Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:14, 30 December 2016 (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.

Papal States

There are currently four Popes (Alexander VI, Boniface VIII, Gregory VII, and Innocent III) listed under this section rather than under Religious figures. Is there a specific justification as to why? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you could argue that those four popes had more temporal power and significance than other popes on the list - they reigned at a time when the papacy had a lot of temporal power. However, I tend to the view that it would clearer and simpler to list all the popes together under religious figures. Neljack (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 07:01, 26 December 2016 (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 Lester B. Pearson

Undoubtedly deserves to be considered equally important as Macdonald and Trudeau, the other Canadian Prime Ministers listed as vital. Not only one of the most important Prime Ministers in Canada's history, but also a highly significant figure in world history. Earned a Nobel Prize for his effort to create the United Nations Emergency Force; which played a major role in ending the Suez Crisis and participated in later crises such as the Yom Kippur War. Also played an integral role in introducing universal healthcare and student loans to Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.104.96 (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support After reading more about him, I have to agree. In fact, he may be more important than his more famous successor, Pierre Trudeau. In addition to his international role, he played a massive part in shaping modern Canada, from the welfare state to the model of co-operative federalism - and his achievement largely remain intact. A poll of scholars and experts in 2003 found agreement across the political spectrum and linguistic divide that he was the best Prime Minister of the past half-century. [1]. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support whole heartily given his role in the establishment of the Blue Helmets and many, MANY other world events. He's not the most significant prime minister in Canada (although certainly in the top 3 I would argue), but he's certainly the most significant Canadian Prime Minister on the world stage. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:20, 19 April 2017 (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 Edgar Wallace

Though few of his works are still in print in the UK, he should still be added to the list because The Economist considered him "one of the most prolific thriller writers of [the 20th] century" and he was the creator of King Kong.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose if Rowling is being removed, there is no way Wallace is being added. In any case, the number of UK writers needs a trim. Gizza (t)(c) 11:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Iamozy (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. 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 P. W. Botha

The fact that this strongman turned South Africa into a military power means that he is absolutely crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't see Botha as any more vital than earlier apartheid leaders - probably less so than those who created the system. Neljack (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. Nowadays South Africa is still considered to be a military power because of Botha's military policy, doesn't this fact mean that he is vital at this level? However I think that people who created apartheid should be included in the list, thanks for Neljack's reminder!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose there are only so many we can include in this list. Prevan (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:45, 23 November 2016 (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 F. W. de Klerk

The fact that he contributed to the end of apartheid substantially means that he is absolutely crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Nobel laureate along with Mandela in regards to apartheid. If Mandela is vital enough to be level 3, why shouldn't de Klerk be level 4? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support I guess he is pretty vital. Neljack (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Prevan (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Donald Trump elected and added. May be re-opened if somebody wants to remove him. pbp 21:50, 31 January 2017 (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.

2016 United States Presidential election

I've been wanting to discuss this for months: should the winner of next month's U.S. presidential election be on this vital article list? Recency arguments aside, I think the answer is unambiguously yes:

  1. If Hillary Clinton wins (currently very, very likely), she will become the first female POTUS (and she's clearly one of the most significant female figures in American history even at this point).
  2. If that crazy orange dude, er, Donald Trump somehow gets out of the hole he dug for himself, a person who was once on the list but was removed will have been elected POTUS, and he will have achieved significance in both the political and business realms.

If we want to swap somebody out, I propose Jimmy Carter. IMO, he's the weak link among American political leaders listed. FWIW, there are 25 American political leaders on the list (6 pre-1815 and 19 post-1815); Eleanor Roosevelt is the only woman. pbp 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose Absolutely not. Nothing within the last 5 years, and precious little within the last 10, should ever appear on a vital anything list, else recentism will risk ruining the whole list. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to Jclemens, to be fair President Obama is listed and most likely for being the first African-American President, so basically the same justification pbp proposed for Hillary Clinton. Also, I wouldn't swap anybody out for either one. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It's partly the historical aspect, but also, Hillary and Donald have been in the public eye for more than 10 years. They're not like Obama, who was nobody in 2004 and President in 2008. pbp 14:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am very wary about adding someone to the list who was just recently elected as head of state. However, I would probably say that right now Hillary Clinton is probably more vital than Eleanor Roosevelt and a President Donald Trump would probably be more vital than Jimmy Carter. It's definitely something to keep an eye on. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion, recency should not be an instant oppose vote. If a person is vital, and is likely to stay vital throughout the years, then recency should be irrelevant. In my view, recency should apply more to articles related to internet fads rather than to articles about U.S. presidents. That is not to say that every American president is vital, but the current one in my view automatically is. Same goes for the leaders of other major countries. They should be on the list at least until the next leader takes over. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose No, you actually have to do something to be vital to a complete Encyclopedia. Simply becoming POTUS is not enough. Neither of the major candidates are currently important enough to be vital to an Encyclopedia, and assuming a position of power doesn't change that until they do something. --Iamozy (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should be added, since the fact that Trump is quite popular among white lower-class Americans has been discussed by many scholars and commentators, and Hillary has to bear responsibility for causing Syrian Civil War, causing European migrant crisis (cf. [2] & [3]).--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Not yet Neither have made it yet in my opinion. This is likely to change over time. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The current President of the United States should always be on the list. Same for the heads of state of other major nations. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2016 (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.
Added 5-1 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2017 (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 History of Ireland

This is the vital articles list for the English Wikipedia, and I think we should include the "history of" article for all the major English-speaking countries. We already include most of them, but a few are still missing, including Ireland, Scotland, and New Zealand.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I cannot agree that we should favour English-speaking countries - this is a global encyclopedia that seeks to cover the whole world. We should not promote systemic bias. Ireland has the strongest case of the three countries proposed here, given its turbulent history and the wider effects that has involved, but ultimately there are much larger and more important countries whose histories are not included on the list. Neljack (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This is the Vital articles list specifically for the English Wikipedia. If you want to see the global list of 10,000 most important articles for all Wikipedia languages, you can find it here. There would be no reason to have a separate list specifically for the English Wikipedia if all we were going to do is replicate the same list. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 23:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-2 Rreagan007 (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2016 (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 History of Scotland

This is the vital articles list for the English Wikipedia, and I think we should include the "history of" article for all the major English-speaking countries. We already include most of them, but a few are still missing, including Ireland, Scotland, and New Zealand.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support As vital as history of Scotland, since Scots excel at inventing and discovering things (cf. Scottish inventions and discoveries).--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose redundant to and covered by History of the United Kingdom. Scotland hasn't been an independent state for over 300 years and it pales in significance compared to England. Even Texas was a more recent English-speaking sovereign country than Scotland. Gizza (t)(c) 10:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer Carlwev's suggestion of History of the British Isles instead. Otherwise we would be adding History of Wales too. Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I cannot support adding the history of Scotland (particularly given that the last 300 years are already covered) when we lack the histories of Argentina, the Congo and Bangladesh, to take just a few examples. Neljack (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

The history of the UK by definition starts in 1707, the article follows this and does not cover events before this. Other nations, past and present, have a founding year of their official territory or government or successive equivalent, but include the history of the land which happened before this, for example History of England covers the Stone Age and Stonehenge, even though England as a nation did not exist at the time. History of the UK does not do this, although I suppose it could, History of the US article includes Pre-Columbian events and periods for example. So events in old England are covered by History of England. Overview of events in Ireland, Scotland and Wales before 1707 are not covered under such a overview history article (yes they have coverage elsewhere though, under country articles themselves and individual event and biography article).

My point is, would the History of the British Isles be a good middle ground, perhaps instead of something else? I don't have a strong preference, there is overlap with the UK history article, but it covers more time, like Roman Period, prehistory of non England Britain. Thought I'd just mention it as an alternative?  Carlwev  13:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 08:47, 23 December 2016 (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 History of New Zealand

This is the vital articles list for the English Wikipedia, and I think we should include the "history of" article for all the major English-speaking countries. We already include most of them, but a few are still missing, including Ireland, Scotland, and New Zealand.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose As a New Zealander, I cannot support this. We are a small country and our history has had little wider effect on the world. The swap for Māori people was a sensible one. Neljack (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Neljack. New Zealand's history is also less than 750 years old. Not much history to speak of. It's one of the youngest countries in the world. Gizza (t)(c) 10:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_27#Swap:_Remove_History_of_New_Zealand.2C_Add_M.C4.81ori_people Was sawapped for Maori people a while age, I never voted either way. It can be discussed again to re-add though, it was a while ago.  Carlwev  09:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason why both can't be included if both are vital. I think it should be re-added to the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2016 (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.
Already Included,  Carlwev  16:00, 21 October 2016 (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 History of India

I'm quite puzzled as to why we have History of the Republic of India, which only goes back to 1950, but not this article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. This article has been added to WP:VA, meaning that WP:VA/E/H also has this one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

In history at least, the list seams to treat India as a region, not a country. History of India is already included but under the history of continent and region list, with Scandinavia and Middle East etc. Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/History#History_by_continent_and_region_.2814_articles.29. You could discus moving it if you wish, China is a similar case, having both History of China, and History of the People's Republic of China, which only goes back to 1949, but both of those are in the Countries list.  Carlwev  16:00, 21 October 2016 (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.
1-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 14 January 2017 (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 Ada Lovelace

This is a woman who, although celebrated as a representative of women in computing, is an outlier in the rest of the CS vital list. While the other people on the list, such as Edsger Dijkstra and Grace Hopper have made landmark contributions to computing and computer science. In the case of Dijkstra and Hopper, they are known as pioneers in the foundations of computer programming. Not to mention that the people on the list were also experts at either computing or computer science.

