putting it back up as a stub and will improve and expand over the next few days. If the status of the article does not affect its vital status as I learned from your comments then I support the nomination Ochiwar (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This fits better in the Historical cities section where all of the famous archeological sites are listed. The only African historical city outside of Egypt currently is Timbuktu. I was thinking of proposing Great Zimbabwe. Archeology of Igbo-Ukwu could be good too. Gizza (t)(c) 00:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Malerisch: It is not the dating that makes the article vital but the fact that the bronzes are "ranked among the most technically acomplished and daring castings ever undertaken"[1] and "as a collection they stand alone without parallel in any other part of the world"[1] and they are distinctly more advanced than bronze casting in Europe in the same period.[2] Besides this the grave excavated at Igbo-Ukwu "ranks among the most important archaeological discoveries ever."[3] @DaGizza: You may be right that it fits better in another section. I was uncertain where best to nominate it. Ochiwar (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art [1] may describe the Igbo bronzes as "among the most inventive and technically accomplished bronzes ever made," but it also later states that "recent careful study of the Igbo bronzes has shown that the range of metalworking skills was actually very limited, and that the usual metalworking techniques of raising, soldering, riveting and wire-making were unknown to the Igbo smiths." I don't really understand the comparison to European bronzes—would we include an example of European bronze culture if the reverse were true? As for significant archaeological sites, it's doubtful that this is more important than Olduvai Gorge, which is central to our understanding of human evolution. I personally don't think that a relatively obscure culture known only for its bronze castings qualifies as one of the ~150 most important topics in post-classical history; articles like Abbasid Revolution are what I would consider more significant exclusions. Finally, why should the archaeology of Igbo-Ukwu be added when Igbo people or the Kingdom of Nri (which I note Igbo-Ukwu is a part of) aren't listed—shouldn't they be the more vital topics? Malerisch (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That the usual metalworking techniques were not known by the Igbo-Ukwu casters does not diminish their importance and is consistent with the fact that this metallurgical tradition developed independently and in isolation without outside influence. The more astonishing therefore that they could produce such masterpieces considering the limitations you mention. The comparison to the European bronzes of the period is warranted out of the same astonishing fact: that bronze casting could emerge independently in the African rain forest and be brought to such heights of accomplishment with out outside influence. According to Craddock et. al "A technically sophisticated bronze industry developed using its own metals with apparently little or no contact with outside technology. The idiosyncratic sophistication bespeaks a long but isolated tradition, and this must also apply to the culture that produced them, developing independently to attain a considerable degree of sophistication on the edge of the rain forest."[4] This is also the reason why the topic is more vital than Kingdom of Nri or similar articles because the Igbo-Ukwu finds go beyond the Igbo, or Nri and are important to African archaeology as a whole since they "challenged archaeologist and historians to examine their ideas about the past of the West African rain forest"[5] and "broke all preconceived ideas that such refined technical skills and art could not originate in a country with no known sources of metal ores, or in one with few if any contact with the outside world, or in one with no known history of royal courts to support such artistry."[6] Igbo-Ukwu is "evidence of the equally independent invention and development of a rich and early African tradition of bronze casting"[6] and therefore beyond its significance to Igbo culture, Igbo people or the Kingdom of Nri, it is of importance to the development of the understanding of African history and archaeology as a whole. While other articles such as Olduvai Gorge may be equally important (in their own right and for different reasons), I am wondering if it has to be a case of either/or? Could not both be vital in their own regard, one notable for early technical accomplishment in metal working, the other for paleoanthropological reasons? Ochiwar (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The issues with including any such articles of comparable importance are that this list is finite, that the History section is over quota, and that prioritization of the most important topics is a necessity. I don't deny that Igbo-Ukwu demonstrates the emergence of an independent bronze-casting culture, but the fact remains that bronze metalwork emerged independently in various regions of the world, and I see no reason to single out West Africa as a specific region of importance, particularly when it was one of the last regions chronologically to do so. For example, I could make similar statements for the Đông Sơn culture, the earliest bronze culture in Southeast Asia. Its bronze drums are described as displaying "an artistic level reaching perfection that few cultures of the time could rival" [2] and "considered the peak of metallurgical technique in the Vietnam history," [3] and the discovery of the culture "was the first exposure to Europeans of a complex Bronze Age stratified society in mainland Southeast Asia" and provided "dramatic evidence of the socially stratified, semiurban nature of the culture as a whole," [4] yet it's not (and shouldn't be) listed either. If I don't restrict myself to early bronze-casting sites, there's a litany of archaeological cultures/sites that are more significant than Igbo-Ukwu that aren't listed: Linear Pottery culture, Corded Ware culture, and Beaker culture from Europe, Yangshao culture and Longshan culture from China, and Mehrgarh from India, for instance. Malerisch (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Since as you noted above, the The Grove Encyclopedia of Materials and Techniques in Art describes the bronzes as "among the most inventive and technically accomplished bronzes ever made," and the World atlas of archaeology describes the archaeological site as "among the most important archaeological discoveries ever" and A world history of art says they are notably more advanced than other bronzes of the period, I believe this article (and the sources) has an edge over others you have mentioned whose claims would appear to be more geographically limited and limited to specific cultures. But let us agree to disagree. Ochiwar (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Reader, John (1998). Africa: A Biography of the Continent. Penguin UK. ISBN 9780141926933.
  2. ^ Honour, Hugh; Fleming, John (2005). A world history of art (7th ed. ed.). London: Laurence King. ISBN 9781856694513. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  3. ^ Constable, Nick (2009). World atlas of archaeology (Rev. ed. ed.). Ludlow, England: Thalamus. p. 15. ISBN 9781902886411. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  4. ^ CHIKWENDU, V. E.; CRADDOCK, P. T.; FARQUHAR, R. M.; SHAW, THURSTAN; UMEJI, A. C. (February 1989). "NIGERIAN SOURCES OF COPPER, LEAD AND TIN FOR THE IGBO-UKWU BRONZES". Archaeometry. 31 (1): 27–36. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4754.1989.tb01053.x.
  5. ^ Connah, Graham (2004). Forgotten Africa: An Introduction to Its Archaeology. Routledge. p. 117. ISBN 9781134403035.
  6. ^ a b Garlake, Peter (2002). Early art and architecture of Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 117–120. ISBN 9780192842619.
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.
PASSED
removed, 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Knyaz

This is the Russian equivalent of a grand duke or grand prince in western Europe. I don't think we need to list ranks of the nobility unless they constitute a notable social class (like knight, samurai or boyar).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 04:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:20, 23 December 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.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Empire of Nicaea

We removed the Latin Empire recently; the Empire of Nicaea is another short-lived state that was part of the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. It was the Byzantine state that in the end recaptured Constantinople and reestablished the Byzantine Empire. I think the significance of this conflict is sufficiently covered by Crusades, Byzantine Empire and East–West Schism and the specific actors in the conflict are not so important to have. We could list Fourth Crusade instead but I'm not really sure whether we should be listing the individual crusades.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:12, 27 December 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Fatimid Caliphate

Islamic history is poorly represented on the list. I suggest adding the first Shia caliphate, which unlike other Sunni regional caliphates refused to offer even token recognition of the authority of the Abbasids in Baghdad and actively sought to overthrow them. They weren't successful in that regard, but they did rule Egypt for over 200 years and conquered much of north Africa, Hejaz and the Levant at their greatest extent.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Good choice to replace Empire of Nicaea. Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Strong SupportGonzales John (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:35, 30 December 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Austrasia

Subsumed by Francia, Carolingian Empire and Merovingian dynasty. We don't list Neustria either.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support ~Mable (chat) 09:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Indeed, since we list both the Merovingians and the Carolingians, I don't think we even need Francia. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 26 December 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 New Delhi

Redundant with Delhi in the same way listing City of Westminster would be redundant with London, or Putrajaya with Kuala Lumpur, or Kotte with Colombo.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I thought we had removed it already. Gizza (t)(c) 04:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:38, 27 December 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.
FAILED
1-5 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 picture book

A very popular art medium. Many parents and teachers use picture books to make children interested in reading. No doubt it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm very surprised that it does not belong to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Children's literature is already listed. Cobblet (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not a coherent medium or art form.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, it's a rather vague and unspecific topic. You do not need to explain enxyclopedically that a book can use images this way. It's mainly a history lesson, it seems. ~Mable (chat) 08:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 08:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Not all picture books are aimed at young children, some of them are aimed at older children or even adults, thus Cobblet's rationale is invalid.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Comics is listed and comic book has been proposed. The article you're talking about only deals with children's picture books. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the article also deals with other picture books, just read the article and you'll know that.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't, and for the most part it doesn't. The term "picture book" almost always implies children's literature – look at the nomination you wrote yourself, the OED ("a book consisting wholly or partly of pictures, esp. one written for children") or wikt:picture book. If it's not for kids then we call them something else, like comic books, graphic novels, coffee table books, illuminated manuscripts, etc.; and I don't see the value of having an article to cover all illustrated books, particularly when illustration is also listed and is already an overview of illustrations in all genres, including books. Cobblet (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd actually like Pop-up book more than this, despite its much shorter history and much smaller use, as it's something that could use explaining. Not sure if I would support that either, though ~Mable (chat) 08:24, 15 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 days Jucchan (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Akira (film)

