Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Ratio of Baseball Players to Association Football Players

According to this link from wikimedia tools, , 38.3% of people reading the English Wikipedia are American. As such, there needs to be a significant amount of attention to removing American bias while also not going so far as to create anti-American bias. From the discussions above, it is evident that there needs to be a separate thread to discuss the ratio of American Baseball players to soccer players. Since a little over a third of the readers of the English wikipedia are Americans, how about we make the ratio of soccer players to baseball players 2 to 1. This would eliminate most of the American bias because Cricket would have enough players on the list along with non-American hockey players and field hockey players to counteract the number of basketball players and American Football players. If need be, we could remove a couple of basketball players from the list.

In conclusion, here is my proposal: keep a ratio of Non-American athletes to American athletes at 2:1 to represent the readership in the English Wikipedia. This ratio would be a fixed rule that would stay in place if we lower the number of sports figures in total on the list. This seems like a fair compromise so that American bias elimination does not turn into Anti-American bias creation.

Support

1. Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose should be more like 20-25% pbp 23:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Malerisch (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per discussion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

You seem to be proposing two different things – I can't tell whether you're talking about just football vs. baseball or all the athletes in general. Americans currently comprise 44/117 or 38% of the athletes, definitely a better ratio than when we started trimming the list. But trying to justify a ratio of nationalities based on viewership alone makes no sense – first, one can apply this type of argument to every section of the list of people; second, if we can apply it for Americans we can apply it for every other nationality. By the same logic you're using, for every Chinese person on the list we should have one New Zealander, because both countries contribute 0.7% of Wikipedia's viewership. Oh, and we should have 27 times as many Americans as Chinese and New Zealanders combined. Cobblet (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant it for athletes in team sports. Sorry for the confusion. In addition, this argument only applies to sports figures because this is the type of person that only people from an athlete's country really care about. That is why you do not care about baseball players and I do not care about soccer players. This argument can't be made for people in history for example since the US has only been around for 238 years. I set this up as a compromise so that we can balance the list and have a strict list below. Removing all baseball players except for Ruth and Robinson is draconian at best and anti-American at worst. I am using this percentage for Americans only since that is the group everyone seems to care the most about cutting. I am open to using it for every country on the list for sports figures if you want to. Also, remember that only one third on the list would be are Americans, which is less than 38.3%. This is a compromise, and I see this as the best solution. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't personally believe we should have only two baseball players, but wanted to respond to your suggestion of its "impossibility" by pointing out that Ruth and Robinson's impact on American culture is markedly greater than any other player on the list. I continue to reject the notion that Wikipedia's viewership demographics correlate in any way with the vitality of its biographies; in that case you might as well compile the list of people using Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Popular pages. Cobblet (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The nationality of the athletes only matters because in general people of one nationality only care about athletes of the sports they like. In Europe, it's soccer and cricket. In the US, Its baseball, football, and basketball. With relation to page views, I also think that page views should be considered since an encyclopedia should always have the pages that everyone wants to read. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"An encyclopedia should always have the pages that everyone wants to read." Points, I can't wait for your nominations of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber to the list. :-D There are several problems with tying this list to the traffic stats. One is that the traffic stats are quite fluid from month to month and year to year. Another is there are a lot of people who get a lot of hits despite not doing anything particularly significant, and conversely a lot of people who get few hits despite doing something very significant. pbp 23:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if we give greater weight to page views, I'm not sure if the proposal makes sense. Hypothetically, if 100% of readers were American, or German, or Korean, would the athletes be 100% from their own country? I guess the big sports in the States are games where they are the main country that plays the game. If 100% of readers were American, then maybe yes only American sports should be listed but shouldn't there be non-Americans who excel at these sports?

For example, if 100% of Wikipedia readers were British, maybe all of the sports bios will be British sports but the nationalities will still be diverse. Among the three most popular team sports in Britain (soccer/football, cricket and rugby) they make up 4 out of 26 athletes or about 15.4%. If these were hypothetically expanded, this ratio wouldn't change that much.

Not sure if I'm making this point clearly but even on a "Britipedia" or a sports book targeting a British audience, British athletes will still make up the minority. America is much more dominant in its own sports and will probably have a majority of athletes in an "Ameripedia" but still not 100%. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia exists for people to read. An encyclopedia should have the articles that everyone wants to read. Otherwise the reader will go to a different encyclopedia to read the article. Page views are the essence of any encylopedia and should be given high importance in determining an article's vitality. Hence the reason why I made this proposal to reflect the readers of the English Wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that page views should strongly influence who goes on this list. True, an encyclopedia exists for people to read, but it should have articles that everyone should read, not wants to read. And when did page views become the essence of an encyclopedia? Most encyclopedias throughout history have existed in hard copies, not on the Internet, so the concept of page views is not applicable and impossible to measure for those. As a rather extreme example, consider the articles for Jennifer Lawrence and Shen Kuo. Jennifer Lawrence received 1,211,849 page views in the past 90 days while Shen Kuo only received 8,935 page views—a 135x difference. Yet Shen Kuo is a level 3 VA while Jennifer Lawrence isn't even on the level 4 list. If page views are given high importance, should this swap really be carried out? Who would actually support that? Malerisch (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a popular actress to a lesser-known but still vital scientist. That is why we have categories for the different types of people. In addition, who are we to tell people what they should read. We should let them read what they want to read. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As a separate, unrelated question that I want to ask before I make a formal proposal, I would like to ask this: Should we focus less on nominating the articles on the list and more on improving them? This would mean that we as a project would focus on specific articles that need attention that are on our list. I feel like we aren't helping wikipedia as a whole if we aren't improving articles ourselves. Instead, I feel like we are simply having geopolitical arguments about which culture is important such as the argument above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been wanting to know the answer to this question for a while, even though it undermines my own argument: what is the point of the meta list? One of the sentences at Wikipedia:Vital articles states that "This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia. There is also a list of one thousand articles considered vital to Wikipedias of all languages." If the English Wikipedia VA list doesn't include any English-speaking bias, why does the meta list exist at all? Otherwise, we have two separate lists in English that serve the same purpose. There was some discussion here on that sentence, but no action was taken. Malerisch (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

1. It's hardly a settled matter that the English list not contain English bias.
2. This list specifically compiles "10,000 subjects for which Wikipedia should ultimately have high-quality articles", while the Meta list doesn't say that. It's possible to argue that every Wikipedia should have articles on all 118 chemical elements (and add new ones as we discover them), but the transactinides need not necessarily be prioritized in terms of quality. A Wikipedia that's got less than 10,000 articles might want to check that it does have articles on days of the week or months of the year.
3. We seem to have an unwritten rule that says we don't nominate articles that don't already exist, the assumption being that 4.5 million articles is plenty to choose from. Developers of the Meta list need not feel bound to the conventions of the English Wikipedia and may say that separate articles on pulsating and rotating variable stars are warranted, for example.
4. The Meta list should take linguistic differences into account: the distinction between green, light blue and dark blue is what immediately came to mind but I'm sure there are others. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Great answer! I've been thinking of removing some of the elements as well. A possible answer would be removing all mid-importance elements, but further discussion should probably be conducted in the Chemistry section. Malerisch (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a link to the 100 most popular articles of 2013. Should we replace the Level 1 and 2 lists with this list? Don't think so.

Notwithstanding the time bias and geographic bias in pageviews, there is a huge shaky assumption made in the view that high pageviews mean vitality. You are assuming that people click on the Wikipedia articles that they want to click on and read. That's probably the case with pop culture phenomena like Breaking Bad and perenially popular articles like human penis size but it's not the case with many of the articles. Do people actually want to read about Facebook, Yahoo!, Google and YouTube or do they type the name of these websites in the search box and accidentally click on the Wikipedia link? We don't have proof and we don't know for how long people view these articles, which is just as important in understanding how readers behave online. Having said that, the accident theory is widely supported (see this Signpost article).

Another assumption is that all of the pageviews come from humans which again is known to not be the case. Wikipedian articles are frequently subject to Denial-of-service attacks by online hackers. Bots can artificially inflate the pageviews of an article by up to a factor of million. Bot views don't make an article vital and even though sometimes it is clear which articles are being attacked, a moderate increase in views can also be the result of bots and we have no way of finding out.