However, the inclusion of Lovelace strikes me as odd. While the rest of the people on the list have greatly contributed to the field or have founded an eminent computing company, as it is a vital article list, Lovelace is solely known for writing the first computer program and some other ambitious notes on one of the first (theoretical) computers. This does not mean much in terms of contributions to computing.

  • Mathematical methods have been devised since antiquity, famous examples being the Euclidean algorithm and Newton's method. I would expect a person whose article is considered vital by virtue of one algorithm to have wrote a very important algorithm, such as Quicksort or the Simplex algorithm. But Lovelace's algorithm implements a method to compute the Bernoulli numbers, which is not very significant. That it is the first algorithm makes it historically significant, but not much more can be said.
  • Her notes have sparked some discussion and were praise from some prominent scientists. According to the article, Alan Turing challenged her belief that artificial intelligence is impossible (which contradicts her belief that a computer can compose music?). However, I'd expect the notes to have more influence than that. Although her notes on the Analytical Engine have popularized the Engine, it was never built, revealing that the notes did not have much impact on the fate of the Engine. A computer was not built until the early-1940s, and that was not primarily because of Lovelace's inspiration, but because of World War II and probably Claude Shannon's master's thesis in the 1937 proving that electric circuits can represent any numerical relationship.
  • Lovelace was regarded as a "visionary" for realizing the Analytical Engine's potential beyond numerical calculations. This is probably Lovelace's most important contribution to computing. However, this single significant contribution alone does not justify keeping Lovelace in the vital list. Compare to Hopper, who not only envisioned the use of computers for non-mathematical tasks (probably independent of Lovelace), but created the means to do so in her invention of the first compiler (something that was surprisingly not foreseen: "They told me computers could only do arithmetic", unlike the Analytical Engine which was clearly designed to be programmable)

In light of this, I believe that Lovelace should be removed from the vital list. However, one may argue that it may be unfair to Lovelace, considering that she only lived to 36. There exist counterexamples to this. Srinivasa Ramanujan died at the age of 32, but made great contributions to number theory. But perhaps the most stunning counterexample is Évariste Galois, who made landmark contributions to abstract algebra. Galois died at the age of 20. There will also still be a woman in the CS list: Hopper, who made real contributions to computing and programming. Esquivalience (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. ...
Oppose
  1. Oppose Given some of the other folks proposed for inclusion in other categories, I do not think it meritorious to remove her. The least significant computer science pioneer is still more vital than any journalist on the planet, for starters. Jclemens (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Jclemens. Gizza (t)(c) 01:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I wouldn't go to Clemens extremes of vitality vis-a-vis journalists, but I think she still should remain on this list. pbp 15:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2016 (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.
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:48, 23 November 2016 (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 History of the Caribbean

The Caribbean played a critical role in the early era of colonialism, slavery and piracy. The region has a total population of over 43 million and an English-speaking population of 5.5 million, more than the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand. Many countries like Cuba and Jamaica have disproportionate influence relative to their sizes.

I think this article is as vital as History of Scandinavia where the countries are not vital on their own but together they are. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:30, 26 October 2016 (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 Homo habilis

One of the main types of early human, probably the most advanced for it's time appearing almost a million years before homo erectus and lasted for 1.3 million years, between 2.8 and 1.5 million years ago, between Austrolapithicus and Homo Erectus but overlapping with them. Encyclopedias usually cover Homo habilis if they cover other types of early human. In fact I have come across Homo habilis more than the included Denisovan and much more than Paranthropus which we also have, and looking at the number of languages they appear in here and their page views Homo Habilis appears to have more attention here too, slightly more than Denisovan and over 10 times the page views of Paranthropus.

Support
  1. Support as nom  Carlwev  18:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 6–0. - Rreagan007 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2016 (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 Clovis culture

The Americas prehistory section is by far the smallest and most underrepresented prehistory section considering it represents all of North and South America. This is one of the earliest Paleo-Indian cultures that we have good archeological evidence for. I'm surprised it's not already on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom Rreagan007 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom Gizza (t)(c) 23:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  19:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Sup Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:49, 21 October 2016 (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 Hurricane Katrina

Several other natural disasters are listed, so why not include the biggest disaster in American history. Katrina's legacy is not about the damage it caused or its causalities but mainly the social and economical impact. The aftermath of the storm was one of the worst managed natural disasters in global history. One of the most historic major cities in America was mostly destroyed and over a thousand people lost their lives, mostly from levee breaches that could have easily been prevented. Civil disturbances in New Orleans lingered for weeks, and the government was highly criticized for its response to the storm. It led to one of the largest diaspora of people in American history and even today, many residents never came back. The topic of racism was reignited in American politics, as many of the victims of the storm were lower-class African-Americans. Entire government agencies were redesigned as a result of this storm. After the September 11 attacks, this can easily be argued as the most important event to happen in the United States within the past 15 years.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support This natural disaster is on par with any of the other ones in modern history, including the ones listed. Thus, it is vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While it had an impact, I really don't see this as being vital when you compare it to other things like the American Civil War, the New Deal, or the Industrial Age. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I understand where the nom's coming from, but I think it's just too recentist to include it. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Definitely not "the most important event to happen in the United States within the past 15 years" except for 9/11. First black President? First female presidential candidate from a major party? Iraq War? (Technically not in America, but done by America). Was it a terrible disaster, both natural and in terms of the aftermath? Yes. But is it on par with the events I've just listed? Not in my opinion. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per Presidentman. Gizza (t)(c) 23:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus for either Gizza (t)(c) 23:20, 3 December 2016 (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 Mukden Incident

This incident is vital, since it was the main reason that caused the outbreak of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we don't list individual events of war (Nanking was an exception because its impact is still felt 80 years after the event). Same reason why we don't have Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria or Battle of Gettysburg, which are more vital topics than this. Second Sino-Japanese War is enough. Prevan (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add 1993 Russian constitutional crisis

The fact that this event finally caused the rebirth of capitalism in Russia means that it is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not as vital as the unlisted 1991 coup attempt, which basically ensured that the USSR would collapse. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:34, 2 November 2016 (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 Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria

The more I think about this subject, the more I believe it is essential to be included on this list. The catalyst for what became the deadliest war ever seen by mankind. Hundreds of books and scholarly topics on this particular event. One of the few single events that completely changed world history. We have Attack on Pearl Harbor, which is a similar event on a global scale.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support My middle school world history textbook mentions this event!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support It is one of the most important events of the 20th century, and certainly more important than Pearl Harbor. It not only started WWI, of which WWII is really just a continuation of, but it also began the process of shifting the center of world power away from Europe for the first time in centuries. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support The prelude to plunging the world into the First World War is vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too specific an event, which should be covered adequately in our WW I article. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:37, 2 November 2016 (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 Numismatics

We're about to remove philately, and we already have coin and collecting

Support
  1. Support pbp 17:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree that the general article on collecting is enough. Articles on specific types of collecting are not needed in this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Since this discipline is quite useful in historiography, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:31, 26 October 2016 (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 Kalmykia

The fact that it is the only region in Europe whose most residents are Buddhists and an international chess centree guarantees its vitality at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "Only region whose most residents are Buddhists"? Um, have you ever heard of Tibet? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Even as corrected, the nomination rationale makes no sense to me. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. The fact that Kalmykia is an international chess centre guarantees its vitality at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

@Presidentman: I believe Rekishi meant to say that Kalmykia is the only region in Europe and/or Russia which is majority Buddhist (part of the Silk Road legacy). That does make more notable than otherwise. Gizza (t)(c) 12:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@DaGizza: Yes, I forgot to add the phrase "in Europe". Thanks for Presidentman and DaGizza's notification!--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus to add Gizza (t)(c) 00:05, 4 December 2016 (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 Ingushetia

Now that it is now the centre of Russian intellectual and combat sport, and abundant in vegetables, fruit and fish - so abundant that it can supply these to other regions of Russia [4], it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not as vital as Kalmykia, and for that matter quite a few regions in Russia. Gizza (t)(c) 10:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:19, 30 December 2016 (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 Avant-garde

I didn't know where to nominate this so if you find somewhere better then i wouldn't mind moving the discussion but i am quite shocked that this appears to be not listed (atleast the talk page is not marked as is). If we have Avant-garde artists listed then surely the overview of the kind of work must be listed? I searched the discussions and i couldn't find it discussed either.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 7-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:38, 2 November 2016 (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 Borobudur

The fact that it is the largest Buddhist temple and one of the greatest Buddhist monuments in the world means that it is absolutely crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Borobudur and Angkor Wat (already listed) are the two most significant architectural sites in Southeast Asia. Gizza (t)(c) 11:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support  Carlwev  12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:20, 30 December 2016 (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 Nalanda

The fact that it was once the most renowned repository of Buddhist knowledge in the world means that it's vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

This is closed now but I was thinking about supporting this when it was open. Very 50-50 though. Also it is in the wrong location (should be proposed in historic cities). History is over quota but I feel like we can add so many more interesting articles there. Nalanda was a very important Eastern learning centre in its day. Gizza (t)(c) 03:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Add House of Wisdom

Since it was a major intellectual centre during Islamic Golden Age, and by the middle of the ninth century it had the largest selection of books in the world, it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus after 30 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:32, 26 October 2016 (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 How to Win Friends and Influence People

The article sucks, but I think it is partially because of bias. Considered one of the most influential non-fiction books ever written. Book made the self-help genre popular with the modern public, and started the business book genre. Usually the first book every person in business reads so they can succeed in the field. [5].