I think every vital art form has to have at least one specific example, and right now, anime does not. I think the best thing to add for anime would be Akira, a film considered as a landmark for anime, widely considered to be the greatest anime film, and among the greatest movies of all time. (Gonzales John) 15:24, 10 December 2014

Support
  1. Supportweak support as nom.
oppose
  1. Weak oppose Neutral, the movie is one of the most important anime ever made, it was vital in bringing anime to the west, it is definitely a cult classic, has been incredibly influencial and I have been thinking about adding an anime to the list... But if we had so much trouble getting Pokémon in, I don't think Akira is that well known or that "broad". How well known the work is for the masses is more important in my opinion than how huge and influential it is on its own. ~Mable (chat) 08:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You have a point, but considering Akira was released back in the 80s, its fame would certainly have been diminished by now, and considering its North America release was limited compared to its Japanese one , it might still be well-known there now (though it is impossible for me to be sure since I don't live there), probably much, much more than in the West.
I wasn't even alive when Akira was first released, so I don't even know exactly how big it was in the US. I do know that it is concidered one of the most important anime films because of its impact on the US market, but I have absolutely no idea how popular the film is or was in Japan. I somewhat doubt that it has as much cultural significance as an anime film there, but I simply cannot say for sure. Anyway, changed to neutral. Also, you forgot to sign your post. ~Mable (chat) 10:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Film is already overrepresented on the list: why do we need over 40 specific works to represent an art medium that's around a century old when architecture, painting, and sculpture—all millennia-long traditions—all have less representation? Furthermore, Akira is not considered one of the best films of all-time: it doesn't rank on Sight & Sound or AFI polls. I don't see why anime needs a specific example when other film genres like Western or documentary aren't represented either, and those actually rank on polls of best films (see The Searchers or Man with a Movie Camera). Malerisch (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, according to the article at least, Empire magazine has placed it on two of its "greatest films " lists (the first time at 440, the second at 51) and even if it hardly appears on greatest-films-of-all-time polls, it is definitely considered as one of the greatest animated movies in existence, frequently appearing on polls of best animated films. However, after what you said, I don't have that much of a supporting opinion about adding Akira anymore. (Gonzales John) 15:24, 10 December 2014
  1. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:51, 12 December 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.
FAILED
1-3 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 omniscience

Omniscience /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/, mainly in religion, is the capacity to know everything that there is to know. In particular, Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) believe that there is a divine being who is omniscient. An omniscient point-of-view, in writing, is to know everything that can be known about a character, including past history, thoughts, feelings, etc. In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing".

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose ~Mable (chat) 20:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose There are many characteristics of divine or God-like beings. There's omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omnipresence. These attributes are not vital on their own. Gizza (t)(c) 02:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 days Jucchan (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 cream

It is no less crucial than butter.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

There are even less vital food than cream like particular types of cheese. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really a strong rationale. It just means we should probably remove the weaker articles instead of adding cream. There was no consensus here anyway. Gizza (t)(c) 05:35, 13 January 2015 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days (Cobblet's vote was much earlier than signature) Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Korean cuisine and kimchi

Since the South Korean government has been popularizing Korean cuisine, especially kimchi, the most notable dish, the two articles is becoming more and more vital, as more and more Westerners and Chinese people are becoming fond of Korean cuisine, esp. kimchi.

Support
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support kimchi, Oppose Korean cuisine. Jucchan (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Japanese cuisine has to be listed before Korean cuisine. And kimchi is less vital than ginseng which is not only a notable Korean culinary ingredient but also has great significance outside that cuisine; that should be listed first. Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Korean is not in the top 10 cuisines. And I oppose all types of pickling even though kimchi is one of the more well known ones. Pickling itself is definitely sufficient. Gizza (t)(c) 00:40, 9 December 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.
FAILED
1-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 05:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Hobby

Hobby is more general and broader than Collecting. So, we should prefer "Hobby" instead of "Collecting". Hence I propose the same.

Support
  1. Support : Obvious support as nom. Logical1004 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If a hobby is just anything you do in your spare time, it's redundant with leisure. Cobblet (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, aftr reading the cnversation above and the previous time it has been suggested, as well as looking at the article itself, there indeed doesn't seem to be much to encyclopedically say about "hobby". ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Hobby is a word, not an encyclopedic topic. Neither is leisure.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 19:26, 26 December 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 some video games

As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Add_Tim_Schafer and above, some people want to increase the representation of videogames. Currently, there are five videogame-related articles; Video game, Video game console, Pong, Mario and Shigeru Miyamoto. Though a recent development in entertainment and art, the same can be said about rock 'n' roll or even film. Unsure what kind of articles deserve to be added, but sure that something needs to be added, allow me to put up some possibilities. Definitely not all of these should be added.

Also note my suggestion of moving video games from the recreation category to art and culture here

  • General comment: I don't see a pervasive need for more than a handful of articles about video gaming. Most video games, and many video game characters, date from sometime in my lifetime, or else a few years before. We also have to compare how coverage of video games stacks up against similar genres; most notably books, board games and fictional characters. pbp 17:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comparing to other media was what I was doing, and while there are 172 articles in "Specific works of literature", around 40 films and 80 actors/actresses, the balance seemed rather obvious. There are also people that can say that most of rock music and even films were released during their lifetime. Lastly, 8 articles is still "a handful", which would be 3 added articles. Maplestrip (talk) 18:58, 6 November 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.
FAILED
5-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Rock-paper-scissors

Besides being a multicultural game, originating from Asia, dating back to the 17th century... or possibly even the first century, The simple concept of rock-paper-scissors is vital in game theory. Three things that can each beat exactly one other thing. Or five things, each beating exactly two other things, etc. Strategies, tournaments, real-life scenarios and "in nature" are defintiely interesting topics, adding to the game's encyclopedic value. All-in-all, it is one of the most important games that has ever come into existence and therefore, it is vital for an encyclopedia.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 08:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not convinced.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose To the vast majority of people this is more of a ritual like coin flipping or a handshake than a game with strategy and associated competitions. Certainly handshake or greeting or bowing would be more vital to an encyclopedia than this. Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Neljack (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I think handshake and/or bowing should be added to the list. I'd go with greeting, but that article seems to be a bit... unusual. How about salute? ~Mable (chat) 07:59, 24 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes for 30 days Jucchan (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 cultural anthropology and social anthropology

They are both as crucial as biological anthropology and linguistic anthropology (belong to the section "Fields" of {{Anthropology}}), but do not belong to the expanded list as the other two articles do.

Support
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support these two or alternatively sociocultural anthropology. Something should be added on the missing branch of anthropology. Gizza (t)(c) 03:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
Socio-cultural anthropology is pretty much a single field, "cultural" just being more prevalent in the US and "social" in Europe. I really dont think we need both. In American four field anthropology the fourth field is Archeology which here we have under history. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The terminology in that area is not well defined. Both terms are used synomymously for ethnology in some instances. Wait until the world decides and agrees on what they are really about.--Melody Lavender 19:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you are wrong in that there is wide agreement what they mean, they are two different traditions of anthropology. But the traditions overlap and are best treated as a single topic. Today "Ethnology" usually refers to comparative cultural analysis including "cultural/social theory", and is opposed to ethnography which is the non-comparative description of a single society - both social and cultural anthropology uses both but they differ in their emphasis of either ethnography or ethnology. Then a complication arises from the fact that in the 19th century "Ethnology" (and today occasionally) was used synonymously with "anthropology".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 25 November 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.
FAILED
1-3 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 discipline (academia) and interdisciplinarity

No doubt they are all crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Should be covered in any substantial discussion of academia. Cobblet (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
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.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Looney Tunes

Another vital and classic animated cartoon work.

Support
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If we already have Bugs Bunny, than I do think adding this would be redundant (otherwise, let's add Homer Simpson too!). A swap might make sense, though, but I don't have much of an opinion on that yet. ~Mable (chat) 19:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

I could possibly support this as a swap with Bugs Bunny. But now that Tom and Jerry is likely to pass, I'm still unlikely to support as there are too many cartoons compared to other TV shows. There are genres with zero representation. Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Same pbp 18:48, 22 December 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.
FAILED
4-4 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 counterculture

No doubt it is crucial, however it failed to be in the list before (see Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_37).

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support It is one of the fundamental aspects of society. It explains how a portion of society distances itself from the mainstream and forms its own subculture. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not convinced of vitality. I dont know of any current usage of this concept in social science. Doesnt seem to even be possible within contemporary cultural theory. The closest thing would be the idea of Counterpublics, which some scholars have developed based on Haberms concept of the public and Gramscis idea of (counter) hegemony. Some arguments for why we need this would be nice before we add it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Redundant with subculture which is listed. Cobblet (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet ~Mable (chat)
  4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
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.
FAILED
1-3 after 30 days Jucchan (talk) 05:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Mirror neurons

Specific type of Neuron centrally implicated in social learning. Recently discovered and already the subject of a large and growing body of literature both scholarly and popular, and with central implications for our understanding of human sociality.