There is also the Google Doodle and Slashdot effect. An article that normally gets 50 views a day can get 200,000 due to being linked via a Google Doodle, Slashdot, Reddit or some other website that overloads the article. Similarly, celebrities do not become more vital when they die at a young age (if anything, it means they will be in less movies, release less songs, etc. and therefore less vital) but an unexpected death is the best way to get a big boost in article pageviews. Again the Signpost article referred to above discusses all of these issues. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the other major problem with pageviews. If two articles are similar in vitality, the article that is already better written will get more pageviews. If you compare two Turkish village of similar and let's say one of them is a detailed Featured Article and other is a stub. The FA will have more pageviews firstly due to getting exposure during the review process and secondly due to online readers recommending, sharing and linking the better article to others (why would you link the stub if it's devoid of information?) It's kind of obvious that article quality and not just topic affects pageviews but this means that we fall in the trap of adding high quality articles to VA simply because they're well written. The vital stubs get overlooked. As Melody Lavender said, although it is unlikely we should even be open to the possiblity of adding redlinks if the topic is genuinely vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the relationship between pageviews and quality works both ways. If an article gets a lot of views, it tends to get a lot of edits as well. These edits eventually result in those articles being B-Class or better (look at the quality of any Lady Gaga-related article). Articles that get a lot of hits don't need help getting to B-Class; they will get there naturally without our interference. The things that need help from this project are articles that don't get viewed a lot: they need to get viewed so people will fix them and bring them up to B-Class or better. Heck, one would hope that if this was a good, important project, it could influence hits! pbp 18:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I doubt that that many people know that this project exists. Few people who take the time to realize that they can edit wikipedia articles ever notice that there is such thing as talk pages, let alone wikiprojects or anything that is not an article. However, I like your idea of improving articles on the list, and I would like to take it one step further: how about we establish a task force to improve article on the list. We could establish the goals for what class we want an article to have and work on the ones that are not up to those standards. I will be proposing this at the bottom of the talk page. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Remove Peggy Ashcroft

I have no idea why she's listed. She's mostly notable for her role in A Passage to India, but a single appearance in a film does not make you vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Suppport pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  10:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Again, I'd say she's most notable for her stage roles. I'm finding the stage actors more difficult to evaluate. Neljack (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Erich Maria Remarque

Most famous for All Quiet on the Western Front, but he had other bestsellers as well.

Support

1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm not convinced he's as important as some other German writers we don't have, such as Gunter Grass and Heinrich Boll. They have good cases for inclusion, but I'm not sure Remarque is really vital. Neljack (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose I agree with Neljack. Remarque is not quite up there in my opinion. If adding a German writer, I would suggest Grass has the strongest case. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 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 Samuel Johnson

Notable for his criticism, his dictionary, his literary efforts, and being an all-round clever chap. One example of his lasting importance is that the UK's top non-fiction prize is named the Samuel Johnson Prize.

Support

1. Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support although it should be pointed out A Dictionary of the English Language is also on the list. When an author is primarily known for one work, when is this overlap appropriate? That might not apply as much to Johnson; but I've long thought Rabelais or Gargantua and Pantagruel ought to be vital but didn't know whether to nominate both or how to choose between them. Cobblet (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I agree that Johnson's influence goes beyond his dictionary. He was one of the most influential British literary figures of the 18th century. Neljack (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per above. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

There is so much more to Samuel Johnson than his dictionary. His Shakespeare criticism was highly influential and he made significant contributions as an essayist. His non-fiction is probably what he's most remembered for, but Rasselas is an important piece of 18th century fiction and The Vanity of Human Wishes an important poem. Having said all that, on the question of an author primarily known for one work (unlike Johnson IMO), I think there's no hard and fast answer. If they're significant enough we can have both author and work(s) like with Homer and the Iliad/Odyssey. If a little less so, maybe not, which is why I think it's reasonable to have Wuthering Heights but not Emily Brontë. If Gargantua and Pantagruel refers to all five books, I don't know what else Rabelais wrote, so better to go with the work I would imagine (if just going for one of the two, which is probably appropriate in this case).--Rsm77 (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Enid Blyton, add Emily Brontë

While I was a great fan of Blyton's books as a child, I don't think she can be regarded as vital. She was very popular and prolific, but her literary influence and critical reputation were limited at best. Emily Brontë not only wrote what is widely regarded as one of the greatest, most original and most influential English novels, but was also an important poet - she has been described as "one of the great English lyric poets"[1] and as the greatest female English poet. Brontë seems to me to be clearly more vital that Blyton. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'm OK with the add but prefer to keep Blyton.  Carlwev  07:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose. We already list Wuthering Heights. Considering it's her only novel, I see no reason to include her as well as the book. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Blyton is integral to the topic of children's literature. I agree that we don't need Emily Brontë if we already have Wuthering Heights. Betty Logan (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Agree with what Betty and V3 said. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose Per V3 and Betty. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We could drop Charlotte and instead add Brontë family since must academic studies regard them collectively. Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove David McCullough, add Charles A. Beard

In the grand scheme of American historiography, there are two names that stand out: Frederick Jackson Turner (who's been on the list for years) and Beard. McCullough is a popular historian, but doesn't add much in the way of historiography. pbp 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 20:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Hard to argue that McCullough is a more influential historian than Beard was. Neljack (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Burebista

We have Decebalus and do not need a second Dacian king.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  07:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. Decebalus' legacy in holding off the Roman Empire and in modern times becoming the national hero of Romania is far greater than Burebista. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Henry the Fowler

Henry the Fowler's role in the history of Germany is comparable to Hugh Capet's in France. They may have founded the dynasty that marks the birth of each nation, but they are less vital than their successors who expanded and consolidated the power of that initially weak ruling house – Otto I in the case of the Holy Roman Empire and Philip II in the case of France. If Hugh Capet or Henry VII of England isn't on the list I don't see why Henry the Fowler should be.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 07:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Cosimo de' Medici and Lorenzo de' Medici, Add House of Medici

Usually I imagine people are more interested in articles on specific figures than on ruling houses. In this case though, House of Medici receives over three times as many page views as the articles on the two Medicis combined. It also seems undue to list two Florentine leaders when we don't list any other leaders of Italian city-states (Enrico Dandolo? Ugolino della Gherardesca?). FWIW, Catherine de' Medici is also on the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support addition and neutral on the removals. Malerisch (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose removal, but Strong Support for add (what on omission!)--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support add but oppose removals in light of the combination of cultural, economic and political importance they both have. Neljack (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose removal and Support addition per Melody Lavender. Malerisch (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The significance for economic history (banking dynasty) and for art history is incomparable. And I think you're playing down their role as political leaders. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

None of which requires that we devote separate articles to Cosimo and Lorenzo instead of treating the family as a collective whole. I wouldn't be opposed to adding the Medici Bank either – now there's a company of historic importance. Cobblet (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Medici Bank is vital, and so is the Fugger Bank, which redirects to the dynasty. Those are the kinds of historical company articles I'm looking for.--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a nomination up for Jakob Fugger soon. Cobblet (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to remove Cosimo and Lorenzo to add the House of Medici. House of Plantagenet is currently listed (in History), but that doesn't mean Edward I of England, Henry II of England, John, King of England, and Richard I of England should be removed. House of Romanov is also listed along with Alexis of Russia, Elizabeth of Russia, Alexander II of Russia, Nicholas I of Russia, Nicholas II of Russia, and Peter the Great. And there's plenty of folks from the House of Habsburg as well, like Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, and Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. While Cosimo and Lorenzo weren't kings, that's not a reason to remove them. (This nomination should probably go in History to be consistent.) Malerisch (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not why I'm suggesting we remove Cosimo and Lorenzo. I'm fully aware that a ruler's significance is not always subsumed by the significance of their family: but in this case I think it's true. If you see better ways to reduce the number of European politicians, I'm all ears. Don't forget a statement like "the significance for economic and art history is incomparable" isn't true unless one is specifically talking about European economic and art history. What about the Barmakids or the Shanxi merchants? Cobblet (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

All right, I've switched to neutral on the removals—I won't get in the way if people want to remove them. That said, I don't think European politicians need to be cut down that much, although other African and Asian leaders certainly need more representation. I'm going a bit off topic here, but what I meant by "moderate increase" of leaders was more on the order of 100, and I think actors, directors, and businesspeople could be cut dramatically. I mean, is Karl Albrecht really more vital than Willy Brandt or Heinrich Himmler? Why is Michael Redgrave listed but not Edward III of England or Richard III of England? And Samuel Goldwyn but not Earl Warren, James Monroe, and John C. Calhoun? Malerisch (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree totally that we should try to reduce the number of people representing the entertainment business. They, like the athletes, are primarily a 20th-century phenomenon. Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: Remove Amancio Ortega Gaona, Add El Cid

Reclusive fashion executive vs. national hero.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support addition, neutral on removal at the moment and support removal now. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support I don't see anything particularly important about Ortega except his wealth, which doesn't make him vital. Malerisch (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Being the third richest person in the world and having a net worth of USD $64 billion doesn't make you automatically vital. However, people who have accumulated such high amounts of wealth especially when they didn't inherit any of it themselves often have made a lasting impact on society. I will need to research Ortega in more detail to see if this is the case. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Willie Mays

In view of comments made above, I'll open this proposal.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support per above comments. Malerisch (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I'll just quote (with my emphasis) from the introduction of our article on Mays (which references a host of sources for this statement):

   Willie Mays' career statistics and longevity in the pre-PED era, the more recent acknowledgement of Mays as perhaps the finest five-tool player ever, and the overwhelming consensus of many surveys and other expert analyses carefully examining Mays' relative performance have led to a growing opinion that Mays was possibly the greatest all-around baseball player of all-time.