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Although its influence has waned, the book's importance in late 20th century milieu was extensive, per nomination statement. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus after 30 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:32, 26 October 2016 (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 Some Like It Hot

Only comedy film that I can think of that is in the same level as Dr. Strangelove, if not more influential. We need a comedy film. Number 1 on AFI's funniest movies of all time, one of the first 25 films named in National Film Registry back in 1989. First major film to deal with male to female cross dressing and to a lesser extent homosexuality topics. It is considered the film that was the final nail on the Motion Picture Production Code, pretty much opening the film industry to whatever topic they pleased. Usually ranked as one of the top two-three comedy films in greatest movies of all-time lists.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support prefer this to Dr. Strangelove. Gizza (t)(c) 09:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Personally I would put Chaplin's work ahead of it or Buster Keaton's The General in terms of influence on the form. Some Like it Hot may be a great film, but the rationale put forward above does not convince me it is a vital topic. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Betty Logan. Jclemens (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed 1-5 and not added Gizza (t)(c) 07:28, 24 December 2016 (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 Top Gun

The fact that it is currently the best known air combat film, and one of its songs, Take My Breath Away, has been included in various love song best albums means that it's crucial at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose are you serious? Prevan (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  15:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Carlwev. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Hundreds of things not on the list that are more vital than this. pbp 00:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Even with the caveat that Top Gun spawned a genre of movies favorably depicting specific military services throughout the 80's and 90's--most of them silly or horrible, IIRC, I still would not call it vital. Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
    1. Yes, I'm serious. Adding this article diversifies the expanded VA list, as currently this list lacks any air combat films.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Something as niche as air combat movie is way way way too specific, there are an incredible amount of specific movie types not represented like any sports movies at all as one slightly wider example of many. In general action movies, there are many more deserving like Indiana Jones, Terminator, Rambo, Die Hard, the Good the Bad and the Ugly and more. The star Tom Cruise would make more sense but we removed him a while ago, as we did, Schwarzenneger and Stallone too. The song seems pointless, we removed lots of songs known for movies like Somewhere Over the Rainbow and a few Disney ones.  Carlwev  15:29, 23 November 2016 (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.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:34, 26 October 2016 (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 Modern Paganism

There are a number of different neopagan movements that are active and growing in both Europe and America, and I don't think we give them adequate coverage here. We do include an article on one of them, Wicca, but there are many other neopagan religions that are quite popular and growing and I don't think they are adequately covered by the article on New Religious Movements.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-4 or 1-3, none of the foods added Gizza (t)(c) 00:07, 4 December 2016 (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 Instant noodle

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Don't see how it's vital without any rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose not vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Noodle is already listed, and there only so many topics we can list. Prevan (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Really? A lot of people consume instant noodle.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Add Toast

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose Toast is the only bread dish(?) that I could see being included, but I'm not quite convinced it's vital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 00:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Baguette

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not as vital as toast. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose not vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Croissant

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not as vital as toast. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose not vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Doughnut

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not as vital as toast. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose not vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Now that the list contains four major types of cheese, which are unfamiliar to most non-Westerners (I guess) however still vital at this level, is it fair not to list instant noodle, toast, baguette, croissant and doughnut which are much more familiar to non-Westerners?--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the emphasis on cheese is a little strange. But is instant noodle even the most vital specific type of noodle? I doubt it. Why not misua or hundreds of other types of noodle? Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus for any cuisine Gizza (t)(c) 10:59, 9 December 2016 (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 British cuisine

The fact that this cuisine was quite prominent in the 19th century guarantees its vitality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is a joke, right? Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose all of these cuisines except for Thai to some extent are not vital by a long shot. Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Vietnamese cuisine

Support
  1. As nom. Since it is considered one of the healthiest cuisines on earth by some people (just read the lede of the article), it is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Thai cuisine

Support
  1. As nom. Because it is one of the most popular cuisines in the world, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose even though it is the most important of the ones proposed, it is not as important as Mexican. And there isn't space to add the cuisine of most countries. Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. I think that we don't need to add articles about cuisine on earth except Vietnamese, Thai, Korean, Indonesian, Russian, British and Mexican ones.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Indonesian cuisine

Support
  1. As nom. Because it is one of the most vibrant and colourful cuisines in the world, it is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 10:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

There are actually missing vital articles related to Indonesia like Borobudur. Gizza (t)(c) 10:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Add Russian cuisine

Support
  1. As nom. Because Russians like to spend a lot of money on food, this cuisine is of high level and thus vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Sorry I didn't add signature here until today 12:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose apart from Vodka which is already listed, Russian cuisine is unknown beyond the country's political area of influence. Gizza (t)(c) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. Really? RBTH now posts a lot of recipes on Russian dishes, and this site is becoming more popular in the world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
      1. What's more, Shanghainese cuisine is somewhat influenced by Russian one.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    @RekishiEJ: I don't think you can be serious. Are the streets of Taipei full of Russian restaurants? I doubt it. Gizza (t)(c) 04:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. I don't live in Taipei, I'm not familiar with it, either. However I'm sure that in Taiwan Korean and Vietnamese cuisine are much more popular than Russian one. However since Russians like to spend much money on food, meaning that Russian cuisine should be of high level than most other European cuisines, it is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 26 October 2016 (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 Sexual abuse

Out of all of Carlwev suggestions above, this one completely stood out. Widely discussed topic in society and the main topic of several of the biggest scandals of the last century (Catholic Church for example). Why this isn't in the list is beyond me.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sexual assault, rape, domestic violence and pedophilia are all already on the list. Domestic violence was quite a recent addition. And it looks like age of consent will be added soon. Adding more articles in the area just leads to more overlap and repetition. I could support child sexual abuse since that focuses on the negative effects of abuse on the child which distinguishes it from the listed articles (pedophilia discusses the issue from a perspective of a pedophile). However, even then child abuse is the broader article covering non-sexual types of abuse too. Gizza (t)(c) 08:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the above. Also, wrong section--if added, it should be listed in crimes, not sexuality. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus after 30 days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 26 October 2016 (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 Sex and law

Humanity has regulated sex through law for millennia. Sex and law is a vital aspect of human and social sexuality, and it is fundamental to understanding other sexual concepts.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Law has regulated many things for millennia, from trade, health and migration to the family, privacy and human rights. The law having a connection with sex is not unique. Most other branches are important areas of study among law schools around the world, unlike sex and law which is quite specialized and niche. There are at least 20 more important legal articles missing. The only vital aspect of sex and law are sex-related crimes that are already represented. Gizza (t)(c) 12:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added 6-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (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 Biathlon

Support
  1. Support As nom.Linhart (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support as we're 21 under quota we could do with another winter sport (maybe Bandy too) Gizza (t)(c) 05:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 07:38, 24 December 2016 (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 Psychic

This was removed with very little discussion a few years ago. Nominating in this subsection as I'm unsure where to put it. Key topic in Skepticism and paranormality. One of the few "fields" from ancient times still active in today's modern society. Common written topic in science fiction and well discussed in scientific literature. Nominating Extrasensory perception would have been more technical.

Support
  1. Support as nom Prevan (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Parapsychology is listed in Philosophy and religion section. --Thi (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree that parapsychology is enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Thi. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added 1-3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:37, 26 October 2016 (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 Hyundai Motor Group

The world's fourth largest automobile company, and Asia's second largest. One of the biggest corporations in South Korea. We have American, German, and Japanese car manufacturers listed, why not Korean.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We don't need six car companies. I am open to a swap though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the company list needs more variety than automobiles and IT. Gizza (t)(c) 08:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 1-4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:38, 26 October 2016 (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 Ivy League

This article is about the college sports athletic conference. It doesn't even belong in the education category, let alone deserve to be listed as a vital article. There are other American collegiate athletics leagues far more vital (Southeastern Conference, Big Ten Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference, Pac-12 Conference).

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The Ivy League is considered the crème de la crème of American higher education. The term actually predates the athletic conference and is considered to designate America's most prestigious institutions of higher learning. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The term "Ivy League" refers to a distinct education tier, and the article itself covers history, academics, and culture. The Ivy League is a world-renowned entity. --Iamozy (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per both of the above. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 3–3 Rreagan007 (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2016 (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 University of Virginia

Yes it's the only American college that is a World Heritage Site, but not ranked among the top universities in the United States, and Duke University has a better claim of vitality for Southern colleges. We are above quota in this area, and some areas like economics is still vastly underrepresented. I recommended an 10 article increase in quota from Philosophy (which is pretty much complete) to here, but that isn't enough. So some cuts needs to be made elsewhere.

Support
  1. As nom Prevan (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. UVA is basically on par with UC-Berkeley when it comes to the best public universities in the U.S. And it looks like we will be removing two other public universities (UCLA and Michigan) so we will be getting down to very few public universities left on the list. That, combined with UVA's historical status as being founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson and being the only university in the U.S. that is a UNESCO World Heritage Site makes it vital at this level. This is also the only university we currently have listed from the Southern United States region. As you point out, Duke probably should be added to the list (as it is higher ranked than several universities like Johns Hopkins and Cal Tech that are listed) but it is not currently listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: Please explain why Duke is a better example of Southern vitality. Maybe it's more highly-ranked now (though apples and oranges, one's a private and one's a public), but UVA was most influential in the progress of American pedagogy. It was essentially the first college in the United States, and one of the first in the world, concerned about educating people in something other than law or religion. That's why UVA is a World Heritage Site and Duke isn't. pbp 01:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose I agree that UVA is indeed historically significant (more so than Duke), but I also realize that we could use some trimming in this area. That being said, I think UCLA and Johns Hopkins should go before UVA. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you're overly focused on college rankings at the expense of other factors. Cal Tech is on here because one of its profs wins a Nobel Prize every couple of years. Johns Hopkins is on here because it was a pioneer in postgraduate education. pbp 13:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:38, 26 October 2016 (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 Saint Petersburg State University

Article ranks this university as the 240th best University in the World, which is rather weak and not a good claim for "vitality". Not to mention it doesn't have the rich cultural or historical history as Moscow State University or the other European universities on the list.