Support
  1. Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Let's not add things that are this specific when we don't even list all the basic anatomical features yet. We don't even have spinal cord. Cobblet (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Shouldn't come before action potential. Malerisch (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Neuron is vital. Mirror neurons are not. Gizza (t)(c) 00:02, 12 January 2015 (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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gonostomatidae and Grenadiers (fish)

We already include the orders these fish families belong to (Stomiiformes and Gadiformes respectively). The presence of deep sea fish on the list means we can afford to remove some of the less notable deep sea fishes, particularly when more notable ones like lanternfish aren't listed to begin with.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Mable (chat) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom.  Carlwev  09:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (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.
PASSED
Removed 6-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lamniformes, Carcharhiniformes, carpet shark

These are orders within the shark superorder. I don't think we need to list them individually any more than we need to list individual orders within Batoidea (the rays and skates) individually – FWIW, we already have representatives of each order on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, The representatices and the superorder alone are the interesting bits. ~Mable (chat) 11:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per Cobblet and Mable. Getting rid of intermediate ranks is best way to make cuts in the organism section. Gizza (t)(c) 00:34, 12 January 2015 (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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Poeciliidae and Syngnathidae

For the same reason: the order they belong to (Cyprinodontiformes and Syngnathiformes) is on the list and so are their most notable species (guppy and the seahorses). I don't see a need to list these intermediate taxa.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support These are all excellent suggestions, Cobblet! ~Mable (chat) 11:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 11:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:13, 25 December 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dactylopteridae

Not notable.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support They are, according to the article, "notable for their greatly enlarged pectoral fins." That indeed isn't much to work with. ~Mable (chat) 11:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (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.
PASSED
Removed and Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Porcupinefish, Add Ocean sunfish

We already list Tetraodontiformes which includes all pufferfish and porcupinefish. I suggest replacing a less well-known family in this order with a species that is extremely well known as the world's heaviest bony fish (and is the 56th most popular WP:FISH article).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, Pufferfish are vital, but that's what Tetraodontiformes is for. ~Mable (chat) 11:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  08:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Puffer fish redirects to Tetraodontidae which is included already, in case anyone was wondering, like I was.  Carlwev  08:13, 18 December 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.


NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30 days Jucchan (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 tobacco smoking, passive smoking and third-hand smoke

Support
  1. As nom. All first-hand, second-hand and third-hand tobacco smoke are carcinogenic.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support tobacco smoking. Oppose third-hand which is a neologism and too indirect. Our coverage of smoking is weak compared to alcohol. Gizza (t)(c) 00:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Carcinogenic != Vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

We have the consequential diseases, COPD, asthma, lung cancer. Maybe we should have some of the meds for those diseases.--Melody Lavender 18:25, 26 November 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 01:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 valence (chemistry) and equivalent (chemistry)

They are all, no doubt, crucial in chemistry.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Equivalent isn't vital, but the general topic of stoichiometry ought to be. Valence is an important topic in the historical development of chemistry, but can be covered by covalent bond and electron configuration. Cobblet (talk) 14:13, 4 December 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.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 solder

If you read the lede of it you'll know that it's crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Just checked the metalworking section. Soldering is already listed making this very redundant. Gizza (t)(c) 12:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza. ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

This proposal is better placed in technology and industry (metalworking) than chemistry. Gizza (t)(c) 12:35, 4 December 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.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 mulch

It is as crucial as fertilizer.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Next you'll be telling me lawn aerator is vital too. Cobblet (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm not sure how much this topics overlaps with fertilizer - possibly too much to make both vital... ~Maplestrip (chat) 13:04, 4 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 01:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Recursion (computer science)

Some editors have expressed the need to cover algorithms rather than computer languages. This is one important, ubiquitous way of thinking employed in structuring a computer program.--Melody Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Iteration

To complement recursion. The two are viewed as a kind of opposite. For most problems in computer programming a iterative and a recursive way to solve the problem exists.--Melody Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, not just a computing article, but an important concept in general! ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:53, 9 December 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.


FAILED
3-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 coin flipping

The practice of throwing a coin in the air to choose between two alternatives, sometimes to resolve a dispute between two parties. It is a form of sortition which inherently has only two possible and equally likely outcomes.

Support
  1. As nom. No doubt the article is crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, remarkable choice. Interesting encyclopedic material despite the simplictity of the action. ~Mable (chat) 15:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Melody Lavender 19:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Of trivial importance. If we want something on probabilistic simulations Monte Carlo method would be the obvious choice. Cobblet (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose not convinced. Coin flipping will sometimes be mentioned and used as an example when discussing serious issues in probability. I can't see an entire article on it being vital. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 05:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Indeed trivial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 01:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Ken Takakura

A Japanese actor best known for his brooding style and the stoic presence he brought to his roles. He won the Japan Academy Prize four times, more than any other actors.

Support
  1. As nom. He was absolutely crucial since Shintaro Ishihara described him as "the last big star (in Japan).", and this section only contains two Japanese.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC) 09:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We dont need more Japanese actors. Maybe propose a swap with Shintaro Katsu if you think that would make sense.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

@RekishiEJ:, Ken Watanabe, Toshiro Mifune and Takashi Shimura are also good choices as Japanese actors. Some of them were great actors before the Japan Academy Prize was introduced. Just wondering in your words what makes Ken Takakura particularly crucial? Gizza (t)(c) 11:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Toshiro Mifune is already on the list. Ken Watanabe and Takashi Shimura aren't. Ken Takakura is no more important than the other three Japanese actors, I admit. But Ken Takakura is no less important than them, either. I'll propose adding Ken Watanabe and Takashi Shimura to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:39, 14 December 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.
6-4 for Lennon, not removed. 8-4 for McCartney, removed. Gizza (t)(c) 08:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lennon and Paul McCartney

Two of the most important musicians of the 20th century/all time. However, we already include The Beatles, covering their non-solo career, Sgt Peppers, their most famed work as a band, and Imagine (song), covering Lennon's own most famed work. These articles might not cover McCartney's solo career much, nor does it cover Lennon's death, but one has to wonder how vital those two things are in an encyclopedia. "Paul McCartney's solo career" is definitely not vital. These people are simply very well covered by the three articles that are included. (Hold Your Hand will probably be removed shortly as well)

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support McCartney, Neutral on Lennon User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support both but especially McCartney. Paul McCartney's solo career and life is at best notable but nowhere near vital. I think Lennon's post-Beatles career is covered by Imagine. The song is bigger than him. Gizza (t)(c) 05:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I have changed my mind and decided that having The Beatles is sufficient. That is where their main significance lies, notwithstanding their solo careers. We have to be reasonably selective with this list. Neljack (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support If this sort of redundancy is necessary, I'd rather see Freddie Mercury listed than two Beatles. Cobblet (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support removing McCartney Malerisch (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  8. SupportGonzales John (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose They are two of the most important musicians of the 20th Century. Lennon's murder is talked about constantly. Lennon especially is vital, and still think McCartney is too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Imagine should go first.  Carlwev  09:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Both have had major careers aside from the Beatles. McCartney is still a living force, and quite vital, as I see it. Lennon is also a vital article. No way either should be removed. Jusdafax 23:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

I expected Lennon to be more easy to remove than McCartney, heh. Seems like only McCartney will be removed, if I read this all correctly. ~Mable (chat) 11:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I only just now looked this up in the archives, and it seems like this was suggested before: [5]. It failed because I Want To Hold Your Hand and All You Need Is Love were in, as well as Imagine and Sgt. Peppers. As two of those works have been removed since, I think this suggestion is much more reasonable? Though I'd support swapping Imagine with All You Need Is Love myself... This discussion is never going to end, haha. ~Mable (chat) 10:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If I counted correctly, McCartney is 7 vs 4, while Lennon is 5 vs 4. I suppose that that's two "no concencus"es? ~Mable (chat) 12:36, 19 January 2015 (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.
FAILED
Not added, 1-2, after more than 30 days. pbp 22:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Michael Servetus

He was a Spanish theologian, physician, cartographer, and Renaissance humanist. He was the first European to correctly describe the function of pulmonary circulation, as discussed in Christianismi Restitutio (1533). He was a polymath versed in many sciences: mathematics, astronomy and meteorology, geography, human anatomy, medicine and pharmacology, as well as jurisprudence, translation, poetry and the scholarly study of the Bible in its original languages. He is renowned in the history of several of these fields, particularly medicine and theology. He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the city's Protestant governing council.

Support
  1. As nom. In fact, in fact, the article can be place in the ""Writers", "Religious figures", or "Scientists, inventors and mathematicians" section. The reason that I proposed that it be in the section is that he put his own research about pulmonary circulation in his theology work, and his advocate of non-trinitarian Christology is very worthy of being noted.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital. There are more important figures that are still missing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss
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.
PASSED
Added, 5-0 after 15 days pbp 22:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Spanish American Wars of Independence

It astounds me that this still isn't listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:23, 23 December 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.
PASSED
North European removed, East European stays Gizza (t)(c) 03:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 North European Plain and East European Plain, Add European Plain

They're two halves of the same physiographic region.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Alternatively I'd support ML's suggestion of removing the North European Plain but keeping the East European Plain as that is the more notable part of the physical region. Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Good simplification.Would support Melody Lavender's proposal as well.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support keeping East European Plain only. Gizza (t)(c) 00:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support both this and Melody's proposal. Jucchan (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Not so sure about that. I tend to think that the East European Plain is the only vital article of those at this level. It also appears in a lot more languages than the other two.--Melody Lavender 10:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a reasonable alternative to this proposal. Cobblet (talk) 11:49, 22 November 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.