   Britannica concurs, saying: "He is considered by many to have been the best all-around player in the history of baseball."[2] The rankings I've mentioned before bear this out: he is ranked the second-greatest player of all time by the Sporting News[3], ESPN[4] and the AP[5], and third by the leading sabermetrician Bill James[6]. He also has wider importance as one of the first black players to become a top star - he has been called "baseball's first African-American superstar",[7] though Britannica suggests that because of racism "he probably never received the respect due him based upon his skills". But his status is such that, as NPR notes: "In the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama emphasized his biracial appeal by pairing John F. Kennedy with Martin Luther King, Jr.; Abraham Lincoln with Willie Mays."[8] If we're looking for someone to remove (leaving aside the ones I've already proposed), I suggest we'd be better to look at Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb or Lou Gehrig. Neljack (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Neljack. Malerisch (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Neljack. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Player	AP	Bill James	ESPN	SABR	Sporting News	Average
Hank Aaron	3	12	5	4	5	5.8
Roberto Clemente	?	74	34	20	20	37
Ty Cobb	5	5	6	7	3	5.2
Lou Gehrig	8	14	11	2	6	8.2
Willie Mays	2	3	2	8	2	3.4
Sadaharu Oh	?	?	?	?	?	?
Jackie Robinson	9	32	54	36	44	35
Babe Ruth	1	1	1	1	1	1
Cy Young	?	23	18	18	14	18.25

I agree with Neljack's analysis and have switched to oppose: Willie Mays isn't the right baseball player to remove. I've compiled the rankings from Neljack's sources into a table (see above) and averaged the rankings, which shows that Willie Mays could be considered the 2nd-best player of all-time, behind Babe Ruth. I don't think anyone's considering removing Jackie Robinson because of his historic importance, so Roberto Clemente and Cy Young are indeed the best candidates to remove. Sadaharu Oh doesn't appear on any rankings at all though, so it's hard for me to judge his importance. Malerisch (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadahuru Oh was the best player in Japanese baseball. In the spirit of keeping an international view of baseball, we should keep him. He is also the world home run record holder in addition. Cy Young should be on the list because he is the only pitcher on the list and most lists of the best baseball players of all time do not consider pitchers to be as important as hitters. Roberto Clemente is borderline, but I am inclined to keep him due to him being the only Latino player on the list. Willie Mays was a great player too, but I am leaning towards removing him over the other players because he does not own many records. I am not sure if the amount of baseball players we have now is fair. We have 9 baseball players vs. 17 association football players. Maybe we should remove one more baseball player to make the baseball list be half of the association football list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we're planning to cut down association football as well, so baseball probably would have to be cut down a bit more. I have another question though: did we overlook Ted Williams? He's ranked 4th by the AP, 7th by Bill James, 4th by ESPN, 3rd by SABR, and 8th by Sporting News, which gives him an average ranking of 5.2, tying him with Ty Cobb. He doesn't seem like a bad candidate either: the article calls him "one of the greatest hitters in baseball history." Malerisch (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but baseball is nowhere close to half as important as football. FIFA claims 3.2 billion people saw at least one minute of the 2010 World Cup. Good luck finding an edition of the MLB playoffs that drew in anything close to 1.6 billion viewers. Cobblet (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

But remember that this is an English Wikipedia. If you look at the offline releases of wikipedia here, you will notice a distinct Anglo-American bias. The fact that one of Wikipedia's most important projects has a bias towards the English world means that we should at least have a small bias towards some American sports. That's not to say that we should have as many baseball players as soccer players, but that does mean that the list of baseball players is close to where it is now. As a rule, I would keep baseball players listed at one half the list of soccer players, rounding down if the number of soccer players is an odd number. I will be proposing this below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia 1.0 one of Wikipedia's most important projects? Why is it acceptable for such a project to have a Western bias? (A major rationale for the project is to make Wikipedia available to places with poor Internet access; which Western country fits that criterion?) How does reducing representation of baseball, a sport with a trivial degree of popularity in any English-speaking country except for the US and Canada, even lead to an overall reduction of bias toward English-speaking nations in the first place? Cobblet (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

When 38.3% of people reading the English Wikipedia are American (by far the largest number of readers compared to any given country, with the UK at about a third of American readership), it warrants having a large amount of American athletes from America's oldest major sport, Baseball. That is not say that baseball should have as many people as soccer, but it means that Baseball should have about half of the number of articles that soccer does. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful table, Malerisch! Neljack (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

About half as many baseball players as soccer players seems reasonable to me. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Antioch

Very important city in the Near/Middle East in the first centuries BCE and AD. Should either be here or in Geography. pbp 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. pbp 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  11:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This should go under History: the modern city is Antakya. Cobblet (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this proposal be paired with a removal since History is currently over quota? Malerisch (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Apple Inc.

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I agree with the removals Malerisch suggests too. Our coverage of companies seems to be rather biased towards IT, perhaps not surprisingly. Neljack (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Mac OS should be removed first, and Apple's impact on the technology industry makes it vital IMO. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube also have less historical importance and so should be removed before Apple. Malerisch (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

What about the 6 car manufacturers in the Technology section? I think most of those should be removed before these companies. Malerisch (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, they should also be removed + there are some more companies spread out on other subpages.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering how you define historical importance. Didn't you just oppose the removal of eBay? Why are Microsoft and Apple less historically important? Cobblet (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Many of the IT companies have their own operating systems listed too. There are exceptions but generally a product is less vital than the company that makes it. I don't think Mac OS and Microsoft Windows can be considered more vital than Apple Inc. and Micrsoft respectively. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially when Apple's legacy in consumer electronics is more significant than its operating system. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the only companies that should be on the list are East India Company and Dutch East India Company. I forgot to suggest the removal of Standard Oil which is historic in the sense that it is no more, but not vital IMO. We should list consumer electronics, I thought about this several times before, it's a important omission and should cover consumer electronics by Apple and others. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Melody Lavender:, I think your definition of "historic" is off, particularly since you want to remove Standard Oil. Standard Oil is arguably the most influential company in American history, in the sense that most of the American regulatory apparatus. Furthermore, the prominent multinational oil companies Chevron and ExxonMobil (both some of the biggest corporations in the world) both trace their lineage to Standard Oil. The influence occurred almost a century ago, so I'm more than comfortable with calling them "historic". I'm also comfortable calling GE and IBM historic, because their peak of innovation occurred decades ago. IBM was the first important technology company. GE is a very important electronics company. As such, I think the removal of those three companies is a bad idea. pbp 14:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I agree that Standard Oil could be considered more important for Economic history than the others. But we don't have Economic history in the first place. What I am trying to say is that in this case I would prefer the approach of adding the overarching articles (industries) instead of individual ones (the companies). This rationale is hard to illustrate because many of the important articles are red links: Instead of AT&T we should really add History of the telecommunications industry. And Telecommunications industry, which is a redirect to Telecommunications, should be a separate article. Nothing keeps us from adding red links to the list, though. Some articles that do exist and describe industries, sectors, and overarching concepts that should be added are History of the internet, History of computing and History of telecommunication, as well as Primary sector of the economy, Secondary sector of the economy, and Tertiary sector of the economy, Public sector, and Private sector. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

DaGizza, unless I'm mistaken, didn't Ypnypn vote twice? Malerisch (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry for the oversight. I'm unclosing the discussion. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC

Sorry about that; I've removed the duplicate vote. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Microsoft

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Microsoft Windows should be removed before the company itself. However, that's arguably the most important operating system, so all the others would have to be removed as well, which I don't think is that good of an idea. Malerisch (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