Support
  1. As nom Prevan (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact it is the oldest and one of the largest universities on earth means that it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
added 5-0 support, 1 month+,  Carlwev  16:07, 31 October 2016 (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 Sioux

One of the largest and historically most influential Native American tribes. Had been batted about in the discussion of Cahokia. pbp 01:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 01:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  09:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus for any of these proposals Gizza (t)(c) 04:20, 1 January 2017 (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 Armenian alphabet

The fact that this alphabet has been used to write Turkish and Kurdish means that it's vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per below. Gpapazian (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The Armenian language is not even listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Actually, Presidentman, Armenian is listed as a vital language (under the Indo-European language family). As for the Armenian script, it is one of the six main alphabetic scripts used in the world according to List of writing systems. The other main alphabetic scripts are Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Georgian, and Hangul and four of these are considered to be vital (the first three are Level 3), so I think that qualifies the Armenian alphabet to be considered vital, especially since it was used for a number of other languages in the area including Turkish and Kurdish, as brought up by RekishiEJ, both of which are also vital languages. Gpapazian (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Add Georgian scripts

The fact that this set of scripts has been not only used to write the Georgian language, but also Chechen, Ingush, etc. means that it's vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The Georgian language is not even listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Presidentman Gizza (t)(c) 23:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Georgian language

Support
  1. As nom. It is unacceptable that both Armenian and Azeri languages are listed but not Georgian one, despite the fact that of all languages these three languages and Russian are the most important in Transcaucasus.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC) 06:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC) fixed a bit
Oppose
  1. Oppose could accept this as a swap with Kartvelian languages but not otherwise. We don't have both Japanese language and Japonic languages despite it being far more important than Georgian. Gizza (t)(c) 08:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added; 5-0 support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2016 (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 Pronoun

Support
  1. Support As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support. Agreed. It should be there along with the other major parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction), especially as in the past few years, a person's "preferred pronouns" has become a major social and linguistic topic. "Interjection" is also missing and is considered one of the traditional 8 parts of speech. It should be added also. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Another basic grammatical concept. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  05:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support not as sure about interjection. Gizza (t)(c) 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added; 5-0 support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2016 (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 Interjection

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support All of the traditional 8 parts of speech in English should be included. "Pronoun" and "interjection" are the last two. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Another basic grammatical concept. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support: Yes! pbp 00:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 04:36, 1 January 2017 (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 Jargon

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add mutual intelligibility

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add pragmatics

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 07:30, 24 December 2016 (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 neologism

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose vital in a dictionary but not in an encyclopedia. How much can you write about neologisms? Gizza (t)(c) 23:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:09, 4 December 2016 (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 manslaughter

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I think including homicide is enough for this list. That article should be expanded to include more information about manslaughter. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Rreagan007. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose agree that homicide and murder should be enough. Gizza (t)(c) 23:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:14, 11 December 2016 (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 Right of asylum

Another important concept with significant implications throughout history and in today's world.

Support
  1. As nom. Prevan (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

We need to increase the quota here by another two dozen or so articles. There are many important concepts missing in this area, while others like Biology and health sciences and especially[Philosophy and religion are running out of viable candidates with some space left. We can decrease the quota in Philosophy and religion from 425 to 415 and offer the 10 extra spaces to social sciences as a start. We are over 4 articles as it is. Prevan (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2016 (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.
Added 6-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:41, 2 November 2016 (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 Protein (nutrient)

Essential nutrient of the human body.

Support
  1. Support As nom Prevan (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support. Makes sense. We include both Lipid and Fat, and Carbohydrate and Sugar and Starch, so we should also include both Protein and Protein (nutrient). Rreagan007 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

FYI we also have amino acid but I still think protein nutrient is vital. Gizza (t)(c) 23:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (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 Mach number

A vital term in aerospace engineering.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Speed of sound is already listed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2017 (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 Tidal locking

A key concept in planetary motion. A number of moons in our own solar system, including Earth's moon, are tidally locked to the planets they orbit, as well as Mercury being tidally locked to the Sun, and Pluto and Charon being tidally locked to each other. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support good find. we are under quota in astronomy too. Gizza (t)(c) 03:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  23:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 23:57, 13 January 2017 (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 ideal solution

The fact that the concept of it is fundamental to chemical thermodynamics and its applications, such as the use of colligative properties means that it is absolutely crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Definitely not more important than a concept like Solubility. Ideal solution is low importance in WikiProject Chemistry. Gizza (t)(c) 23:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 10:31, 13 January 2017 (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 butterfly effect

The fact that this term was at first used in weather prediction but later the term became a metaphor used in and out of science.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support. A quite important concept that is used in a number of different scientific contexts, but it also has bled over into popular culture and everyday usage. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This is not an exclusively earth sciences concept, even though it was first popularized in weather simulations. I'd rather see a more general article on chaos theory or complex systems studies. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:25, 30 December 2016 (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 Mir

I don't want to get greedy here, but while we have Space station as an overview, I think that both Mir and International Space Station (already listed) would be reasonable entries in our space section. Mir set records for the ISS to break. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Suppport as proposer. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Suppport ISS is level 3 vital 1000, so I guess Mir should be 10'000 level 4  Carlwev  09:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per Carlwev Prevan (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 00:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 2-4 after 30+ days. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:44, 2 November 2016 (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 London Underground

As mentioned in the above arguments, there is too much focus on subway systems when other widely-used methods of transportation are not included. For example, no airports are listed. The London Underground is not the longest (ranked 3rd behind Shanghai Metro and Beijing Subway) or busiest metro system (ranked 11th), and it doesn't have the most stations (ranked 6th). Its main distinction is that it is the oldest, which is not enough for inclusion as a vital article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Iamozy (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support per the above discussion, with the intent that more transportation articles will be added in this place to focus on modes of transportation (e.g. auto rickshaw) rather than specific instances of mass transit. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would say that the London Underground's status as the oldest underground system is certainly enough for inclusion. I wouldn't say that the current 2 articles are too much either. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I completely disagree with the premise of there being too many Subway systems. We should keep the ones we have and move on. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Personally, I'd remove New York first due to London's historical significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-1, no consensus Gizza (t)(c) 23:34, 14 January 2017 (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 Parallel postulate

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Non-Euclidean geometry is sufficient. The parallel postulate was just a part of the long-gone debate on whether Euclidean geometry rules all geometry. Esquivalience (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


3-4, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 09:11, 26 March 2017 (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 Ian Fleming

We currently list 42 UK and Ireland Modern writers. The Times list Fleming as 14 among post-war writers. His James Bond and Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang works make him vital.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Agree. If needed, we could swap for V. S. Naipaul or John Millington Synge who have had less impact. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. James Bond (literary character) is already listed. --Thi (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. As Bond is already in Johnbod (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Difficult question, but I am not convinced that the James Bond novels are vital (globally, the film adaptations are far more widely known) and thus on that point I don't think that Fleming warrants listing here. Moreover, I hardly think that the Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang children's novel would convey 'vital' status upon an author! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. If you take Bond out of the equation Fleming wouldn't get within a country mile of the list, and as others have pointed out James Bond is a cinematic creation as much as a literary one. Betty Logan (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. @TonyTheTiger:, please add your support vote first, since you are the nominator.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-1 pbp 20:28, 23 February 2017 (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 Svetlana Alexievich

The fact that this journalist is the first one to receive Nobel Prize in literature means that she is crucial at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Svetlana Alexievich or Anna Politkovskaya are maybe more important inclusions than Anna Wintour. --Thi (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree with Thi, one of the most influential journalists of modern times, only journalist to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. Prevan (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support per Prevan. I'm open to a swap with Wintour. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. By that inclusion criteria, we'd be including a lot more. Journalists, by and large, simply aren't vital. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Moved, 6-0 pbp 15:25, 27 March 2017 (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.

About Mary Wollstonecraft

Move from Writers, which contains creative writers, to Social scientists, economists and political writers, as her importance was her political and social philosophy, particularly A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, rather than her two novels, which in themselves are regarded as poor, but interesting for the political thoughts they contain. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - concur with nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support indeed Wollstonecraft is more of a philosopher and political theorist than anything else. Gizza (t)(c) 01:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Per above. GuzzyG (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


REMOVED
Fifteen days have passed, with ten votes in support of removal, two votes in favour of retention. This is a clear case of consensus in favour of removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2017 (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 Jimmy Carter

While recognising that the United States has been the pre-eminent global power in the latter part of the 20th century and the early part of the 21st, I do wonder if twenty Vital Articles is a little excessive here, particularly when only eight Vital Article spaces are given to South America (eleven if one counts the independent Brazil list). I would argue that this selection requires a trim, and a good place to start would be with Jimmy Carter. Interesting guy, but he was a one-term President, and his impact on the world at large cannot really be compared with, say, Ronald Reagan or Abraham Lincoln. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Vital list once included every post WWII US president. Carter isn't vital and more presidents should be cut. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support agree with above. Especially now that Trump was put into the list, non-vital presidents need to be removed. Gizza (t)(c) 22:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Essentially swapping Carter for Trump; the latter being on here on account of his business career and his status as the current one. His post-presidency is sorta important but his presidency doesn't compare with most of the other political leaders on this list. Particularly good removal considering that we have FIVE other people from the period between 1945 and 1980 (Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon). pbp 03:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Jimmy was always planned to be removed for whoever won the 2016 election or John Quincy Adams. GuzzyG (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  10. Support Fairly inconsequential one-term president, much like Bush 1 and Ford, who aren't on the list. Orser67 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that Jimmy Carter caused the outbreak of Soviet-Afghan war and was also the architect of the CIA’s covert support to Islamic terrorism (cf. [6]), which is a threat to the world today means that he is vital at this level. By the way the list covers US presidents inadequately, rather than adequately since the list does not include James Monroe, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton at all, and they are all vital since Monroe was one of the architects of the Monroe Doctrine, which dominates the U.S. policy toward Latin America until now, George H. W. Bush initiated Operation Desert Storm, and Bill Clinton left office with the highest end-of-office approval rating of any U.S. President since World War II.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per RekishiEJ. Jusdafax 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Rekishi, who then do you propose to remove? Or do you want an increase in the people quota? If that's the case, which category do you want to be cut? FWIW, we don't have the most powerful ruler at every single time point in earlier periods of history and I think every single 20th century (which is what you seem to want) is a waste of space. Gizza (t)(c) 11:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Gizza on this. It would be impractical to regard virtually every U.S. President of the last forty years as a Vital Article. I even have misgivings about the inclusion of Obama (who did not do anything particularly influential on the world stage) and Trump (for the same reasons). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