PASSED
Added, 6-0 pbp 22:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Yin and Yang

An incredibly well-known concept or model (and the symbol used to represent it) all over the world, of which many people might not even understand what it stands for or what it means. I should say that I was indeed surprised to find that it was not yet on the list. It's an absolutely vital representation of balance and opposing forces being complimentary of eachother.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ~Mable (chat) 18:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. SupportGonzales John (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support One of those things where everyone has a smidge of knowledge of it, but the vast majority also might find themselves in a situation where they need to know a little more. In short, a truly encyclopedic topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support convinced by commentary. Gizza (t)(c) 05:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.
PASSED
Both removed 5-2 and 5-1 Gonzales John (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Electra and Orpheus

These are the least significant Greek articles (aside from Medea, who I have already nominated for removal), and they should be removed because Greek Mythology is very over-represented, and we have to reduce it in order to give more balance to the mythology section.Gonzales John (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.Gonzales John (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, I have barely ever even heard of these two, Electra in particular. ~Mable (chat) 14:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Less essential than Theseus. Cobblet (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Elektra. Neutral on orpheus.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose both. I agree with Maunus's arguments. The literary and musical significance of these figures persuades me they are vital. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Electra and Orpheus seem more essential than Theseus to me, as do Medea. I think even the minotaur is more vital than Theseus. These are essential figures in Greek literature (not mythology) because of their roles in quintessential plays that have been and have been widely influential in different ways. From the Electra complex, to the Marvel figure. Someone recently noted argued that Agamemnon was notable as the "killer who is killed", well this aspect of Agamenons story is only known form the play Elektra in which he is not even a main character. I would place Elektra also above Agamemnon, because of her wider cultural impact. The Orpheus motif is also widely known, particularly in music - but also used as a trope by Dante. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 30 December 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.
PASSED
5-2, removed Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Medea

Greek-Roman mythology is very over-represented, and I think it is a good idea to remove the least significant Greek-Roman article, and that seems to be Medea, because she is mostly redundant with Jason.User:Gonzales John 22 December 2014

Support
  1. Support as nom. User:Gonzales John 22 December 2014
  2. Support seems like the best one to remove - she's even only mid-importance in all of the wiki projects. ~Mable (chat) 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would prefer removing Jason, who is mostly vital because of the tragic figure of Medea.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Neljack (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

@Maunus:Even though I proposed to remove her, I also recognize her importance, but the articles are too redundant to include both and Jason seems more prominent because his story starts before he found Medea and Medea's story starts only when Jason found her at Colchis. Is it a good idea to merge the two articles into one called Jason and Medea, with the article first discussing the story, then discussing some other details about Jason's character (like pop culture appearances), then finally discussing some details about Medea's character(like her dynamic development being a subject of some 1997 essays)?

Besides, she doesn't really have her own stories, she's just a supporting character in Jason's.Gonzales John (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. Euripides' Medea (which is not titled "Jason" for a reason) is likely the single most important Greek tragedy, which essentially I consider is the main reason we hear of Jason today.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
If the play itself is more important than Jason, wouldn't replacing both Jason and Medea for Medea (play) make more sense? That being said, the article doesn't really reflect the importance of the play... ~Mable (chat) 20:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I would support that proposal. Medea has consistently been the most frequently performed of the Greek tragedies in the past couple of centuries.[6]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 2 January 2015 (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.
FAILED
3-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Izanagi and Izanami

Shinto deities who were said to have created Japan. Parents of Amaterasu and her siblings. Slightly more important Izanagi was also the creator of many other Shinto deities. Too significant not to be included.User:Gonzales John 18:47, 08 December 2014

I think we are really, very, very lacking in Japanese mythology (Only Amaterasu is listed so far), adding these two (or perhaps just Izanagi) seems to be the best option.

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Gonzales John 18:47, 08 December 2014
  2. Support ~Maplestrip (chat) 07:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The creator deities of many other religions aren't included either. Not sure Shinto deities are the most glaring omission on the list when it comes to Japanese culture. Bonsai, karaoke, oni, Forty-seven Ronin and The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter are all missing, for example. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. oppose Per Cobblet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  09:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per discussion and overrepresentation of Japan ~Mable (chat) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I know we are trying to get more non-western stuff, but Japan is probably already the best-represented non-western country. Bonsai and karaoke seem like excellent additions, but I'm really not sure if we'd be getting out of balance... ~Mable (chat) 20:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If we think Japanese culture is so vital, why don't we list culture of Japan? IMO, what this list needs is more general articles instead of selecting specific topics to represent them. I would rather list Japanese literature than haiku and Japanese architecture than Kinkaku-ji, for example. Malerisch (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
There have been proposals with that line of reasoning that were not successful. Television in the United States failed 1-5. There are general equivalents for most specific articles listed. Austrian folk dance for Waltz, Science and technology in Germany for Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, Chinese sculpture for Terracotta Army, Fauna of Australia for Kangaroo, Music of Indonesia for Gamelan, maritime disaster for RMS Titanic, mausoleum for Taj Mahal, Football in Spain for La Liga, English drama for William Shakespeare, Economy of the United States for Microsoft, Steve Jobs and many other articles. Personally I don't believe the general articles capture the vitality found in the specific articles even though they cover more information and have a broader perspective. Gizza (t)(c) 06:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the article Shinto captures all that is vital about shinto religion without necessity for having additional articles on Shinto religion. I agree that general topic should generally be avoided because they are almost inevitably less vital than one or more of the most important specific topics they subsume.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that general articles aren't always more important than specific ones, but in other cases I think they should be—identifying the correct article is key. For example, could dance not be the more general article for waltz, physics for Planck and Heisenberg, ship for the RMS Titanic, Chinese art for the Terracotta Army, association football for La Liga, mammal for kangaroo, and English literature for Shakespeare? (I personally think these general articles are more vital than the specific ones.) We don't always choose to add specific articles—based on the proposal to add Japanese cuisine above, consensus is clearly leaning towards adding the general rather than the specific. Malerisch (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
As an addendum, I think that a well-written article on US television is more encyclopedic than I Love Lucy, and a well-written article on Southeast Asian arts is more encyclopedic than gamelan. Malerisch (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
In many of the cases you pointed out we list both the general and the specific topics, so it's a bit of a moot point; unless you believe we should be removing the more specific article in every case, in which case I'd disagree. I still think US television is a reasonable topic to add though, and adding art by region also makes some sense to me (we already list African art and several regional architectural traditions), particularly in traditions (not the Western one) where there isn't much emphasis on the individuality of the artisan (so picking representative biographies isn't really feasible); but I think it can be argued that gamelan is vital whether you list Southeast Asian art or not. With literature as opposed to art or music, I think it's more generally true that there are individual writers or works that make a literary tradition vital, and if we do a good job of listing those things, an overview may not be as necessary. Sometimes picking the right overview article is not so straightforward: do we pick literatures by language, country or region? (English literature, British literature or Western literature?) Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I definitely don't support removing the specific article in favor of the general one—I only think that we should list the more general article before the specific in the cases mentioned above. Yes, it's a bit of a moot point of level 4, but I think it's a reasonable point to consider on level 3, where we list Shakespeare but not English literature. The Macropædia devotes several articles to literature by language/region, for instance. Meanwhile, can it really be said that Shakespeare and Chaucer define English literature more than the Beatles and Elvis define rock music? Surely both traditions are defined by their writers/musicians. And even if so, some ambiguity in which articles to add shouldn't prevent us from adding any at all—IMO something clearly needs to be added. Malerisch (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2015 (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.
no clear consensus for any change Gizza (t)(c) 01:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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: Add Sekhmet and Bastet; Remove Hathor

See my previous proposal below.User:Gonzales John 23 December 2014

Support
  1. Support as nom.User:Gonzales John 17:39, 08 December 2014
  2. Support (Thoth and )Hathor ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support[Thoth (obvious omission, was going to propose that myself some day). And] Bastet, which reminds me that we should add sabre tooth tiger and Persian cat.--Melody Lavender 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose (Sekhmet and Bastet), though I'd love to support Bastet in particular, we have to keep the different mythologies balanced. There are already seven Egyptian gods listed. I might support a swap, though, but my knowledge of which Egyptian gods are more vital than others is not to be trusted after reading an excessive amount of pop-literature. Oh, also, Religion has hundreds of top-priority articles - we can't add them all. ~Maplestrip (chat) 10:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose addition of Sekhmet and removal of Hathor.--Melody Lavender 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose removal of Hathor. No opinion on the proposed additions. Hathor's roles were more diverse than those of Bastet or Sekhmet—the description of her roles in the infobox in her article is too long, but it's accurate. And Sekhmet and Bastet's greatest mythological role was as the Eye of Ra, a role that Hathor also played. Unlike most Egyptian goddesses, she had temples of her own as far back as the Old Kingdom, and in that era her cult received more royal patronage than any god except Ra. Geraldine Pinch, in Egyptian Mythology (2004), says "It was only after Isis took over many of her attributes that Hathor lost her place as the most important of Egyptian goddesses" (p. 139). As described in, e.g., The Great Goddesses of Egypt by Barbara S. Lesko, Isis only began to encroach on Hathor's roles in the New Kingdom, and she wasn't clearly preeminent until the Late Period. Only if you were cutting several deities from the list would Hathor's removal be justified. A. Parrot (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose additions. Neutral on removal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