But one could say that the significance of Microsoft is subsumed by the significance of Bill Gates: his page got more views last month than Microsoft and Microsoft Windows combined. Another viewpoint is that we can list the inventor and his invention without listing the company he built around it (Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone, but not Bell Telephone Company or AT&T). In the end it still comes down to how important you really think Microsoft is though, and I'm no economic historian myself. Cobblet (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Walmart

We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support I suggested replacing these with multinational corporation. Back to Support. The big numbers are not enough in creating vitality for business topics, as the proposal to remove Ortega has shown. Walmart has a presence in only 27 countries unlike Apple Inc., Toyota, Coca Cola and McDonald's, all of which have a near global presence. There are stores similar to Walmart that are much older and have been more influential on the history of the retail industry as well. I agree that keeping Amazon.com while removing this is illogical. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as long as Amazon.com is on the list—Walmart is definitely the more important retailer. It's not true in every case (e.g. Thomas Edison is more important than General Electric), but I would also remove the founder, Sam Walton, before Walmart: the company he founded is more vital than himself. I'm not saying Walmart is necessarily vital, but it shouldn't be removed while the other articles stay. Malerisch (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose  Carlwev  17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

We have smaller articles like amazon mentioned above. I don't seem to hate companies as much as everyone else. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer over 10,000 stores, nearly half a trillion dollar turn over and employs over 2 million people. I know it's fairly recent but I still think it's quite significant, lots of biographies are more recent. I mean we're still talking about sports, we have the worlds top 25 footballers, and top 14 tennis players, many of them more recent, but the worlds biggest retailer is not allowed? Like we have 150+ people important to film but don't have one company no disney, fox, viacom/paramount etc, I did media not acting but those came up when i studied cinema.  Carlwev  12:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So long as the quota for biographies is at 2000, the vitality standards for people will be less than for non-biographies in the sense of having less importance and influence in real life. From what I've read in the archives, supporters of the current quota say that 2000 is reasonable because readers expect biographies or personal, human stories in an encyclopedia, not just abstract topics (I haven't made up my mind on it myself). Putting the biography issue to one side, there are more general articles than can cover those companies. Film industry will be a good addition. Cinema of the United States is already listed. There are other broader articles too such as Major film studio. We can avoid bias, COI and spam issues that can crop up if we had to select one or two of Disney, Fox or Viacom. In the case of Walmart, discount store, department store and supermarket are the more general options. Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point, it would be funny if we put companies in biographies, although it would never fly. I would prefer to look up Nintendo than Miyamoto or Mario for example, I Would prefer to look up Sony before its co founder, same with Walmart. Biographies already have some articles that aren't single people, several comedy music or theatre duos, many music bands, which I expect. We also have a few oddities like Rothschild family, although I think that's significant compared to some other bios, even though it's a family, perhaps closer to a company kind of article, almost, than a bio?

I agree with Carlwev. I don't think the general articles can sufficiently cover companies, though. General articles like actor, politician, and writer certainly don't cover the lists of people with those professions, and I think the equivalence between companies and people is closer than one might think. Each person has his or her own background, influences, and legacy that makes him or her vital, and so does each company. I also don't think COI is an issue—just because they're companies doesn't mean we can't fairly judge their importance. We can all agree (I hope), for instance, that Apple Inc. is more vital than Toshiba, that Walmart is more vital than Tesco, and that Microsoft is more vital than Oracle Corporation. Malerisch (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You make a fair point on companies having their own stories like people. If we're keeping companies on that basis, I think the focus should then be on variety of companies representing different areas of the economy and not financial measures like revenue or market cap. Maybe a stronger focus on brand value instead. I could change my Walmart vote then but there will so many other companies to consider: Samsung, McDonalds, Nike Inc., Louis Vuitton, Proctor & Gamble, Marlboro, Mondelēz International, Disney, Nestle, Citi, Anheuser-Busch InBev, Tata and HSBC. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to judge a company's vitality based on a combination of factors: a high brand value, large size (either market capitalization or revenue), and a significant overall impact on society (for a more holistic viewpoint; this includes an "innovation factor," if you will). If a company satisfies at least two of these criteria, it's vital. Apple Inc. tops the list for brand value and market cap, and I would say it has considerable impact as well, so it's vital. Walmart tops the revenue list and undoubtedly has had a major impact, so it's vital as well. Oil companies are at the top of the size and impact rankings, so they're vital. The majority of companies that you listed, however, don't satisfy two of these, so I don't think they're vital (Samsung and McDonald's might be, however).

Also, I don't see why no one's crowing for the removals of newspapers or universities—aren't they companies/organizations as well? Why do they get a free pass? Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 21 August 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.

Most visited art museums

To give insight in the current vital articles, here are some museums from the List of most visited art museums in the world. Of course, this offers only a quantitative indication of only art museums. Hopefully this will help making new additions and removals in order to improve the vital museum articles. – Editør (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

9+ million visitors

1. The Louvre va-4 Museums/Europe

6–7 million visitors

2. British Museum va-4 Museums/Europe
4. Metropolitan Museum of Art va-4 Museums/Americas
5. National Gallery va-4 Museums/Europe

5–6 million visitors

5. Vatican Museums va-4 Museums/Europe (Sistine Chapel va-4 Architecture)

4–5 million visitors

6. National Palace Museum va-4 Museums/Asia
7. Tate Modern va-4 Museums/Europe
8. National Gallery of Art va-4 Museums/Americas

3–4 million visitors

9. Musée National d'Art Moderne va-4 Museums/Europe
10. Musée d'Orsay va-4 Museums/Europe
11. Victoria and Albert Museum
12. Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía
13. Museum of Modern Art va-4 Museums/Americas
14. National Museum of Korea

2–3 million visitors

15. Hermitage Museum va-4 Museums/Europe
16. National Folk Museum of Korea
17. Somerset House
18. Museo del Prado va-4 Museums/Europe
19. Rijksmuseum va-4 Museums/Europe
20. The National Art Center, Tokyo
21. Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil (Rio de Janeiro) see also #33 and #69 on the list
22. National Portrait Gallery, London

1–2 million visitors

23. Shanghai Museum
24. National Gallery of Victoria
25. Uffizi va-4 Museums/Europe
26. Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilisations
27. National Museum of Scotland
28. Moscow Kremlin va-4 Architecture
29. J. Paul Getty Museum
30. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
31. Art Institute of Chicago
32. Saatchi Gallery
33. Centro Cultural Banco do Brasil (Brasilia) see also #21 and #69 on the list
34. National Galleries of Scotland
35. Van Gogh Museum
36. Grand Palais
37. Tokyo National Museum
38. Tate Britain
39. Tretyakov Gallery
40. Dalí Theatre and Museum
41. Musée du quai Branly
42. Doge's Palace
43. Gyeongju National Museum
44. Australian Centre for the Moving Image
45. Pergamon Museum
46. Galleria dell'Accademia
47. Queensland Art Gallery/Queensland Gallery of Modern Art
48. Mori Art Museum
49. Los Angeles County Museum of Art
50. Smithsonian American Art Museum/Renwick Gallery (Smithsonian Institution va-4 Museums/Americas)
51. Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
52. Institut Valencià d'Art Modern
53. Art Gallery of New South Wales
54. National Museum of Western Art
55. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
56. Museo Soumaya
57. Acropolis Museum (Acropolis of Athens and Parthenon va-4 Architecture)
58. National Portrait Gallery (United States)
59. National Art Museum of China
60. Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum
61. Royal Academy of Arts
62. Montreal Museum of Fine Arts

Should we add museums to the list based off of the amount of people who visit each museum? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No, this list is incomplete and not about museum quality. It was only meant as background information which can perhaps aid us in our voting process when there are no decisive qualitative arguments. – Editør (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Add Beta blocker

One of the most widely prescribed drugs to reduce blood pressure. It has several other uses in cardiac diseases, has and anxiolytic effect and is also given to prevent migranes. It's also considered a doping drug. The most ancient substance in this group, Propanolol, dates back to the 1960ies. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support If people want to see more (say by 10-20 articles) coverage of drugs in general (pharmaceutical or recreational) then this is worth consideration. Propranolol is a Nobel-Prizewinning discovery. But note that not everything for which a Nobel Prize has been awarded is on our list; in fact only a select few are. Cobblet (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

This is a better idea than adding antipsychotics. The reason I don't suggest adding Antihypertensive drug here is that beta blockers are much more notable than the other antihypertensives, none of which merit significant coverage on our list. Antipsychotics don't stand out from the other psychiatric medications in the same way. Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add L Dopa

On the market since 1973, L Dopa is another substance that was on the World Health Organization's list of essential medications right from the beginning. It's a substance that is normally produced by the human body; a lack of it manifests in Parkinson's disease, one of the most common neurodegenerative diseases.--Melody Lavender (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It makes no sense to propose this when dopamine itself isn't on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:04, 2 August 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.