FAILED
Not added, 1-4 pbp 15:22, 26 March 2017 (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 James Monroe

He was the last president who was a Founding Father of the United States and the last president from the Virginian dynasty and the Republican Generation. What's more, in 1823, he announced the United States' opposition to any European intervention in the recently independent countries of the Americas with the Monroe Doctrine, which became a landmark in American foreign policy.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There are far too many US politicians listed as 'Vital Articles' already (currently at 20; even Russia/USSR only has 12). Really we need to be cutting four or five, not adding more. I'm not convinced that the fact that Monroe was the last 'Founding Father' President accords him 'Vital' status. Is there any real significance to being the last of a lineage? The Monroe Doctrine has certainly been an important facet in the history of the Americas but its significance extends well beyond Monroe himself; I would support any call for the Monroe Doctrine itself to become a 'Vital Article' but I do not think that Monroe himself fits the bill. (I would perhaps reconsider if the proposal was to add Monroe while removing another President, like Obama or LBJ). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Cambalachero (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Monroe was also notable for participating in the Virginia Convention that ratified the Constitution, and for presiding over a huge economic expansion, but he does not seem as vital as other Virginians of that era like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Marshall.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I feel like we're re-fighting old battles at this point. Lemme say this: if we're going to add another American political leader, Monroe wouldn't be my first add. He didn't make the Atlantic Monthly top 100. He's . I'd add JQA before I'd add Monroe. I'd add John C. Calhoun before I'd add Monroe. I'd probably put Bill Clinton back on before I'd add Monroe. There are a number of women and pre-Independence leaders I'd also consider. pbp 22:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
At least Fifteen days have passed, with five votes opposition the addition, two votes supporting the addition. The consensus is in favour of opposing this addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2017 (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 John Quincy Adams

He was regarded one of the best diplomats and secretaries of the State in US history, and was the man who chiefly drafted the Monroe Doctrine, which was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Secretary of State, president, anti-slavery advocate. pbp 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There are far too many US politicians listed as 'Vital Articles' already (currently at 20; even Russia/USSR only has 12). Really we need to be cutting four or five, not adding more. Perhaps the Monroe Doctrine itself would be a good option for a 'Vital Article', however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. The Monroe Doctrine only became noteworthy in the international arena several decades afterwards. At the time of Quincy Adams, it was just empty bravado, the US had no means to actually enforce it or scare away the European powers. The US was not back then the world power it would eventually become. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. His father happened to live in a much more consequential generation, and so was much more consequential than the son. Fate is fickle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Not on the level of the presidents listed. GuzzyG (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

FWIW, @Midnightblueowl: the 12 and 20 number you cite is for post-1815 only. USA has six pre-1815, Russia has some pre-1815 as well. pbp 22:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

True, but it is in the post-1815 era section where I believe that the U.S. has received a disproportionate amount of space in the 'Vital Articles' section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cambalachero: Seems like your oppose could also be used as justification to vote against Monroe (above) in addition to voting against JQA. pbp 02:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. The Monroe Doctrine outlived Adams and did become influential for international relations; but as said, that happened later, with other people in charge of the US. The Monroe Doctrine specifically in the times of Adams was not much noteworthy beyond the US. --Cambalachero (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
      • This is interesting. You voted against Adams, I voted for him, and neither of us voted either way Monroe. I guess I consider Adams to be more influential than Monroe. In part, this is because I consider the Monroe Doctrine to be more Adams' hand than Monroe's (and, other than the Doctrine, I don't see a lot to hang Monroe's notability on). The rest of it is Adams' role in the antislavery movement. pbp 02:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1-8, after 15 days. pbp 14:43, 29 March 2017 (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 George H. W. Bush

The fact that America intervened in the Gulf War during his presidency, and coalition victory in that war enhanced American prestige abroad means that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There are far too many US politicians listed as 'Vital Articles' already (currently at 20; even Russia/USSR only has 12). Really we need to be cutting four or five, not adding more. George H. W. Bush might have involved his country in a war but then again, so have a great many U.S. Presidents, and Bush was only a one-term President, governing his country for a mere four years. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. An inconsequential president. Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Not one of the most important post-1900 presidents. pbp 14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. --Thi (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Not on the level of the presidents listed. GuzzyG (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 2-7, after 15 days. pbp 14:43, 29 March 2017 (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 Bill Clinton

The fact that he presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history means that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. If we have George W. Bush, we should probably have Bill too. pbp 19:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. There are far too many US politicians listed as 'Vital Articles' already (currently at 20; even Russia/USSR only has 12). Really we need to be cutting four or five, not adding more. Bill Clinton is perhaps an option for inclusion, but I would only support him if another article was proposed for removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Trivial reason. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Betty Logan (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. --Thi (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. And George W. should be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. GuzzyG (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • RekishiEJ, are you trying to nominate all US presidents or what? Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to nominate all US presidents, since US didn't become a world power until the end of WWI, and not all US presidents are vital in America and the world. Besides, there are some non-Americans more vital (e.g. Fan Kuan) than some American presidents currently not included in the expanded VA list (e.g. William Henry Harrison) to be added, and the list can contain at most 10,000 articles.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Bill Clinton as 'vital' as George W. Bush? Both served two-term limits but Bush's War on Terror, with its concomitant invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, has surely been substantially more influential on the global stage than anything attempted by Clinton (or Obama, for that matter). Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    But, on the other hand, Bill Clinton tends to be ranked substantially higher in Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Bush hasn't been ranked in the top 75% in rankings conducted since he left office; while Clinton has always been ranked in the top 60%. Clinton was more influential on the home front than Bush, and Clinton has had a more significant post-presidency than Bush. Bush being on the list is, if anything, a testament to his ineptitude. IMO, we should either have both Clinton AND Bush, or neither of them. As for Obama, he's still the first African-American President (and, I might add, the only African-American among vital American political leaders), and the first to try and enact a universal health care mandate. pbp 14:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6-0 pbp 15:27, 26 March 2017 (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 Jomo Kenyatta to "Eastern Africa"

At present we have only six political figures in the "Eastern Africa" section of "Modern" vital article biographies, which is less than we have for many other regions of the globe. I was surprised that Jomo Kenyatta, the prominent Kenyan independence leader and first President, was not among them. He ruled as President from 1963 to 1978 and has come to be regarded as the "Father of Kenya". We have no other Kenyans in this section (and three Ethiopians!) so I would argue that Kenyatta is the best option for an addition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Kenya deserves a leader on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 09:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support A very surprising omission. Neljack (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. pbp 01:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


After 30 days, no consensus for add and removal fails pbp 21:55, 19 March 2017 (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 George S. Patton, Remove Georgy Zhukov

One of the most influential American military leaders of the 20th Century, not certain who he could replace but I would propose Zhukov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeathking (talk • contribs)

Support
  1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeathking (talk • contribs)
  2. The addition. The facts that he was one of the best generals in WWII, many of his aggressive strategy got adopted by the U.S. Army in its training programmes following his death and many military officers claim inspiration from his legacy mean that he is vital at this level. However, Zhukov should not be removed since the USSR played a vital role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in the war and Zhukov was one of the greatest generals in it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC) clarified the support vote 06:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support addition, oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Absolutely not. Zhukov was the most important Soviet general of World War II and arguably the greatest of any country. No commander played a more vital role in the Allied victory. Who knows whether the Soviets would have managed to turn the tide on the Eastern Front without him? Patton, while brilliant (and flawed), was a second-rank commander and therefore never exercised the same level of influence. Additionally, we already have three American WWII generals (Eisenhower, MacArthur and Marshall), while Zhukov is the only Soviet on the list. Neljack (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose agree with Neljack. The Eastern Front was the most important threatre of WWII by a mile. Gizza (t)(c) 01:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. The removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. "One of the most influential American military leaders of the 20th Century" certainly, but equally certainly not more important than Zhukov. Johnbod (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose the removal--Thi (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion

If we were going to add another American military leader, I don't think Patton would be my choice. We already have Ike, Mac and Marshall from WWII, while we don't have John Pershing. pbp 14:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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


PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 19:02, 14 March 2017 (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 Syrian Wars

Something that is hardly discussed in history. Primarily known because it was discussed briefly in the Bible in Maccabees (not listed, better claim). Article makes no claim of any special notability of these wars or its impact, even less so its vitality. Wars were unfortunately common in that era.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  4. --Cambalachero (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  18:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that this series of wars caused the deterioration of Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Empire and the conquest of them by Rome and Parthis guarantees its vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


No consensus after 5 months Gizza (t)(c) 08:44, 9 March 2017 (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 Ani

The fact that prior to its sack by Mongols it stood on various trade routes and its many religious buildings, palaces, and fortifications were amongst the most technically and artistically advanced structures in the world means that it's vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support - A major city for a long time. The ruins still standing attest to its glory. Per nomination, a vital article. Jusdafax 17:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Opose Given Carthage, Rome, Constantinople, any Chinese cities and Athens etc are not on the list (these may not be the "ancient" links). It was only a capital for around a century. The whole list is rather odd. Johnbod (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6-2 pbp 23:33, 19 March 2017 (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 Conan the Barbarian

I look at the other two dozen-ish fictional characters and he doesn't seem to be in a league with them. Isn't as prolific or long-lasting as most of the others. pbp 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support. Conan does not pack the punch of other characters who are not included but should be, e.g. Atticus Finch, Prince Hamlet, Jane Eyre, Holden Caulfield, Don Quixote, Nancy Drew, Frankenstein’s Monster, Captain Ahab, The Invisible Man, Scarlett O’Hara, and Jay Gatsby.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. While Conan might be less vital than others on the list, losing him would leave us without any representation from Swords & Sorcery genre--I don't think King Arthur or Merlin count. I get where everyone's coming from, but I'm against. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Opppse per Jclemens, who makes a good case. Jusdafax 07:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

A few points on Jclemens' argument.