This entire thing seems to have become a mess - I have no idea what is going on anymore... ~Mable (chat) 08:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, neither do I, but while Egyptian religion is being discussed here I want to make a couple of general points about it. I think the list of Egyptian gods is somewhat skewed toward those best known in popular culture, rather than those who were most important in ancient Egypt. Anubis was important, no doubt, but he's more visible to us than other gods primarily because tombs and burial goods have survived better than other AE buildings and objects. His image circulates online because it's so distinctive. I think Bastet's importance is somewhat exaggerated in popular culture because Herodotus visited Bubastis, where Bastet was the patron goddess and cats the sacred animal, and cat-lovers repeat what he wrote as if it applied to all Egypt.
I figure it's the job of the VA regulars to decide how many slots to allot to ancient Egypt. But when it's being decided which Egyptian religion articles should go on the list, I would like to be notified of the discussion, because I'm probably the most knowledgeable regular editor on that subject. I would just put this page on my watchlist, but because it's edited so many times a day, it really wouldn't help me keep track of what's going on. A. Parrot (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Mable—closing part of a nomination and copying-and-pasting it is unhelpful. When multiple articles are proposed in a joint nomination, I think the best policy is to leave the entire proposal open until every individual proposal can be closed on its own. Malerisch (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shall we close this conversation and start a discussion of Bastet and Sekhmet (separately) over? As we do that, we could invite Parrot here as well. On the other hand, we could start a discussion about the amount of space we will be allotting to Egyptian mythology, and discuss which to swap in or out afterwards. Wait, are we seriously discussing about which discussion we'll be having? Dang, that's meta... ~Mable (chat) 21:24, 30 December 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.
FAILED
3-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 23:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 individual colors

(Blue, Brown, Cyan, Green, Grey, Magenta, Orange (colour), Pink, Purple, Red, White, Yellow)

Surely the individual colors are not particularly noteworthy. And why this set? If we have pink, why not fuchsia or mauve? If some have some special application (for example cyan in printing or photography), such a thing should be covered in the application article. Rwessel (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Rwessel (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support a swap with Color wheel. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose all: Color is a very basic topic; nearly all languages have words or concepts for the preponderance of these colors. Many of these colors are apparent in a number of applications ranging from light to heraldry. pbp 07:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Colours are not just common words like days of the week. A lot of can written on each colour in terms of its application to visual arts, optics, nature, psychology, materials and culture. The traffic rank for blue is 2300 so there are people who want to read about colours. I'm open to removing some of the less vital ones. Gizza (t)(c) 08:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, if the colors have to be swapped, I'm all for suggestions, but I do believe that these colors have encyclopedic value. I definitely wouldn't remove black and white, and probably wouldn't want red, green, blue and yellow gone, unless there's some better way to judge individual color's vitalness (Yes, I just made up that word). ~Mable (chat) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    The word you're looking for is vitality. :) Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I'd certainly support removing cyan and magenta: at least replace them with CMYK color model, or better yet color printing, that colour model's only application. But I'm inclined to keep the other colours, except maybe grey. Cobblet (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably support a suggestion like that. Cyan and magenta seem to be the odd ones out if we're judging by how well-known colors are, or how basic they are deemed by the general public. Also, I think gray is more vital then colors such as pink or purple and wouldn't want it removed.
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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Color term

How the names of the color were formed seems unlikely to be a vital topic. How a language forms is interesting and important, and if there's some sort of important system to a selection of names (for example the taxonomic names of plants and animals), then sure, but this is just a semi-random assortment of word histories, and brief mentions of systems with limited use. Rwessel (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Rwessel (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support An interesting linguistic topic, but not vital. Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 05:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 06:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 elite

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, I think elitsm should be covered to a good extend by this article as well. The concept of the "elite" (or elitism) seems almost leve 3 vital to me - I'm suprised it wasn't on the list yet as well. ~Mable (chat) 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. 'Oppose Elite is not a thing it is a word. I am unsure if this is even an encyclopedic topic that can have a coherent article, but it certainly isnt vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

Elitism may be the better article to add. I have to think about it. Gizza (t)(c) 00:00, 18 December 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Insulin

If we're adding more hormones this has to be a priority. Figuring out how insulin regulates blood sugar levels was a milestone in modern medicine and synthetic insulin has been a bestselling drug ever since.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 09:57, 23 December 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.


PASSED
Removed and Added 6-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Bluefish and Wahoo, Add Barracuda

The first two are moderately well known as game fish, but not probably as much as the barracuda, which are famed for their ferocity. This is a swap of WP:FISH's 176th and 155th most popular articles for its 39th most popular article. In case you're wondering, other saltwater game fishes we list include swordfish, marlin and mahi-mahi.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, note the Wikiproject interest as well: mid and mid compared to high. ~Mable (chat) 11:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support mUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 24 December 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Siluridae, Ariidae, Callichthyidae, Doradidae, Ictaluridae, Shark catfish and Wels catfish

I don't really see why any of the families of catfish we list are vital. The wels catfish is notable for being one of the largest catfishes and being common in Europe, but we already list several types of European fish, and the Mekong giant catfish is bigger and not listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, having each of these is somewhat absurd in my opinion. ~Mable (chat) 11:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Good simplification.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:40, 19 December 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.
PASSED
Removed and Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Airbreathing catfish, Add Lungfish

The lungfish are well-known living fossils (58th in popularity on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages) and the classic example of fishes that can breathe air. They are much more notable than airbreathing catfish.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Mable (chat) 11:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  08:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support good swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This set of proposals would reduce the fish taxa to less than 100. Now perhaps we can talk about whether it's time to add other fish-related articles like fish anatomy or gill or shoaling and schooling or evolution of fish. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I originally thought more general overview articles are the way to go, I think I'd still consider it, and we should definitely discus the idea. In the past such ideas where met with opposition and reasons for not having them. "We can't have evolution of ???? as we don't have evolution of mammals or birds or even animals" and "we can't have have bird migration if we don't have animal migration, and why not fish migration and others too." For overviews, I'm still surprised Bird migration was met with much opposition, I'd still support it.  Carlwev  08:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple ways of looking at things. General overview articles have a lot of value, but so do specific notable examples. I think we need a good amount of both. If a genus has only one well-known species, for example, the species itself is more likely to be picked than the more general genus.
I'd support bird migration as well. You could try again if you like ~Mable (chat) 09:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
We decided to add animal migration instead of bird migration. Some non-bird migrations, such as the Serengeti#Great_migration and various whale migrations throughout the world are just as famous as bird migrations. Gizza (t)(c) 11:08, 19 December 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lift (force)

At least as vital as drag (physics) which we just added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

If both this and airfoil get added, wouldn't there be an overlap..?

An airfoil's just one way of producing lift. Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 23 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 06:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 context-free grammar

Basic concept in Computer linguistics as well as Linguistics.--Melody Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose In terms of linguistics context free grammar is a variation of generative grammar which is more vital, and which is still less vital than universal grammar which we didnt include.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:00, 16 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 sorting algorithm

As per discussion below, many find individual algorithms not vital, but the addition of sorting algorithm itself was suggested. These algorithms solve very basic problems in programming. Even people who have never done any coding can imagine that frequently data needs to be sorted. This article gives an overview of sorting algorithms.--Melody Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, much preferred over the specific sorting algorithms suggested earlier. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:54, 4 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 06:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 memory management

Definitely not less crucial than file system.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender 11:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose, much less interesting than file system in an encyclopedia for experts and laymen alike. This topic is only really of interest for programmers. ~Mable (chat) 09:25, 17 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 02:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 control system

A crucial term in control theory.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Gizza (t)(c) 03:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose due to the overlap with control theory. ~Mable (chat) 08:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Discuss

Control theory is listed under math. Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 14 December 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Nuclear engineering

Redundant with nuclear technology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. SuportGonzales John (talk) 05:40, 28 December 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Cooper (profession)

We only list the most basic of professions: we don't even list artist or engineer for example. So I'm not sure why a particular type of woodworker is vital. We could list things like barrel or sawmill instead if we want to add a more vital woodworking topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:30, 31 December 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.
PASSED
Removed and Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Palomar Observatory, Mount Wilson Observatory and Super-Kamiokande, Add Radio telescope

I suggest removing three observatories of limited (mainly historical) significance for one of the fundamental types of telescopes used in astronomy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  15:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 16:21, 31 December 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.
PASSED
Added 6-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Electron microscope

I'll also suggest adding a second microscopy technique that allows for magnification up to 5000 times better than light microscopes. Indispensable to modern chemistry, materials science and biology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, and have to agree with Gizza. ~Mable (chat) 08:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. SupportGonzales John (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  15:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Microscopes and telescopes are equally vital IMO and ought to have equal coverage if possible. Gizza (t)(c) 01:08, 23 December 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.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

Covered by cosmic microwave background (listed under Astronomy) and less vital than the unlisted Mir or Voyager 2.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support redundant ~Mable (chat) 16:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:04, 26 December 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.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Airfoil

Perhaps even more vital than any individual type of aircraft, of which we list many.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Strong support ~Mable (chat) 08:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:03, 31 December 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.