---

Swap: Remove Planck units, Add Natural units

Planck units are one system of units based on fundamental physical quantities, but hardly the only ones. They're all useful in specific contexts and I think a discussion of the concept as a whole is more vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Malerisch (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose; would support a straight add. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 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.

---

Swap: Remove Altimeter, Add Odometer

Odometers have a long and rich history compared to most other measuring instruments; their significance far outweighs any single flight instrument.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Neljack (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I don't actually think there are many measuring instruments with as long of a history as the odometer. (Rulers and water clocks are two basic ones that should be nominated.) Malerisch (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose; would support a straight remove. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Oppose swap, support straight remove of Altimeter. Rwessel (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose add, support straight remove. There are many measuring devices and sensors of comparable importance. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:49, 12 August 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.

---

Swap: remove Mira, add long-period variable

Remove the best-known example of a long period variable for the topic itself, which we currently lack.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Mira's also covered in Cetus. Malerisch (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Berkeley Software Distribution, MS-DOS, Multics, and OpenVMS

Many people are concerned that computing may be overrepresented, and the operating systems category seems like a good place to rectify that. BSD ought to be covered to some extent in Unix, and MS-DOS is the less vital out of the two Microsoft operating systems. Multics was an influential early operating system, but we don't list things like difference engine and IBM Personal Computer, which were just as influential to the hardware side of computers. And OpenVMS just isn't on the same level as Linux, Unix, Mac OS, or Microsoft Windows. If we're removing Apple Inc. and Microsoft, I don't see how these operating systems are any more vital. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Multics and OpenVMS, not sure about BSD and DOS. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Compact disc

Covered by Optical disc. We don't list DVD or Blu-ray.

Support

1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support per V3n0M93 and the same reasons for removing floppy disk. Gizza ^(t)(c) 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add File system

An important computer science topic. It discusses how exactly data is stored on a disk.

Support

1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support A crucial topic covered by computer architecture and operating system textbooks.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Lisp (programming language)

We don't have any functional languages. This the most vital of that paradigm.

Support

1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support This appears in {{Programming languages}}.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Am failing to see how this is more vital than, say, Fortran. I think I'd prefer to see more programming concepts like recursion or sorting algorithm than more languages. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Does it really have that much penetration outside of academia? The only language that I think is absolutely vital to cover is probably Assembly language. Beyond that programming styles (i.e. imperative/declarative/object-oriented) would be better choices than actual languages. Betty Logan (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  11:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per Cobblet and Betty. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

A long time ago all programming languages were removed because it was thought programming languages article itself was enough and covered the topic, now we have 4 of them added back, and might soon have a total of 6 programming languages. How many do we want in the end? I would probably disagree removing CD as we have optical disc, over 200 billion CDs have been made, and they're still going. One could say CD is covered by optical disc so we don't need it, but what is the reply to we have programming language, so we don't need 6 examples of programming languages? I admit programming isn't my thing but I am a little confused say water wheel in use for over 2000 years may not get in because we have water mill but 6 programming languages is acceptable. I still appreciate all the hard work and different views, I think it makes the list better in the end, this is only my view.  Carlwev  12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If we keep CD, we should add DVD and Blu-ray too. There is no reason to list only one of them. I personally feel that the optical disc article is enough. About programming languages I don't thing the Programming language article covers them enough. If this was VA1000 then one article would be enough but here we can add a few languages. We still have no coverage of logic programming as well as other fields of computer science. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

See also the recently successful proposal to remove Floppy disk Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_30#Remove_Floppy_disk. There are many storage media which had just as much of an impact on society as CD or Floppy disk did (been popular worldwide for around 20 years). OTOH, photographic film was popular for 100 years and is clearly on a different level. On the point of programming languages, I agree that 6 is excessive. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Water wheel

We recently added Archimedes' screw, Water wheel seems slightly more important. If we can have Solar power and solar energy and solar cell, as well as windmill, wind power, wind turbine, I believe we should have water wheel. They were in use from ancient Roman and Greec world in the 3rd century BC to the 20th century.  Carlwev  17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

We list watermill though, which covers similar ground – you might as well propose water turbine too even though we have turbine (watermills use one or the other). I'm not sure we need this much overlap on this subject. Incidentally, I've never really liked the overlap between hydropower and hydroelectricity and now we've also got solar power and solar energy. Cobblet (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Assault rifle

There are only eight medical technology articles on the list, but a stunning 68 military technology articles. That is totally out of balance, even if we consider that much of the revolution in the medical technology sector has taken place in the course of the last century. We do have rifle on the list (not that I think it's necessary) but it should cover assault rifle. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support The military technology section is unreasonably large and I think this is sufficiently covered by rifle. Neljack (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I don't think the military technology section in general is too big but agree that the main rifle article covers assault rifle. As it stands, rifle would definitely look out of place in the 1000 when basic categories of weapons and tech such as bomb and armour are missing. Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support "Assault rifle" is a poorly defined subcategory of rifle. Rwessel (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I would prefer to keep this, rifle wouldn't look completely out of place in the 1000 list, I think assault rifle is important enough for here, and I don't think weapons is excessive. I was on the fence about removing AK-47. I know rifle should cover it, but everything is covered by something else to a degree, and I think it's important enough on it's own for inclusion too.  Carlwev  20:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose This is an important classification of guns. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Now virtually all infantrymen use assault rifles......--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

AK-47 and M16 rifle were Wikiproject Firearms's first and fourth most frequently viewed articles last month. Just sayin'. (Assault rifle itself was 87th.) Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• See also the successful removal discussion for AK-47 here.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Lace

Lace is one of the oldest forms of decoration and is one of the fundamental types of fabric. --Ca2james (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Ca2james (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

Alexander Grin and Korney Chukovsky

No disrespect to wikipedians (we all have limited knowledge), just a constatation of the fact that the decision was made by people who have absolutely no knownledge of Russian culture, not to say literature. To call "obscure" two cult Russian writers demonstrates this. I strongly suggest in such cases to draw attention of the corresponding national wikiprojects. -No.Altenmann >t 02:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:LITERATURE would be the right place to ask for help. Not national wikiprojects which will inevitably be biased in judging the vitality of topics related to their nations. It is a simple question about how many Russian authors should be represented in a limited list of the worlds most important authors. Grin and Chukovsky may be important in Russia, but their global importance is limited relative to many other authors from other countries who are also not on the list. The approach you advocate would only work if there were already allotted a fixed number of slots for Russian authors - then it would make sense to let the members of wp:russia and Wp;Literature decide who occupies those places - but that is unfortunately not how we are working currently. If I were in charge it would be, and the only task of WP:VITAL would be to decide how to prioritize slots for different topics and then let the wikiprojects fill them out. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed, but since it is outside my interests, I will not mess with your work. (After all, nobody forbids me to start Wikipedia:Vital articles about Russia, right?) -No.Altenmann >t 03:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe you're right Altenmann (talk · contribs), in criticizing that we called them 'obscure'. We should be more careful, especially with what we say about people. The word does have a double meaning though, I'm quite certain the nominator didn't mean this to be derogatory, but just wanted to express that they are less well known than the other Russian authors on the list.