  1. I'm not sure that sword-and-sorcery is a big enough genre to merit a fictional character
  2. I'm ESPECIALLY not sure that sword-and-sorcery deserves an entry if you exclude Arthurian legend (from which it derives)
  3. I'm not sure Conan the Barbarian is the best representative of the sword-and-sorcery genre, which I would classify to include LOTR and Harry Potter, among other things (mind you, I also put Arthurian legend in the genre).
  4. I dissent from Jclemens voting to keep Conan while suggesting removal of Wonder Woman above

pbp 18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Moved, 6-0 pbp 18:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Aladdin and Hua Mulan from "Characters from literature and drama" subsection of FCs to new "Characters from Eastern folklore" subsection of FCs

We have "Characters from Western folklore"; shouldn't we also have "Characters from Eastern folklore?" pbp 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  13:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support No reason to not so subcategorize. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0 --Thi (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2017 (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 Is–ought problem

Hume's law is basic concept in ethics.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Prevan (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


No consensus for any proposal - all open for over 5 months Gizza (t)(c) 20:53, 14 March 2017 (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 Hebrew alphabet

Support
  1. Support as nom  Carlwev  13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Likely the oldest continually used alphabet in existence. Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support I would also support a swap with the Phoenician alphabet, on the grounds that the Hebrew alphabet is still in usage. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose While I see the argument of it being the oldest alphabet in continuous use, I feel that the Phoenician alphabet is sufficiently representative of Semitic alphabets. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Prevan (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Prevan, are you for or against this proposal?--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Phrase

Support
  1. Support As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Basic grammatical concept. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support. Clause should also be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Clause

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Just like "Phrase", "Clause" should be included. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Another basic grammatical concept. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Aramaic alphabet

Since virtually all modern Middle Eastern writing systems and numerous non-Chinese writing systems in Central and East Asia can be traced back to it, this alphabet is vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Would prefer this to be added instead of Hebrew alphabet. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose Would rather have the Hebrew Alphabet, which is still in use. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, failed and not added Gizza (t)(c) 08:34, 26 March 2017 (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.

Re-add Twitter

Now that due to Donald John Trump's heavy use of it Twitter becomes more profitable, and it is called the "SMS of the Internet", it is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Stupid reason for proposing to add Twitter. That aside, Twitter isn't the clear number two in the social media space after Facebook anymore. See List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users. WhatsApp and Instagram have surpassed Twitter and Snapchat has recently become more popular too (the sources in the list are slightly old). Gizza (t)(c) 08:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Not reason enough to mark something out as 'Vital', IMO. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Twitter used to be included in the expanded list, however it was replaced by text messaging later (cf. /Archive_42#Swap:_Remove_Twitter.2C_Add_Text_messaging).--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added 5-0 pbp 02:43, 30 March 2017 (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 field research

Now that anthropology, archaeology, biology, earth science, economics, public health, management and sociology frequently use this research method, it is vital.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 10:22, 29 March 2017 (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 Colligative properties

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose again there are more basic articles about solutions that should be added before this. Gizza (t)(c) 08:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 06:57, 7 March 2017 (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 approximation

No doubt it's vital in mathematics and natural science.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The page is a disambiguation page anyway. Gizza (t)(c) 06:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Differences between the Wikipedia Vital 10,000 list and the Wikimedia list of 10,000 articles every Wikipedia should have

I understand that these two lists are for different purposes, but I was curious how much the lists would diverge in an area like Mathematics where language should really have no effect on which 300 articles are the most vital. It turns out the Wikimedia math list varies by over 10%. There are 32 articles the Wikipedia list hahs that the Wikimedia list does not, and 35 articles their list has that ours does not. I will list the differences below. I don't really know what, if any, significance this has, but maybe the more Math-oriented people can take a look and see if there are any articles their list has but ours doesn't that we should add. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: thanks for this. Many of these articles are actually vital on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia but in one of the lists they are in a section outside mathematics. For example econometrics is in the business and economics section and coding theory, algorithm, etc. are in the information technology section. Apart from that, I notice the Wikimedia list is more shape inclusionist. That makes sense. The first articles you want in an encyclopedia would include shapes but they are not necessarily the articles you want to become featured quality before the rest. Gizza (t)(c) 08:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even think about checking to see if articles were located in other sections, but that makes sense. I also noticed they included a lot more shapes in their list as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sport

I see that Underwater diving and Scuba diving are listed under sport. Why? (I have no problem with them being on the list, but there is a large non-sporting side to both of them.) Recreation is a far more common reason for diving then competition or developing fitness, as are professional, industrial and military aspects. By numbers, particularly for Scuba diving, the largest proportion of divers are recreational. In the more generic category, I wouldn't want to guess whether more dives are done for professional reasons or recreational reasons, as most professional divers tend to dive more often than most recreational divers, though their numbers are smaller, but I doubt that anyone has a reliable count of either. Most sport diving in the competitive sense is freediving, probably by a large margin. There are articles for Recreational diving, Professional diving, Commercial diving and several others, though Underwater diving and Scuba diving are currently better quality than most of the others, not that this should be a factor. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, similar argument could apply to hiking, walking, running and cycling, they could go in sport or recreation, or perhaps even somewhere else like transport, I don't recall where they are without checking....Whilst on the subject, Swimming (sport) is included, but not Human swimming. People have been swimming for millennia and still today for recreation, finding food or other resources etc, and most people who swim are not professional athletes or competing as a sport. We removed human swimming, as redundant to the sport article years ago, but to leave it off for that reason, would be similar to leaving of running, walking, bike, car, sailing and ship as redundant to 100 m, hiking, cycling, formula one, rowing and sailing (sport). Plus we have both sailing and sailing (sport), and several swimmers listed too, so it's not exactly overkill to list the parent article. Swimming article itself is a disambiguation page btw.  Carlwev  15:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive box at WP:VA/E

This is being used to search for articles currently on the list, right? Because that's all it can do as presently configured. It can't search the archives of this talk page. pbp 17:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm able to search the archives. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Presidentman: Using the archive box WP:VA/E or the archive box at the top of this page? pbp 21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It works for me, however: There is a collection of tick boxes for me which allows to search or not different domains, eg regular pages, category, portal, user pages etc and/or the talk pages of those too. If you have these, or can figure out how to get them in your search settings, make sure the box is ticked so you are searching "talk pages" of "wikipedia:" pages. I have the option of disabling searching of talk pages, maybe you have some how got it disabled too.  Carlwev  02:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
PASSED
Added, 7-1

The following discussion is closed. 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 William Golding

We currently list 42 UK and Ireland Modern writers. The Times listed Golding as #3 among post-war writers in 2008. Has won the Nobel Prize in Literature and is listed on Commons among the Wikimedia's list of 10,000 essential articles for all wikipedias.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support I think Golding is a better choice than Fleming as the character James Bond is already separately listed. I think we should have no more than 40 British and Irish writers but there are others not as important. Gizza (t)(c) 05:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Strong support Golding should be there for "Lord of the Flies, Pincher Martin, and The Spire.Joe Fogey (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Not many novelists as significant as Golding regardless of country or time. Lord of the Flies was a standard UK school text for many years. I was taught it, and then I taught it in my turn. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support We have too many UK writers but he is one we should have. GuzzyG (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I had to study Lord of the Flies at school. Terrible book. I was an avid reader until I studied my English GCE. It took me almost a decade before I picked up a book again to read for pleasure. Betty Logan (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOT ADDED
After 30+ days, no consensus he should be on the list. pbp 13:03, 7 April 2017 (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 or Add Donald Trump