Cities

I'm yet to think about this in great detail, Ukraine does seem to have too many compared to some other countries. My instincts say cities aren't the worst and I quite like having many cities, and kind of thinking about more, however I am but one opinion and I may be alone. Cities I have been wondering about are Reykjavik, Porto, Canberra, Antwerp, Bristol, Newcastle upon Tyne, Gothenburg, Perth, Adelaide, Belfast and probably more I've since forgotten. I do think it slightly odd, we can have multiple Dutch painters even in the 1000 list is OK, quite a large number of English, Irish, and Scottish writers and artists and actors is OK, multiple Swedish sportsman is OK, but 2 cities from Sweden, Portugul, or Ireland is not OK. Just thinking out loud really.  Carlwev  19:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is as always lack of a system that allows us to compare vitality. It seems logical to me that Dutch painters need greater representation than Dutch cities, but why it is so is hard to describe. We need some kind of basic agreement of what makes a city notable, and how to make a criteria that allows for comparison across countries while maintaining a reasonable geographic representation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Dutch painters hve had a disproportionately large influence on the history of Western painting, while the country's population as a whole has not assumed a similar level of significance in the demography of Europe. Cobblet (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Dutch painters are generally more vital than Dutch cities. The fact that a city is a larger entity or group of people while a painter is only one person is irrelevant. Painters and cities are vital for completely different reasons. Gizza (t)(c) 00:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
There are 416 cities on the list, which is a lot. If we are aiming for nice round number, surely 400 is sufficient if not less? If a city is not among the 400 most vital, is it really vital for an encyclopedia? Cities also create an urban biased view of the world. With regards to other geographic sections, I support increasing autonomous regions (political and cultural) at the expense of cities. Regions represent both urban and rural populations and incorporate larger areas of land. Gizza (t)(c) 00:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I think there's room for 400 cities. Articles pertaining to geography are essential to any encyclopedia; and major cities are among the most consistently popular Wikipedia articles, as a glance at the popular pages list of any country's Wikiproject will show. Cobblet (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Brands: Yay or Nay

The topic of brands and companies came up recently as the addition of Pepsi was suggested (alongside cola) to go together with Coca-Cola. This list currently includes very few companies or brands (I am unaware of any others, please tell me if there are more on there) for various reasons, one of the most important ones being that the list prefers people over their comapnies (I.E. Walt Disney rather than Disney). I'd like to hear all your thoughts on this topic and eventually use a support-oppose-discuss-thingy(TM) to decide whether we should add a dozen brands and companies or not. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If we're opposed to adding any brands on the list, I find it very contradictory that Pokémon was added. How is Pokémon any less a brand of Nintendo than Coca-Cola a brand of The Coca-Cola Company? I'd like to point out that all the magazines and newspapers we currently list are brands, as well as fictional characters like Superman and Batman, board games like Scrabble, and toys like Lego. They all fall under the definition of brand being a "name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's product distinct from those of other sellers." Malerisch (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not as against companies and brands as I once was. And I'm no longer a fan of using industry articles to replace them. I still strongly believe that all companies should be together, which they're not. There are 6 automobile manufacturing companies listed in road transport: GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Volkswagen. The 6 website companies are Facebook, Google, Twitter, Wikipedia, Amazon and YouTube. BBC is listed as a television network. The 5 companies in the actual company section are Apple, General Electric, IMB, Microsoft and Standard Oil. Companies that have recently been removed include Walmart, AT&T, eBay, Boeing, Airbus and Lockheed Martin. There were many companies listed a long time ago when the list was over the limit. See [7]. Then there are historic companies and entities like the British East India Company, Dutch East India Company and Hanseatic League. Gizza (t)(c) 02:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see Pokémon, Scrabble and Lego as much as brands as I do with cola brands, fast-food chains, car manufacturers, etc, because: in the first case, it denotes an entire fictional world build that has its own rules and familiarities. In the second case, you have a specific game with its own rules. In the third case, you have a physical object with its own (technically not unique) properties, a common toy.
I am aware that you could probably make these kinds of excuses for anything, though, so it is a really good argment. Hmm, perhaps what matters is how important the brand is compared to the product it delivers. This would definitely save Lego and the websites. "Google" is more important than "search engine".
I didn't even know we had a company section. I thought we were just evading them almost entirely thus far. ~Mable (chat) 08:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Pokemon is better viewed as an example of a successful media franchise than as an example of a successful brand. I certainly wouldn't support adding more brands when brand still isn't listed. Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
FAILED
4-3, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 01:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Billy Graham

Graham is influential sure , but is not vital alongside Calvin and Luther. Roger Williams would be a better representative of US protestantism.

Support
  1. As Nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Looking at the various Protestant figures listed, most of them have had a greater impact than Graham - founding denominations, developing theological ideas of lasting influence, etc. Graham may have had a significant impact at a particular time and place, but I think his lasting impact does not measure up. Neljack (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: long comment below. pbp 20:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per pbp. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per pbp. Igrek (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Billy Graham is continually ranked as one of the most influential Americans of the "American century"; most of the other people alongside him on those type of lists are also in our vital articles list. He is a very influential figure in his own right, but he's also a good choice to be on this list as a representative figure. We have no other protestant figures from the last half-century. We don't have any representatives of the "mass crusade" type of preacher. And Southern Baptist is the second-largest religion in the United States (largest Protestant), and we have no representatives of it. Also, if we remove Graham without replacing him with somebody else, the United States will be underrepresented in religious leaders with only two. pbp 20:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

First, there's MLK. Second, if we listed figures like Abbé Pierre or Pope Francis or Desmond Tutu or Yusuf al-Qaradawi or Dayananda Saraswati but not Billy Graham, I think it would be reasonable to say that American religious leaders are underrepresented; but that is not the case. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that those guys are more important than Graham? pbp 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Not more vital necessarily, but to me they are all in the same ballpark when it comes to vitality as Billy Graham, Mother Teresa and the current Dalai Lama (these are people who are listed). Americans have exerted a disproportionate influence over the world in many ways during the last century, but I don't think religious fundamentalism is one of them. Cobblet (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, in comparison to the rest of the Christian world, most Christian nations have gotten less fundamentalist or devout in the last century...but not the United States. And Graham's as much to "blame" for that as anybody. pbp 03:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Having George W. Bush on the list is enough for me. His legacy is partly the product of American evangelism and his influence on the world stage is much more immediately obvious. Cobblet (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I'd take Graham over W any day. Graham was on the scene for much longer, and had a more positive impact on the world. pbp 15:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thinking about it, I also think Graham is probably more vital than GW and represent more or less the same segment of the US population.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
For me it's irrelevant whether a person's impact was positive or not. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Not voting on this yet, but in the realm of Christian religion something like Jehovah's Witnesses seems more vital and gets more attention.  Carlwev  17:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd definitely support Jehovah's Witnesses when it gets suggested. Especially when I was younger, I simply had no idea what they were about. Which is weird for people who tend to come by your door every once in a while simply to explain what they are about... Alright, this is exactly the kind of thing I'd have a hard time to give rationale for. ~Mable (chat) 19:27, 30 December 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.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 after 15 days. Jucchan (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Saka, Add Tibetan Empire

Saka appears to be basically the Persian name for the people known as the Indo-Scythians in South Asian history, who are also listed. I suggest eliminating this redundancy and adding something on the history of Tibet. The Tibetans ruled a large empire in the 7th to 9th centuries – only Harsha's empire was comparable in size during this period of South Asian history, and that fell apart after his death. This empire marked the zenith of Tibetan influence in Asia – Tibetan armies even briefly conquered the capital of China in 763 at the tail end of the An Lushan Rebellion.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (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.
FAILED
1-4, not swapped Gizza (t)(c) 01:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 British colonization of the Americas and Spanish colonization of the Americas, Add Thirteen Colonies, New France, New Spain and Viceroyalty of Peru

I think it's better to list the most significant and well-known European colonies in the New World than to list these vaguer overview articles. We already list European colonization of the Americas which is a similar overview. And France's role in colonizing North America shouldn't be ignored.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think the historical process of colonization in its different forms and places are more vital than the colonial states.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Maunus. Gizza (t)(c) 04:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, despite the poor quality of these two articles, it is the process of colonization that seems interesting to me, and worth describing. I wish these articles were more like colonial history of the United States. That could make two excellent articles. ~Mable (chat) 08:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Then I have to ask why things like British colonization of Africa can redirect to Scramble for Africa and why Portuguese colonization of Asia doesn't exist. Cobblet (talk)

As a way to recognize French colonization, I am nominating French colonization of the Americas below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:47, 23 December 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.
FAILED
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dutch colonization of the Americas

The Dutch had a large role in colonizing the Americas, specifically New York and the surrounding area. Their influence can still be seen in New York with streets like Amsterdam Avenue in Manhattan.

Support
  1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Same rationale as Swedish. Not that significant although moreso than Swedish. The Netherlands' main colonial possessions were in Southern Africa and Asia (especially what is now Indonesia). Something on them should be added before their American pursuits. But Dutch East India Company may make it redundant. Perhaps add Dutch Empire or Dutch Golden Age instead. I prefer Dutch Golden Age only. Gizza (t)(c) 23:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza, the articles he said are much more vital. Perhaps Dutch East Indies is an idea. However, I don't know how vital this whole thing is in the grand scheme of things, as it isn't even vital to know anything about if you live in the Netherlands. The Dutch East India company is, though. ~Mable (chat) 08:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 21:09, 24 December 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.
FAILED
1-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Swedish colonization of the Americas

Adding this article completes the list of colonizing powers who colonized the Americas. The Swedes colonized the areas that now makeup Delaware and Southern New Jersey. Their influence is seen in towns like Swedesboro, New Jersey. A replica of the ship the Swedes landed when they reaches Delaware is still floating in Delaware Bay today.