This is the definition of obscure from Merriam Webster:

1 a : dark, dim

b : shrouded in or hidden by darkness

c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>

2 not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious

3 relatively unknown: as

a : remote, secluded <an obscure village>

b : not prominent or famous <an obscure poet>

4 constituting the unstressed vowel \ə\ or having unstressed \ə\ as its value --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your polite but pointless answer gives more validity to my comment, as well as to my answer I decided to revert. I don't find the word offensive; I understand it perfectly describes the cultural level of those who judged the world culture. Your list represents hopeless American POV on the rest of the world. Ignoring national POV only perpetuates cliches about Russia: vodka, Tolstoy, bears, "Russians are coming", Dostoyevsky, this level-4 pedophile Nabokov (thank you for listing him as American) ... (what did I miss?). I don't insist that I am right about relative importance of A.Grin, but 6 random people without a single Russian deciding how Russian culture looks like strikes me as arrogant. Especially amusing was the comment about the number of Russian writers: 20 - how dare they! Never mind 87 Anglo-Saxon. That the rest of the world is represented by less didn't bother you. It just may be that 37 for the whole rest of Western Europe is a fair share, but somehow I am inclined to think that the compilers have problems not only with Russians. -No.Altenmann >t 15:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, another pointless answer: you're free to help us judge, and thank you (I guess??) for thinking we're elite. But as you have already noticed, the task we are taking on is almost impossible, it's ill-defined and we're aware that the list isn't perfect. Seriously, anybody can participate. Currently there are no rules as to when an entry can be relisted. A recent discussion that disappeared (archived by mistake, maybe?) has not shown any consensus on a relisting period, so you can list them again any time, maybe with better arguments. You will find large consensus for your position that the list is overly American. Why do we need to identify the most important articles on the encyclopedia? I don't know. Good question. Because that's what editors do, maybe? And: You're right, Nabokov should go. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I archived that discussion here because there were no comments in over a month. If someone wants to bring it up again, they can unarchive it. Malerisch (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Altenmann:, you're right that the biggest biases in the list are American and British. Any representation of Russia is very small by comparison. Other parts of Europe in some areas and historical periods are okay but the rest of the world is even more poorly represented throughout the list. You are welcome to suggest additions and removals. The contributors to the list in recent times have more diverse nationalities, and areas of expertise than before so the list in general is slowly improving. But we not are not perfect are individual mistakes are made.

FWIW, there is a current proposal to remove all railway networks from the list except for the Trans-Siberian Railway which has received some support. There are clearly people here who respect the great Russian engineering feat. The more people we can get from different cultures and knowledge to contribute, the better. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

<sigh> I apologize for my harsh tone. The main reason of the post here was to create an anchor thread to refer to from WP Russia. Unfortunately Russians don't care. I thank you for your invitation, but my interests lie elsewhere. My position is that wikipedia is most important as a web of knowledge and don't see much value in striving for "perfect" articles (featured, good, DYK, "10,000 things you should know about it all", etc.). Accordingly, I prefer to create articles about things nobody knows and few care. Surely I will not earn any barnstars, e.g. for my last work, Khalmer-Yu. Neither Rubber soldiers/Girl with an Oar/Regenwurmlager/Nagana szlachectwa/Sink works will hit DYK with my efforts, although sometimes I try to amuse people with things like Swill milk scandal or Animal latrine :-) Good luck; it looks like my idea about Wikipedia:Vital articles about Russia did not fly. -No.Altenmann >t 04:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs more articles about commonly unknown subject matters. I like your idea to create a web of knowledge. To me anyway, the most interesting articles I read are the ones that I had no knowledge of previously. Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Kick off Soccer Players?

Guys, there are 17 soccer players on this list. That may well be what gives some people (including me) the impression that we might be cutting too many Americans. Do we seriously need so many soccer players? None of them is American, by the way. How about replacing some of them with their teams? --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mia Hamm, and it somewhat makes sense to have a bunch of soccer players because there are a bunch of countries where soccer is by far the most prevalent sport. pbp 18:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Should the number of current players/fans really be such an important criterion? I'm not saying we have to cut many. Just a few. One or two. There are too many sports figures, I think. Soccer, like American Football is not historically important according to the WP-article. Both sports were played since the middle of the 19th century, which is not old, given the fact that we should cover the history of mankind. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that there are too many sports figures, but I think it's reasonable that ~15% of the sports figures be soccer players. So, for every soccer player we cut, we should probably cut six from other sports. pbp 21:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that 17 athletes is too many for any sport, even the most popular one in the world. I've been thinking about proposing some removals, and will probably do so before long. Neljack (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could cut two soccer players to make the list an even 15? That seems like a start, and we can debate about any further removals later on. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Cuts to soccer players can certainly be made, if only to make room to add Garrincha. But this only makes the 14 tennis players look even more ridiculous. Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Tennis should drop down to at least 10 based on the removals and proposed removals elsewhere. Maybe even around 7 or 8. We can then add either Grand Slam or The Championships, Wimbledon to compensate. Tennis is probably the world's most popular women's sport but the number of female athletes will still be among the highest (if we're planning to do a 50-50 gender split). Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I would remove some tennis players too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt any single sport should have more than ten entries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If soccer has only ten entries, baseball should only have two, and the whole list should only be 50-60. pbp 00:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That is pro-soccer bias. Baseball should have five entries if soccer has ten. Cutting the list of baseball players down to two is essentially eliminating the list of baseball players since it is impossible to choose the top two baseball players of all time. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As a European I wouldnt have a problem with 10 association football players, 5 baseball players and five American football players. I think athletes list should be in the neighborhood of 75 and definitely below 100.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My many European coworkers would wholeheartedly disagree with that notion. As for a list of two baseball players, have Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson. Done! Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And my American friends would want to remove most soccer players and keep the list full of American players. Obviously there needs to be some middle ground. See my proposal below. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Remove Ian McKellen

McKellen's only as famous as he is for playing Gandalf, but that does not make him vital. He never won an Oscar. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Suppport pbp 17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Prolific stage actor and this list is terribly biased towards Hollywood actors. There may be better stage choices out there, but I'd prefer to see a swap. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, agree with Betty. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose McKellen is most notable as a stage actor and long time member of the royal shakespeare company.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Since McKellan is probably most notable as a stage actor, the fact that he hasn't won an Oscar is not that significant. He has won six Olivier Awards and a Tony Award. Still thinking about this. Neljack (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Doris Day

Day doesn't make the AFI list, and she's only been nominated for one Oscar. I don't see why she's vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support She has retained a surprising amount of name recognition, but when you look at her record it's very patchy. Her most notable role is in a lesser Hitchcock movie, The Man Who Knew Too Much. Her most famous song is Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) but that is not all that remembered/influential. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Per Neljack and Betty. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Per Neljack and Betty. She was a cultural icon of her time.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Possibly the combination of her acting and singing careers is what has got her on the list. She certainly had quite a significant cultural impact, all in all. I'm not sure she's out of place on the list, thought I'm still considering. Neljack (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this CBS article she is the number 1 female box-office star of all-time. The Barbra Streisand of her day I guess. I don't think popularity makes you vital, but actually being number 1 may do. Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove George Best

I think we could lose a football player and while undoubtedly very talented, Best was only at the top of the game for a relatively short period. He was Manchester United's top scorer for six seasons before entering a decline he never came back from.--Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Extraordinarily talented, but sadly didn't fulfil his full potential due to his alcohol issues. Neljack (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
5. SupportPointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Bobby Charlton should go first. The epithet "fifth Beatle" shows how far Best's legacy goes beyond his sporting achievements – he was, as even the staid Britannica puts it, "a colossal celebrity" on par with any rock star, and "one of the iconic figures of 'Swinging London' during the 1960s." If one British footballer is vital it should be him. Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Sportsmanship, Add Etiquette

I think the general idea of etiquette is more vital than its specific application to sports. Not sure where it's best placed though.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support either in sociology or the ethics section of philosophy. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  08:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support I lean toward adding etiquette to Sociology, but I don't have strong opinions either way. Malerisch (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Add to sociology - etiquette is a matter of social convention, not ethics. Ethical rules are distinct from ones of etiquette. Neljack (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the removal but Support the addition. Sportsmanship is something taught to children when they play their first sport. This case deserves to have both etiquette and a subset of it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose the removal but Support the addition. Sportsmanship is vital, even if it is a subset of etiquette.Jacobmacmillan (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Sportsmanship, while a subset of etiquette, deserves its own place as the etiquette surrounding games is highly important to our culture - winning and losing happen not only on the sports field but in the workplace, relationships, etc and thus how to act when winning or losing is vital. Jacobmacmillan (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Regulation of sport

There are so many other forms of regulation that are way more important than this.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I agree. From a regulation standpoint, this article is too specific. Something like rulemaking would be a better article to include in VA. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Hockey

Ice hockey and field hockey are completely different sports and the other forms of hockey are not vital. We don't need this any more than we need team sport or winter sport or racquet sports (a redirect to a list) or multi-sport event.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. No more vital than bat-and-ball games or the generic football. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Economy

There was no consensus to add this to the level 3 list, but I believe that it's certainly at least level 4 material. Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support One of the most vital articles about the world. It should be level 3 too. Sadly I missed the vote. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - supported it at level 3 as well. Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  13:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Does anyone else think economic development or development economics might be worth adding? Cobblet (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Election