Donald Trump is the current President of the United States and also a very wealthy businessman. But is this enough to consider his a "Vital Article"? As specified above, we already have too many U.S. Presidents listed here and the section needs a trim. While Trump's election was something of a surprise to many and his policies have shifted the U.S. in a more protectionist direction than we have seen for several decades, I really do not think he has yet established himself as a figure of such global importance and influence as the likes of John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. Maybe in time he will rise to that level, but we should not pre-emptively award him 'vital article' status. He has only been in office for a few months and we should avoid recentism. I also think it noteworthy that Trump was actually added to this list in a manner that raises concerns; the archive suggests that there was no clear consensus for his inclusion in this list to start with (three comments in support; three in opposition) but that the nominator went ahead and added him regardless, which probably should not have happened. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: As per the discussion below, Trump has been removed as a Vital Article because there was never consensus achieved to add him in the first place. The nature of this discussion has thus changed from should we remove him to should we add him to the Vital Article list. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Update #2: I un-removed it for reasons explained below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump SHOULD NOT be a VA
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Cambalachero (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. He hasn't done anything vital as a president yet. He is no where near enough vital as a celebrity and his business career was really weak. If we had to add another modern American businessman, I'd add Elon Musk who has actually built companies from scratch. If we had to add another celebrity who had a short political career, I'd re-add Arnold Schwarzenegger who is also the most influential figure in bodybuilding of all-time. Gizza (t)(c) 09:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per the below discussion. Recentist, and news cycle--top stories of any given year, for that matter--is not any indication of vitality. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Midnightblueowl. There is a need to wait to see how large his impact turns out to be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. see below Not yet. Way too early. I don't like adding current leaders to the list. You really need more of ahistorical perspective before knowing which biographies will be vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Too soon & there never was a consensus to add. Being a rich businessman AND/OR US president doesn't qualify for VA status. He has not transformed any industry or generated any historical firsts. Iamozy (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Donald Trump SHOULD be a VA
  1. Support - Meets my definition of vital. Jusdafax 19:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Regretful support: a) We should probably have the current President of the U.S., and b) Donald Trump had a notorious business and entertainment career prior to becoming President. This should be considered an assessment of his vitality, not of the rightness of his actions. pbp 23:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. The most powerful man on the planet should be included on the list. There may be a case for removing him at later point but's keep him for now. Betty Logan (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. If we try to be objective about this, he's reliably ranked as among the top two most powerful human beings on this planet.[7] When that changes, then perhaps removal as a "vital" article would be worth considering. Even people adamantly opposed to him rank him at or near the top, e.g. the head of CNN says, "It’s just unfortunate that the most powerful person in the world is trying to delegitimize journalism and an organization that plays such a vital role in our democracy." I would only add that, for living people who are not retired, potential impact is a special factor to consider here, whereas that is not a factor for dead people. One need not have a crystal ball to understand that the harm or good that can be done by the person in question is immense (that's what "power" means). It will very likely remain immense for years.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Since he is currently regarded as the second most powerful man on earth by Forbes, and his populism and he became the president of the United States of America without any political or military experience caused a lot of discussion on many news media, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Weak support. In general, I dislike including current leaders, as you usually can't get a sense of how important a leader's impact will be until you gain some historical perspective. However, Trump may be an extraordinary case given how incredible his rise to power was. Additionally, he may have been notable enough to include in the list on his own as a businessman before ever even becoming president. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. We must always be careful to avoid recentism, but I agree that that Trump is an exceptional case. Neljack (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support He is the President of the United States. The current president is always vital at this level. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Support My encyclopedia from 70s has Gerald Ford. I don't prefer recentism, but all general encyclopedias have some topics about important current events. The situation changes if there is less US presidents on the list. --Thi (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Bringing far right esque populism to the United States successfully post WW II is almost certainly vital in world politics and as such vital to an encyclopedia and certainly on a list of 2000 people. No JFK, certainly no Trump. GuzzyG (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So when was Trump added to the list? If he was vital before being elected POTUS, I don't see how it would be logical to remove him after his taking office without us looking like partisans or simpletons in the press. I'll note specifically that I DO NOT think 'current POTUS' is a good excuse to make any politician article vital. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    Trump was added very recently after he was elected (archive). More to the point, the proposal was 3-3 in supports and opposes but he was still added against our guidelines at the top. Gizza (t)(c) 08:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The rules are sometimes bent or ignored, but if we wish to follow them here, one could say Trump should be removed right now, as he was added without consensus/without enough votes a little while ago (after being removed some time back through consensus). It's just that no one challenged it at the time.  Carlwev  10:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Donald was added by User:Philroc on on January 9; I didn't close the discussion until January 31. pbp 14:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that there was no consensus for Trump's addition, I am removing his inclusion as a Vital Article for now. The debate can of course continue and it may turn out that there is sufficient support for his inclusion, but we should at least revert things so that he isn't listed without sufficient support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There was no consensus as of the addition on January 9, but there was as of January 31 (at least according to the closer who evaluated the consensus and said "May be re-opened if somebody wants to remove him"). Therefore, the removal today was out of process, and a revert of that removal would be apt until there is consensus to remove. I will revert the removal for that reason and because the editor who removed it (User:Midnightblueowl) is not uninvolved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not strictly true, Anythingyouwant. There never was any consensus to add Trump as a Vital Article, even on 31 January. There were three votes in support and three in opposition. No consensus. An editor went ahead and added Trump as a Vital Article anyway, but that was a totally illegitimate move on their behalf; it's just that nobody bothered to stop them at that time. For that reason I regard my removal of Trump as a perfectly legitimate act of reverting a non-legitimate edit. I would appreciate it if Anythingyouwant or another editor who is not so involved as I would go ahead and remove Trump from the list of vital articles. On a procedural level, he should never have been added there in the first place. I don't think that there is any dispute about that here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that addition on January 9 was mistaken, but inclusion after the close on January 31 was okay (or at least was not so mistaken). Polls and voting at Wikipedia are closed based upon strength of reasoning rather than numbers of votes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, that's not how it works here at the VA selection (see the Introduction section above); here it is based on the number of votes. I really think you should undo your recent revert, Anythingyouwant. Of course, the debate as to whether Trump should be a VA will continue, and a consensus may emerge in favour of its addition, but at least it will be done in a procedurally correct manner. At present, Trump's inclusion as a VA is fundamentally illegitimate and requires correction (asap?) Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, if User talk:Purplebackpack89 wants to say here that the January 31 survey should have been closed as "FAIL" then I would be glad to revert myself at the Trump talk page. But I do not believe that it was closed as FAIL. Moreover, looking at the instructions atop this talk page, it says that strict numerical voting "may" override Wikipedia's normal voting rules.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • My close of the discussion of January 31 seems to be called into question. Let me explain why I closed it the way I did. I concluded that if there was objection to the addition of Trump, either a) he would have been (BOLDly?) removed from the VA list, b) additional discussion would have occurred in the "2016 United States presidential election" thread, or c) a new thread would've been started to remove him. None of those things happened in a period of over three weeks. pbp 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I do not think that those issues override the fact that there was never any consensus to add the Trump article as a VA in the first place. It is likely that nobody removed Trump from the VA list presumably because nobody had noticed that he had been added; not many editors actually follow what is going on here. From a procedural perspective, the Trump article has to be delisted because it was never legitimately listed, as has been pointed out not just by myself but also Carlwev and Gizza (judging by their comments above). For this reason I respectfully request that Trump be de-listed at the present time. The debate as to whether the Trump article should be a VA or not will of course continue and it is quite possible that a clear majority will support its inclusion as a VA - and that will be a legitimate decision which I and hopefully everyone else will happily abide by. Nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance that we do things by the book, otherwise we just encourage people to run around ignoring the rules and regulations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that this list is mainly based on pioneers and power and not popular status or being well known (ala James Dean being removed even though he is probably one of the most well known actors), which is also why we do not have any recent actors or pop singers, (except Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith, Anthony Hopkins, U2 and Cher which all should go imo). Recentism to me describes pop culture figures, which politics must certainly not fall under. Donald Trump is increasingly cited with bringing a whole new style of far right politics to the arguably only super power and with world trade deals at stake and with immigration bans trying to be forced in it is inarguable that he does not have worldwide impact. If an encyclopedia was made today it is not at all likely that it would not have Trump and i do not see harm in having him listed and if he turns out to be uneventful he can always be removed again, unfortunately due to the unique manner of his win it is clear that he will be studied heavily for bringing populism to the only superpower in the 21st century. I do not think even Obama reached such international prominence so quickly and was mainly a domestic president. GuzzyG (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Being immensely popular or temporarily powerful does not qualify someone to VA status. Trump was not all that important before the 2016 election, and there is no real indication that he will leave a lasting legacy or enact any radical changes to the United States or the world. Besides the fact that Trump tweets a lot and the media loves him, he hasn't done anything notable, his policies have been impulsive but not unprecedented. Ask yourselves whether an article on Trump is VITAL to understanding any important fact that should be found in any encyclopedia. Iamozy (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1-4 pbp 13:57, 30 March 2017 (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 Tony Blair

He made the Labour Party win several general elections during his leadership of the party and was partly responsible for the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq War, meaning that he is vital at this level.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose: We already have seven UK political figures/leaders in this section, so we need to be cautious about adding more. While Blair is no doubt the most influential British leader post-Thatcher, he was probably not as influential in the grand scheme of things as Winston Churchill or Benjamin Disraeli. Moreover, if we add him, then we will probably be pushed toward adding similar-level British leaders like Harold Wilson and then the section will simply get too long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose He is—to my knowledge—the only Labour PM to successfully win a second consecutive term (and then won a third). The problem here though is that Britain was an empire and prime ministers of the past have effected global change so on a comparative basis all modern British politicians are large inconsequential compared to their predecessors. Thatcher is the exception I think, given her role in bringing around the end of the cold war. Betty Logan (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose His tenure as PM simply isn't notable enough to be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not removed after 15+ days and 2 supports against 7 opposes (22%<1/3) pbp 13:03, 7 April 2017 (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 Eleanor Roosevelt