Support
  1. Support as nom.
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sweden's colonization of the Americas was minimal. We can't include every article about a colonial power conquering a small piece of new land for a short amount of time. This is like Danish India, German East Africa, Taiwan under Japanese rule, Belgian Congo and German Samoa. Gizza (t)(c) 22:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza. ~Mable (chat) 08:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Not a chance User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: English and Spanish? Probably. Swedish? Nah. pbp 04:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

European colonization of the Americas is on the list, as I pointed out earlier. I have taken the liberty of removing the proposal to add it. Cobblet (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:07, 25 December 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.
PASSED
Swapped, but in Technology pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Øresund Bridge and Great Belt Fixed Link, Add Kiel Canal

If there's one truly vital transportation link in the vicinity of Denmark it's the busiest shipping canal in the world, in operation for over a hundred years and of considerable geopolitical significance (made an international waterway by the Treaty of Versailles, closed by Hitler, reopened after WWII). In contrast I can think of many bridges of equal or greater significance than the Øresund and Great Belt bridges.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support the addition, Oppose the removals. The bridges you have nominated for removal are vital because they make it possible to drive from Scandinavia to continental Europe without having to drive through Russia. Without these bridges, Russia could prevent numerous forms of land travel between Scandinavia and Continental Europe, essentially isolating Scandinavia from the rest of Europe. With Russia-NATO relations declining drastically during the past year, these bridges are all the more vital. The canal is vital for a similar reason. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support removals Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

You know, they used to have ferries where the bridges are now. You know what, let's add every bridge to Manhattan to the list – they are vital because somebody could blow them up and trap everyone on the island (wait, that's Gotham, nvm.) Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Bridges that link an section of Europe to the rest of Europe are definitely vital. Without it, road traffic would be forced to travel through Russia, a geopolitical nightmare. This is also ignoring the fact that these bridges are massive and are structural marvels by themselves. Also, as a side-note, the Brooklyn Bridge is listed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, ships. You seem to be under the impression they can't transport cars or freight. What did you think people do before the bridges were built, drive around the Baltic Sea? And there are more than 70 bridges longer than either of these – consult List of longest bridges in the world if you're interested in a comprehensive list of structural wonders, which is not our task here. Cobblet (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Ships are important, but road traffic is too. Trains are one of the top ways that goods are transported around the world, and trains need bridges to get over a body of water. By your logic, all bridges could be removed from the list because ships could take up the burden. That is not true. Imagine millions of people in Manhattan trying to get across into New Jersey and the rest of NYC. Ships could never take the burden that bridges do. In a similar way, the Kiel Canal is not important because if it did not exist, ships would just sail around Denmark. These bridges are not as important because of length but because of their importance in road traffic between Scandinavia and Continental Europe. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if all you care about is moving people around, let's add Ontario Highway 401 because there's a bit in Toronto that's the busiest stretch of freeway in the world and I cannot imagine what a nightmare the daily commute would be like for them if it was shut down. How much trade flows across the Oresund Bridge? How about the George Washington? Compare it to the Kiel Canal or something like the Ambassador Bridge? (Also, it sounds like you haven't heard of container shipping – maybe time to add that to the list.) Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
We should first decide how many bridges we want on the list and then decide which bridges. Right now there are 7 bridges. Even if there are 10 bridges, will Øresund Bridge and Great Belt Fixed Link make the vital top ten? Gizza (t)(c) 07:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Tough question! It obviously depends on what you're looking for. The only way the Fixed Link Bridge would make the top ten is if you just want the longest bridge spans in the world; it's third behind Akashi-Kaikyo and Xihoumen Bridge. IMO that by itself is a pretty lousy way of determining a bridge's vitality. The Oresund Bridge is notable as a unique transportation link between two previously unconnected places, but the Bosphorus Bridge, the King Fahd Causeway, and the Confederation Bridge are also famous for the same reason. Still the Oresund bridge has the best mix of technical challenge and geographic importance among these.
Now in the category of suspension bridges, Oresund is definitely less notable than the Brooklyn, Golden Gate and Akashi-Kaikyo bridges, because those three are huge historical milestones in suspension bridge construction. So is the Menai Suspension Bridge; while the Ambassador Bridge and the George Washington bridge (which Points nominated) are lesser milestones but have much more significance than Menai as transportation links. I'd argue Ambassador is more vital than George Washington – international trade vs. morning commuters. But that's just me, and how you weigh all these against the Oresund bridge is also up to you.
But if you want just ten bridges, you can't just have suspension bridges – there are also arch bridges, cantilever bridges, truss bridges, cable-stayed bridges, etc. (We've never talked about adding bridge types.) The list of arch bridges notable for either aesthetic, cultural or technical reasons is long: choose from the Pont du Gard (nominated), Trajan's Bridge, Anji Bridge, the medieval London Bridge (currently the only non-suspension bridge listed, if we're getting rid of the Tower Bridge), Ponte Vecchio, Stari Most, Khaju Bridge, The Iron Bridge, Garabit viaduct, Salginatobel Bridge, Bayonne Bridge, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Juscelino Kubitschek bridge, etc.
Then you gotta think about bridges of other types. For a cantilevered truss bridge, have the Quebec Bridge or Forth Bridge; for cable-stayed bridges, there's the Millau Viaduct or the Rio–Antirrio bridge; and for simple trestle bridges, until recently the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway was well-known as the longest bridge in the world, but now a bunch of boring Chinese railway bridges are longer.
Famous bridge failures shouldn't be ignored either – both the Quebec and Forth Bridges were built in response to notable collapses (the Tay Bridge disaster in the case of the latter); but the most famous example has to be the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) (that's a suspension bridge again). Cobblet (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
We could remove one of the bridges since they are both part of the same highway system. That would free a spot for the longest bridge in the world. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose adding an article on the Chinese high-speed rail system but that would still make a lot more sense than adding an article on one of its many long but otherwise completely unremarkable bridges. Adding the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge while neglecting the enormously important cities it passes through (Suzhou – see the nomination in the Cities section) makes even less sense than saying the Orient Express is more vital than Vienna. It is a completely absurd idea. Cobblet (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
How about the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway? It's the longest continuous bridge over water. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
So what if it's continuous? So what if it's over water? I don't why something has to be vital just because it's in the Guinness book of records. I think I've mentioned a couple dozen bridges in this thread that are at least as notable. Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2015 (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.
PASSED
Swapped pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Lake Khanka, Add Yellow Sea

Lake Khanka is far less notable to the hydrography of Russia or China than the Sea of Okhotsk (nominated above) and the Yellow Sea.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:41, 15 January 2015 (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.
Added pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Kingston, Jamaica

In a list of 400+ cities, it is reasonable to have a city from the English-speaking Caribbean and Kingston is the leading candidate. In addition to being the largest English-speaking city south of the United States, Kingston has more history and influence beyond its borders than many listed and suggested cities, including Reykjavik and Canberra. Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2015 (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.
PASSED
Added

The following discussion is closed. 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 Gwalior

Gwalior does not hold any significance as a city in India. Historically, it is known for being one of the many sites for the 1857 Rebellion but not much else. The 2011 Census states that Gwalior is the 41st largest city [8] or 44th largest urban agglomeration [9], which is too low to keep on population alone. The listed cities with a comparable population have other reasons for being listed. Amritsar and Allahabad are holy cities while Guwahati is from the otherwise unrepresented Northeast. Note that there are other cities listed from Gwalior's state of Madhya Pradesh (Indore and Bhopal). Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Madhya Pradesh is clearly a better choice for the list. Cobblet (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2015 (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.
PASSED
Swapped pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dodoma, Add Benghazi

Dodoma was just another innocuous African town until Tanzania moved its National Assembly there in 1996. Sure, it's the capital, but Dar es Salaam remains Tanzania's most important city by a large margin. I suggest replacing Dodoma with one of North Africa's most historically important cities (Greek colony, largest city in Cyrenaica since Roman times, co-capital of the Kingdom of Libya, powder keg for the Libyan Civil War) which also happens to have a larger population than Dodoma.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We probably should have both. pbp 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

@Purplebackpack89:: If I can't get Bangui or Nouakchott added, I don't see how Dodoma is vital. Lomé is another African capital with a million-plus population that isn't listed. Arusha is probably Tanzania's second most notable city, not Dodoma. Cobblet (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

But all of those are capitals of countries that are a lot less populous than Tanzania... pbp 00:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Most of Tanzania's population lives either on the coast or in the north; the interior is relatively sparsely populated. So if your argument is that more populous places deserve more representation, both Mwanza and Arusha (both larger cities than Dodoma) are better choices. We also list Zanzibar. Cobblet (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, User:Purplebackpack89, if you still think Dodoma's vital, I wonder what you'd think about Naypyidaw, which is Burma's new capital and is three times more populous than Dodoma. Also Burma's more populous than Tanzania. Sure, we already have Yangon and Mandalay; but we already also have Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar. Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to that. I'm not as restrictive of cities and regions as some. pbp 03:42, 28 December 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.
PASSED
Swapped pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dushanbe, Add Ulan Bator