This was previously discussed here, but no action was taken. Elections are a fundamental part of many governments around the world. If women's suffrage is a level 3 article, election should be a level 4 article. Malerisch (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  13:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Other decent articles could be Voting system or possibly just voting.  Carlwev  13:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Histamine antagonist

With the allergy season fast approaching, I'll write up a proposal for allergy medication. Allergies are some of the most wide-spread diseases, ranging from annoying hay fever to deadly anaphylaxis. Allergy and Asthma are, consequently, on level 3, and they explain or at least mention the role of histamines in the pathophysiology of these diseases. Our article on antihistamines is not exhaustive yet, and doesn't really give a good overview of the subject. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Not every remedy to every common medical condition is vital. Cobblet (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Agree with Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet. Jucchan (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Virgo Cluster and Virgo Supercluster

A rather glaring omission; we don't even have the most-studied galaxy cluster or the supercluster that we are a part of.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support very vital. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Crab Nebula

The most-studied supernova remnant, and one of the newest that can be studied in great detail.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Corona Borealis

Definitely the least-important constellation on the list right now; no need to keep it when we don't have more important constellations like Ara and Lupus.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Simple harmonic motion

Harmonic oscillator is already listed, but it seems like some also want the more basic concept to be added as well. I also think it's worth listing since it's a topic that comes up fairly frequently in physics. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support I was thinking of SHM during the earlier set of physics proposals. Good choice. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support All high school physics textbooks mention this, so this article is a vital concept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Fluid statics

This field is categorized here: Mechanics > Continuum mechanics > Fluid mechanics > Fluid statics. I think this is too specific, and considering that all the subfields of optics were removed, this probably should be as well. We also already list statics separately.

As a separate question, what do people think of removing fluid dynamics? Dynamics (mechanics) is also listed. And what about electrostatics and magnetostatics? Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 00:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Gotta think about this one. You could call aerodynamics a subfield of fluid dynamics: does that mean it's even less vital? I'd also question whether we really need to include dynamics and statics as subfields of mechanics – can a person really be said to study "dynamics" as an academic subject? Is there such a thing as a "dynamicist"? At least I know for a fact there are journals and academic departments devoted to rheology. Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO aerodynamics is a special case: there's a vital field of engineering, aerospace engineering, devoted to it. If people see the need to include hydraulic engineering, that would be a good reason to keep fluid statics, but it's not currently listed. I didn't include fluid dynamics in this nomination, however, because I think it's more vital than fluid statics (we don't list aerostatics either). I also couldn't find any textbooks devoted to fluid statics, just fluid dynamics and fluid mechanics.

I'd regard statics and dynamics to be coherent subjects: by searching for "statics" and "dynamics" on Amazon.com, for instance, a bunch of textbooks on those topics can be found. Apparently "dynamicist" is an actual word, but even if it wasn't, it's not like "electromagnetist" or "opticist" are widely used, either. I don't think the existence of journals or academic departments devoted to a subject is sufficient for inclusion—journals and departments for astrophysics, ornithology, entomology, and bioinformatics exist (see lists of academic journals), but none of those subjects are listed. Malerisch (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that it was, and some of the other topics you just mentioned quite possibly should be considered vital regardless of that, but OK. Given that flood control was added, there are clearly vital aspects of hydraulic engineering even if we haven't specifically added that article (personally I think it would've been the better choice). What do you think of hydraulics? (And when you did the textbook search, did you try looking for "hydrostatics" as well?) Cobblet (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Rheology

I don't think this subfield of continuum mechanics is particularly vital. Why is it more important than, say, polymer physics? Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Possibly because we list polymer but not flow? Cobblet (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Virtual reality

Important topic. We do list Computer graphics though.

Support

1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  09:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Even if virtual reality is not in use yet, it is still a significant science fiction topic and cultural icon. Not to mention VR is being developed right now. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose VR is mostly hype at this point. Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Rwessel. And artificial intelligence is too high at Level 3 when human intelligence and intelligence itself are at Level 4. I'd support a swap of AI with intelligence on the 1,000. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I think this is not the weakest, I probably would include this before any programming language, I know it's early days with VR, but it's still in use to an extent, nanotech, and AI are also far from being super advanced, where they could be in the future, but they are also significant and included too.  Carlwev  12:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Diesel engine

It seems Diesel locomotive is too specific for most. Someone said Diesel engine or fuel covers this but nothing about diesel is in the list at all. But it's true I think it looks like diesel engine is wider and better to have than the locomotive, as it covers it's use in trains cars and other areas too. In the 1000 list we have Engine then 4 types Internal combustion engine, Jet engine, Steam engine and Electric motor, then when we get to the 10,000 list it is the same, there is no expansion on it at all. If those 5 articles about engines can fit in the 1000 I'm sure there's room for a few more in a list this big. It looks like the best article about diesel we could have, better than locomotive and fuel articles. Not that it matters that much but Diesel engine is a very detailed article, appears in over 50 languages and has over 100 sources in English. BTW Diesel itself is a disambiguation page if anyone was wondering.  Carlwev  14:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support but we need Four-stroke engine and Gas turbine first. Rwessel (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Steam locomotive

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, more vital than Locomotive. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support I think steam locomotives are vital enough to be listed separately. Malerisch (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support the only specific locomotive that I'll support. Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my comments on adding Locomotive, the specific power source is not very relevant. I would support adding Diesel engine Rwessel (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I just realized that we don't list steam; could that be vital? Water is listed on level 2, and ice is listed on level 4. Malerisch (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Symmetry

Symmetry is a basic concept in geometry. We currently list symmetry in mathematics, which seems to cover everything but the everyday connotation of symmetry, and the general article should be more vital. Malerisch (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  13:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Ca2james (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Perhaps a swap would be better. I think there is a significant overlap if we have both articles. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Move Lewis and Clark Expedition to history, add Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (explorer) and Sacagawea in biographies

Proposed above. Lewis and Clark Expedition is a journey, not a person, and so has no business in the bio section. The two leaders and their female guide/interpreter do, however. pbp 23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support pbp 23:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Support the move, oppose the additions as being redundant to the main article: there are better ways to improve our coverage of American history. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support move but oppose additions per Malerisch and Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support the move, oppose the additions --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support move, oppose additions per Malerisch and Cobblet. Jucchan (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support move only per everyone else.  Carlwev  15:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

While the Lewis and Clark Expedition is definitely important, I feel that it is excessive to have 4 articles on the list about it. Malerisch (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've unclosed this. Rather than let this go with 4 sup for move, I too will support the move only like the other users, the expedition is an event of history not a person, or group of people. Sorry I overlooked this one til now.  Carlwev  15:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't there already a 5-0 consensus for the move? I think pbp closed it with the move passing and the adds failing. Malerisch (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There was. There was one person who supported both the move and the adds, and four people (now five) who supported the move only. That's a total of five (now six) who support the move. I'm reclosing as move passing and adds failing, with yellow archive box instead of blue. pbp 15:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Ronaldo, add Garrincha

A case of recentism. Garrincha is generally regarded as the second-greatest Brazilian player ever, after Pelé - and a significant number of Brazilians will tell you that he was even better than Pelé. He was probably the greatest winger ever, and perhaps the greatest dribbler. He was the player of the tournament and the highest goalscorer at the 1962 FIFA World Cup, carrying a Brazilian team missing Pelé to the title. He also won the tournament in 1958. He was a huge star in Brazil, being known as the "Joy of the People", and the national stadium in Brasilia is named after him.