Swapping Tajikistan's capital for Mongolia's. Ulan Bator has double the population, is the capital of the older and more significant nation, and has a much more notable history as a religious centre.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Even Bukhara is more vital than Dushanbe. Gizza (t)(c) 01:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:19, 29 December 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.
PASSED
Both added pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Suzhou and Luoyang

If I had to list ten vital cities of Europe it would be wrong to leave out Florence or Venice even if they aren't its largest cities or political capitals – they are so central to European culture and history. The same thing can be said of Suzhou and Luoyang in the pantheon of Chinese cities: Luoyang's been China's capital for over a thousand years (it's the only canonical historical capital of China not listed), and Suzhou is probably China's third most culturally significant city (tied with Hangzhou, behind only Xi'an and Beijing). It would be absurd to leave them out on a list of ten Chinese cities, let alone 33. And unlike Florence or Venice, these are huge cities – Suzhou's now a major economic hub with a population over 10 million (in fact, the Wikipedia article says the Suzhou is one of China's ten largest cities), and Luoyang's still got 6.5 million people.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support I prefer removing some of the less vital, overlapping cities such as Dongguan to make room. With very few exceptions, we should stick to one article per conurbation. Gizza (t)(c) 00:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  13:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose COntrary to Cobblet I dont believe population makes vitality automatically. We dont need more chinese cities (rather less). These cities are unknown to the vast majority of non-chinese people. Florence and Venice are guaranteed to be better known by the cities of Suzhou and Luoyang than vice versa. If the cities are considered more vital than chinese cities already on the list I could be convinced of a swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

First, you've completely misconstrued my meaning (reread the first sentence). I never said population automatically makes a city vital, but it is definitely a factor to be taken into account. Second, I've previously tried removing minor Chinese cities like Dongguan and Shijiazhuang to get these cities added. Those proposals failed. So we now have the absurd situation where minor provincial capitals and industrial cities less than 30 years old appear on the list, but Luoyang and Suzhou are not.

I bet the vast majority of people haven't heard of ancient Egyptian capitals like Thebes or Memphis either, but they're still on the list. So why not an ancient Chinese capital? I have had people tell me that Arequipa is vital for its "considerable historical, economic and cultural significance"; and Suzhou doesn't have those qualities? (To be fair, the same person who wrote that did !vote to include Suzhou.) I don't blame you and others for not having read all the discussion that goes on this page, but even a few minutes of comparing the current list of cities to the two I've proposed here should make it quite obvious that these are reasonable additions to the list.

(By the way, User:Maunus, I wish I had whatever it is that allows you to argue that fictive kin, mirror neurons or Victor Jara are vital; and then turn around and tell me something isn't vital because it's unknown to the vast majority of non-Chinese people.) Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rant noted. You should know I do appreciate the fact that you actually always have a well thought out rationale for your proposals. I just happen to no infrequently disagree with them as apparently you do with mine.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza:: I opened the proposal below. While I agree we shouldn't include an excessive amount of cities from the same region, defining the scope of a conurbation is rather problematic – you could, for example, refer to Bos-Wash as one agglomeration, and clearly we can't limit ourselves to one city there. For most of Chinese history, Suzhou was the most important city in the Yangtze River delta – Shanghai only gained importance in the 1700s. Cobblet (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, but Dongguan was not significant until merging with the more important cities of Guangdong like Guangzhou and Shenzhen, which is vital for being the most successful Special Economic Zone. The Box-Wash cities had their own individual reasons for vitality before slowly merging into one mega-city. Gizza (t)(c) 02:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you feel about Yokohama then? Shanghai's relationship to Suzhou and Hangzhou would be analogous to Yokohama's relationship with Tokyo, except that Shanghai's surpassed its neighbours in population while Yokohama has not. Cobblet (talk) 02:29, 29 December 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.
PASSED
Removed pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Sochi

Not the most important Black Sea port (Sevastopol, Constanța, Trabzon) nor the most important vacation destination in Europe (neither Balearic Islands nor Palma de Mallorca is listed; even in Eastern Europe, I could point to Dubrovnik or Santorini instead).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 06:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support ~Mable (chat) 08:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I could support this as a swap with Circassians. Gizza (t)(c) 04:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sochi is Russia's primary resort town. That and hosting the Winder Olympics doesn't make it vital but I'm guessing that there are weaker cities on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 04:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd support that swap if the history section wasn't over quota. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Cancún and Phuket are other vacation destinations that are much more prominent than Sochi. Cobblet (talk) 00:47, 30 December 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.
PASSED
Removed pbp 18:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Hanover

Probably most notable for being an Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, but it was not even one of the original Electors, and we don't list any of those save for Cologne.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 06:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: One other little insignificant reason: the dynasty of English monarchs that included George III and Victoria started out as electors of Hanover. pbp 22:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Yup, that's a pretty insignificant reason. By that logic Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or Penmynydd would also be vital. Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 27 December 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.
5-0 for Japanese cuisine and added, 2-3 for the others and failed Gizza (t)(c) 05:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Japanese cuisine, sashimi and tsukemono

Now that more and more Westerners love Japanese cuisine, this cuisine should be added to the list. Sashimi and tsukemono should be added as well since they are all good representatives of it.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Japanese cuisine – IMO this is the most significant cuisine not currently listed. Oppose the rest. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Japanese cuisine. --Melody Lavender 21:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Japanese cuisine  Carlwev  09:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose sashimi and tsukemono. Sushi is more than enough. Also we can't add the pickling method of every cuisine. See Pickling#Popularity_of_pickles_around_the_world for how many different types of pickling there are. Gizza (t)(c) 00:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sashimi and tsukemono. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:39, 11 December 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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 04:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 parts of the Brain: Cerebral cortex, Cerebral hemisphere, Frontal lobes, Parietal lobes, Cerebellum, Temporal lobe, Occipital lobes, Corpus callosum

The only articles related to the brain are Nervous system, rain, intelligence and Neuron. In contrast we have fur, nail, feather, scale, skin and integumentary system. I think we should have a little bit more about the brain relative to the different morphological variations of the integumentary system.

Support
  1. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Certainly the anatomy section needs to be expanded. But why were these structures chosen while the brainstem, basal ganglia, hippocampus, thalamus, hypothalamus, pituitary gland, amygdala, olfactory bulb and pineal gland were not? Should we add all of them? Beyond regions of the brain, should things like cranial nerves, cerebrospinal fluid and blood–brain barrier also be included? I think we might want to be a little more selective than this – for instance, I'm not sure we need to list each lobe separately if we're already adding the cortex. Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys should first decide which to suggest before you suggest them. I see a lot of familiar names, but have no idea which of these are most vital myself. I'd support 5 or 7, or even 10 articles on the brain, but try to pick the most important ones! ~Mable (chat) 11:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You may be right, I just added the main division but some of the smaller ones may be more vital certainly thalamus, hippocampus, hypothalamus, amygdala and pituitary gland are more interesting than the lobes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 21 December 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.
PASSED
Removed and Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Percidae, Centrarchidae and Lutjanidae, Add Perch

The Perciformes are the largest order of vertebrates, and these families within Perciformes do contain some relatively notable species, but to me it still seems a bit odd to list so many obscure class names and leave out the genus that gives the entire order its name. (125th in popularity on WP:FISH last month.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (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.
PASSED
Removed and Added 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Pomacanthidae, Triggerfish, Scorpaenidae and Parrotfish, Add Coral reef fish

I'm sorry if I'm suggesting we remove your favourite coral reef fish. But much as we did with deep sea fish a while back, I think it might be better to include the article that treats them as a whole rather than go about the business of picking which specific examples to include. Note that Pterois (lionfish; 42nd most popular WP:FISH article) and Amphiprioninae (clownfish; 22nd most popular WP:FISH article) aren't listed to begin with, and neither are other notable denizens of coral reefs like sea anemones, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, sea squirts or sea slugs. (Some of those should probably be added.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support ~Mable (chat) 11:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Articles like deep sea and coral reef fish conveniently make space but to what extent do we want to replace species and families with classifications based on where the fish live (there are others like freshwater fish)? We can do this for other animals too like marine reptile and marine mammal. Gizza (t)(c) 01:51, 14 January 2015 (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.
NO CONSENSUS
no votes in 30 days Gizza (t)(c) 04:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 molecular orbital theory to the chemistry section

From the categories the article belongs to we know that it is should be placed to the chemistry section, not the physics one.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 20:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It could just have easily been categorized under molecular physics though. It seems odd to take the molecular physics articles out of the atomic, molecular, and optical physics section. Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 4 December 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.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 after 15 days Jucchan (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 Very Large Telescope, Add Itaipu Dam

These are both works of engineering located in South America. The Itaipu Dam is one of the largest dams in the world and produces more hydroelectricity than any other dam, including the Three Gorges. It's been called a modern engineering wonder and is much more significant than the Very Large Telescope (soon to be surpassed by the next-generation extremely large telescopes.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, ahww, I like telescopes with somewhat silly names... ~Mable (chat) 08:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  4. SupportGonzales John (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I should also note that the space observatories in the Atacama Desert are already represented by the Atacama Large Millimeter Array. Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 23 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_41&oldid=1083273595"