Ronaldo was a great player, but - as Brazilians will tell you - not up there with Garrincha. The last couple of decades are already well-represented with the likes of Zidane and Messi, the two greatest players of the period. Unlike them, Ronaldo is not vital. Neljack (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal, support add. Not really a case of recentism: the turn of the century can legitimately be regarded as a second golden age of Brazilian football (Romario, Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Cafu, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldinho) and if the Brazilian teams of the sixties deserve to be represented by two players the more recent generation ought to deserve one. And as a three-time FIFA World Player of the Year there is no question Ronaldo belongs in the company of Zidane and Messi. Cobblet (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I support the addition of Garrincha, but I have doubts about the removal of Ronaldo. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Soccer already has 17 people on the list. That is too much for any sport. Adding Garrincha without a removal will make the number of soccer players on the list be 18. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I would not deny that Ronaldo was a great player, but Zidane and Messi have higher reputations. We have to make tough choices, in my view. Neljack (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Paolo Maldini

Another case of recentism. A very fine and widely-admired player, but not up there with other recent players on the list such as Zidane and Messi. For example, he was never named FIFA World Footballer of the Year, while Zidane and Messi both won the award (or its successor, the FIFA Ballon d'Or) several times. Neljack (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose First, given the primacy of football in Italian sport, making Fausto Coppi the only Italian athlete on the list would be a travesty. Second, removing the only Italian footballer while keeping English and American players on the list would be pro-English bias at its most baldfaced: entirely unjustifiable when you compare the significance of those countries in this sport. Third, awards of the kind you mentioned are rarely handed out to players who aren't prolific goalscorers, or players who haven't won major hardware at the highest possible level (World Cups and Euro Championships in this case); having neither on your resumé is a surefire way to get yourself perpetually overlooked. Nevertheless, on a list of 15 football players (IIRC that's the number we agreed on) there ought to be room for two defenders; and Beckenbauer and Maldini are arguably the greatest ever to play this position. Maldini in particular is just as well known for his play without the ball as his play with it – an essential characteristic for a defender, no? Nobody represents catenaccio better than this man. Cobblet (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Appreciate it's difficult to find the right balance, but would like more than one defender and think Maldini fits the bill as second-best ever.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not sure Maldini is even the greatest Italian player, though - Giuseppe Meazza, Gianni Rivera and Franco Baresi would all have strong cases. I don't think this would be indicative of bias - leaving aside Hamm, who is hardly comparable, it simply says that Charlton has a higher reputation than Maldini, which is in my view true. It's fair to say that Italy has not produced the sort of superstars that some other nations have. Conversely, I don't think the fact we have three Argentine players on the list is evidence of pro-Argentine bias in this section, merely that Argentina have produced a lot of individual stars. It may be unfair that defenders don't get as much acclaim as more attacking players, but I don't think it is our role to rectify that. Neljack (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Meazza and Rivera don't outshine other contemporary players at the same positions, and I'd pick Maldini over Baresi by a hair simply due to Maldini's longevity and the fact that Baresi's somewhat overshadowed by Beckenbauer and Gaetano Scirea as a sweeper. I'd also keep Maldini over Charlton. I think Charlton's legacy is comparable to Bobby Moore's and both Moore and Maldini are great defenders. Given we have other forwards on the list, I'd prefer a defender, and given the presence of other British athletes on the list, I'd pick Maldini if forced to make a choice. Maldini is the greatest full-back of all time despite being a right-footed left-back: he is absolutely a legend of the first order, trophies or no trophies. Shiny things do not necessarily correlate with vitality. Turning this argument around, you cannot dismiss Ronaldo's trophies so lightly if you're willing to use the lack of trophies as a reason to get rid of Maldini. Cobblet (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's true of Meazza, at least - he was arguably the leading player of the 1930s. Neljack (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

John Maynard Keynes' The General Theory is one of the most influential books in the history of economics (only The Wealth of Nations, which is already listed, comes to mind as possibly being more important). This book is the foundational work of macroeconomics. Malerisch (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Very influential. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support An obvious omission from the vital articles Jacobmacmillan (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Keynesian macroeconomics is used around the world. This seems vital to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Per above. Keynesianism has been so influential that having both the economist/author and book is justified. The only other economic text other than the Wealth of Nations that may have been as influential is Das Kapital. But I don't think we need to list it in addition to Marx and The Communist Manifesto. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support and I would move this to the Economics section. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

@Melody Lavender: Would you move the rest of the nonfiction works to other sections as well? -- Ypnypn (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Ypnypn: Yes, I'd do that. I've been thinking about suggesting to even move biographies form the separate tab to the corresponding topic tab.--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Remove Sex life

This article is a stub, and its contents are better conveyed in human sexuality. we dont need this article on the list, and it probably should be merged, as it may only require a definition. I think there are many more human sexuality sub-articles which would be better for this list, including possibly human sexual activityMercurywoodrose (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
2. pbp 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
3.  Carlwev  11:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 13:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Shooting sport

I've nominated this before and I still believe it to be a major omission.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Yes big omission. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support the same as above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  17:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Malerisch (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Hockey was nominated for the removal from the list because it is a group of sports. Shooting sports is essentially the same type of article in a different group of sports. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please take a look at the actual list – it provides context for my suggestions. In this case no individual shooting disciplines are listed apart from multi-sport events that include a shooting component. Things like skeet shooting might not be vital enough on their own but shooting sports collectively should be considered vital. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference between hockey and shooting sport is that the main specific versions of hockey (ice hockey and field hockey) are also on the list hence the overlap. This is not the case with shooting sport. Rifle shooting and pistol shooting don't even exist as standalone articles. Gizza ^(t)(c) 03:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Add Camping

Another popular recreational activity.

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support better than poison ivy. Gizza ^(t)(c) 01:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 05:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Did not realize this is not on the list. Very true, Gizza. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  17:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Social group

Basic Sociology terminology with great pertinence to everybody's everyday life.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  11:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support A crucial subject.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Subculture

Basic Sociology terminology with great pertinence to everybody's everyday life.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  11:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add Human brain

Basic anatomy article that should at least be on level 4. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support the human brain is unique in having the highest encephalization quotient of all mammals by a significant margin. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Malerisch (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Jucchan (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add supernova remnant

The only type of emission nebula we are currently missing, and certainly one of the most important types.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support, vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 12:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Seems like supernova can cover this. Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose since we already have Supernova pbp 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose sufficiently covered under Supernova.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Add high-velocity cloud

Essential to our understanding of galaxies.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Why? "Poorly understood" does not necessarily imply "essential to our understanding". And why is this not a topic that could be covered by interstellar medium? Cobblet (talk) 23:41, 21 August 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 Four-stroke engine

Support

1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza ^(t)(c) 23:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Rwessel (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  18:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Support huge omission. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove Lagrangian point

Too specific.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Not sure why this is too specific, especially compared to some of the proposals below. This is the reason why trojans exist and a number of notable space probes are also deployed at Lagrangian points. What other article do we have on the list that would cover this concept? It also seems to me that while our coverage of stars and galaxies is now quite strong, our coverage of planetary science is not nearly as comprehensive. Cobblet (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I may reconsider; it's probably less specific than low Earth orbit, for instance. Malerisch (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's too specific, and not compared to some things we're adding, I'm not sure what would cover this, other than perhaps orbit, but I don't think that makes it redundant.  Carlwev  10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Swap: remove nova, add cataclysmic variable star

Remove a subtype, add the overarching classification.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Support Cobblet (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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

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

---

Add BL Lac object

We're missing an important type of active galaxy.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already list blazar; why do we need this specific type of blazar? Cobblet (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Cobblet. I don't think it's any more vital than OVV quasars. Malerisch (talk) 21:22, 21 August 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.

---

Swap: remove Polaris, add pole star

Pole star is the vital concept here, Polaris is just the most recent example of one.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Then you might as well say that the actual vital concept is celestial pole, and we don't need to list that at all because we have celestial sphere. Polaris and Crux are going to remain culturally significant for quite some time; I'd keep both. Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose pbp 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

---

Remove asteroid

I expect this one to be controversial. However, we already have minor planet on the list, and nowadays the term "asteroid" simply means a minor planet in the inner solar system. I don't think such a concept is vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Support We can replace asteroid with impact event. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose see below.  Carlwev  19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose pbp 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose How is this any more arbitrary a classification than, say, long-period variable? Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose Rwessel (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I would expect this to be looked up, and would look it up myself. I would expect a print encyclopaedia to have this in a smaller than 10,000 article limit, and before minor planet, I'm sure my encyclopaedias have it. Minor planet also includes Dwarf Planet according to the article, would we remove that too? I wouldn't think so. There are other astronomy topics covered by something else, we have several types of stars that could be covered by star. We have terrestrial planet and gas giant, that are covered by planet. If it is considered overlap, it is an acceptable overlap in my opinion. Also Asteroid is in the 1000 list too, so should be removed from there first, or swapped for minor planet there before here, even though I think I may oppose that too. We also previously had Asteroid belt in the 1000, but we removed it as we had asteroid, then we added Comet near the same time, as a semi replacement.  Carlwev  19:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, most of the vital list is anthropocentric so the minor planets that are closest to us may be vital on that basis. Then again, asteroid belt is already listed. I support swapping asteroid with asteroid belt on the 1000 list. Can't decide here. Gizza ^(t)(c) 02:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes impact event has been on my mind for ages we should definitely have that in my opinion, but I wouldn't swap asteroid for it. I remember being happy noticing we missed impact crater and getting that in, whilst removing individual fault lines we had. Impact event I think is important too.  Carlwev  09:54, 22 August 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.