In the spirit of trimming down the excessively lengthy list of 'modern' U.S. figures (which has recently seen Jimmy Carter delisted), I would suggest that we remove Eleanor Roosevelt. She was First Lady but was never President. Certainly an interesting and noteworthy person, but a 'vital article' who ranks alongside Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan? Clearly not. One argument will be that it is important to have a woman in a list that is otherwise entirely male. I can certainly appreciate that view but I am not sure that our own political desires and impulses should dictate a decision that is supposed to be based on determining those who were truly the most influential on a national and international scale. Certainly, we have not added female political leaders to other regional sections purely as a counterpart to the large number of men, so why should the U.S. section be a special case? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. I'm sure there is a desire to have more females listed, but the wife of a president just isn't important enough to be listed. Yes I know she did other things in her life besides just being the first lady, but they just aren't important enough things to make her a vital article. (Almost) all 44 U.S. presidents are more vital than she is, and we don't list anywhere near all of them. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Long comment below. pbp 23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Per Pbp. Probably the most significant female politician in American history. Prevan (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Pbp here. Gizza (t)(c) 08:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Since she was called the "First Lady of the Word" by Harry S. Truman, pressed the United States to join and support the United Nations and became its first delegate, and Gallup's List of People that Americans Most Widely Admired in the 20th Century includes her, she is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I'm amazed there's discussion about this, let alone disagreement. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - I share Joe's incredulity. One of the most influential and widely-known women of the last century. Jusdafax 00:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above. Iamozy (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Actually, we have added female leaders from other countries as a counterpart to lots of men. Eleanor Roosevelt clearly was one of the more significant female political forces in American history. She was the most well-known and admired woman in America for the last three decades of her life. She was the person most responsible for the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She presaged people like Hillary Clinton being active in the public sphere. I also think the argument is strong that Eleanor is one of the 20 most important political forces in American history regardless of sex. pbp 23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"we have added female leaders from other countries as a counterpart to lots of men" - which articles are you referring to? Most of the female leaders that I can see listed as Vital Articles—the Empress Dowager Cixi, Elizabeth II, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Aung San Suu Kyi, Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf—really are giants in the political environments of their nations and regions. Their womanhood is incidental to their inclusion. I really do not think that the same can be said for Eleanor Roosevelt, who is a peripheral figure when listed alongside Lincoln, Reagan and co. She may well have been "one of the more significant female political forces in American history", but that does not mean that she was one of the more significant political forces in American history, period. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Setting aside the fact that Reagan does not belong in the same sentence as Lincoln...
Eleanor Roosevelt is, regardless of gender, one of the 20-25 most important political figures in American history. Through her role with the UN, she had a greater impact on world affairs than most presidents did. IMO, the only way you can justify her removal is if both a) you don't care about having any American women on the list, and b) you don't feel like you need all 20 of the 20 most significant figures. pbp 00:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe she is "one of the 20-25 most important political figures in American history", but here we really need to be picking the 11 or 12 most important figures in modern American political history, and I do not think that she ranks that highly. Moreover, you suggest that I "don't care about having any American women on the list", which I feel is a bit of a mischaracterisation of what I have said. I think that it would be great to have lots of American women in that list, because that would mean that we live in a world with greater equality of the genders. The reality is that we don't. For socio-cultural reasons, men (and almost exclusively rich white men) have hogged the top jobs in the U.S. for centuries. That means that only men have really had the opportunity to make that significant impact in the political sphere that would accord them space as a 'Vital Article'. Wikipedia is here to reflect this (unfortunate) reality, and my concern is that according a woman 'Vital Article' status simply because we wish to see more women listed in this category would be bordering on WP:Advocacy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to be President to be influential in American politics. You've bandied about the removal of John Marshall several times and Henry Clay at least once. There were periods of time when those men were more significant than the people who were President at the time. pbp 13:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment She's notable for her UN work which means she should be moved to the activists section, she never held elected office so how is she notable as a politician, same case with Sitting Bull who should be moved to Rebels, revolutionaries and activists, as he was never a politician and was a resistance leader, his article does not even call him a politician. GuzzyG (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not removed after 15+ days and 2 supports against 5 opposes (28.6%<1/3) pbp 13:03, 7 April 2017 (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 Richard Nixon

In the spirit of trimming down the excessively lengthy list of 'modern' U.S. figures (which has recently seen Jimmy Carter delisted), I would suggest that we remove Nixon. He only served five years rather than two full terms, and is primarily remembered for his impeachment following the Watergate Scandal rather than for anything that he actually achieved as President, either on the domestic or international stage. He just is not one of the towering figures of modern American political history like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. He's a step or two below them, and that means that his article does not need to be listed as 'Vital'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree that he isn't on the same level politically as the other presidents listed. About the only thing he is remembered for is resigning from office over Watergate. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Watergate, the normalization of the PRC-US relations and the establishment of EPA and OSHA mean that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Watergate isn't a reason for keeping Nixon on the list. His actions on opening China are though. One of the most significant foreign relations event since World War II with major rambifications in present day. Prevan (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. If it's modern American bloat we're worried about, there are dozens of less influential figures from areas other than politics who should be removed before Nixon is removed. pbp 17:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Cambalachero (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Vital in the understanding of world politics in the last century. Jusdafax 00:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • @Midnightblueowl: Whether or not an American president served two terms is not particularly relevant. Grover Cleveland and James Monroe served two terms each. Two uneventful terms each. By contrast, Abraham Lincoln died only a month into his second term, and James K. Polk got more done in one term than many Presidents did in two. FDR would make this list on the merits of his first Hundred Days alone. Or look at it internationally: Pope Benedict XVI served eight years (of ignominy) in the papacy, and he will probably never be added to this list. And in defense of Nixon: I think he had both more important "wrongs" AND more important "rights" than somebody like George W. Bush did. Watergate and Vietnam combined to create a climate of cynicism that has defined American politics to this day. But, on the positive side, Nixon opened China and created the EPA. I'm not wholly prepared to vote "oppose" yet, but I'm leaning that way. I might even go so far as to say I'd put him at the same level of influence as Reagan. pbp 13:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Point taken about the number of terms that a President has held. I would disagree on the argument that he was as influential as Reagan, at least on the international scene, but happy to hear what others think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0 pbp 13:36, 7 April 2017 (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 Alfred Kinsey

An atheist entomologist and sexologist who not only made significant contribution to the foundation of sexology but also affected social and cultural values in and outside the US.

Support
  1. As nom. From the sentence in the article "The Kinsey Reports, which led to a storm of controversy, are regarded by many as a precursor to the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s." I clearly know that this man is vital at this level. The fact that this list does not include him strongly surprises me!--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. As per nom. Kinsey was perhaps the leading figure in sexology. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Prevan (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I wanted to add him years ago but never got around to nominating him. clearly influential. GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 7-0 pbp 19:29, 5 April 2017 (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 Cimmerians

Article claims no importance on why they should be considered a "vital" subject. One of dozens of ancient civilizations and groups of that time period, most of whom are not listed.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Had never heard of them before. Took a look at the article and they don't appear to be a particularly notable civilization to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support a fringe historical peoples. Surely redundant to Thrace and the Scythians. Gizza (t)(c) 21:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support since we've removed Conan... Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Not vital at this level at all. Also by removing this article there will be more space to include more vital articles currently not mentioned, e.g. history of photography.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 9-0

The following discussion is closed. 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 Carthage

Why this isn't listed is beyond me. One of the most prominent ancient cities.

Support
  1. Support Prevan (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Sounds like a vital topic you'd be likely to find in a 10,000 entry paper encyclopedia. pbp 19:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  07:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support Jusdafax 00:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

This crossed my mind before, I supposed we didn't list it as Ancient Carthage is listed.  Carlwev  07:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We have Phoenicians too, the people of Carthage but 3 articles on the topic is still fair. Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 24 March 2017 (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.
With five statements of support after several weeks, there is a consensus to move this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Spiritualism and Haitian Vodou to "Other religions", and Gnosticism to "Abrahamic religions"

This section feels like a catch-all that has been created to dump a range of 'vital articles' which would otherwise be better placed elsewhere. This is, for example, not the sort of categorisation that one finds in the academic study of religion. Spiritualism and Haitian Vodou would be far better placed in "Other religions", Gnosticism belongs in the "Main branches" section of "Abrahamic religions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
With five statements of support after several weeks, there is a consensus to move this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Qi to "Common concepts" sub-section of "Eastern religions"

Qi makes little sense where it is, placed alongside articles on Western esotericism, Freemasonry, and Rosicrucianism. Although it has filtered into some Western thinking, particularly within the New Age milieu, it remains a fundamentally East Asian concept. It belongs alongside other such concepts like Yin and Yang in the "Common concepts" sub-section of "Eastern religions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support recategorization. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:56, 10 April 2017 (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 Mobile payment

Payment services operated under financial regulation and performed from or via a mobile device. Instead of paying with cash, cheque (or check), or credit cards, a consumer can use a mobile phone to pay for a wide range of services and digital or hard goods. Daylen (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. nom
  2. It is now quite popular in the Mainland China.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  06:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose we don't have more basic articles related to payments. Gizza (t)(c) 08:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - this feels a little too minor to warrant 'Vital Article' status at present. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    No, it's vital since a lot of Chinese people use it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    I don't quite follow your logic here, RekishiEJ... A lot of people use a toothbrush but that does not make it a vital article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    But nowadays some people argue that mobile repayment will finally replace cash, which can be called a revolution, hence mobile payment is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 08:39, 4 April 2017 (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 sonic boom

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Kind of interesting. We list speed of sound, doesn't mention sonic boom but could. We also list Doppler effect which is related, but strangely also doesn't mention sonic boom. Would sonic boom be better than, Supersonic speed, Supersonic transport, Supersonic aircraft, or in particular Shock wave? all of which are not listed  Carlwev  09:26, 7 October 2016 (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.
Added, 8-0 support, 20 days,  Carlwev  14:19, 5 April 2017 (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 Fuel

I presumed this article was already in, but it's not. The concept of fuel is surely vital. The usage, acquisition, trade and waste of different fuels all have an enormous impact on most if not all societies of the world for most of history. We list several types of fuel, the fossil fuels, wood, and more, but there are many other sources of fuel and the general concept of what fuel is, what can be used, how it works is of interest to industry, engineering, transport and also physics, chemistry and biology too. The "Core topics" project of only 150 articles lists fuel.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Per nom. I didn't know that this article is not included in the list until the nominator mentioned it above!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Common sense. Prevan (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support GuzzyG (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I will probably wait until this thread ends but I am also thinking about suggesting it in the 1000 list, I think it's that important, and seeing as core topics includes it in a 150 list, what are peoples view on that too. Also Biofuel is not listed and is also on my mind for suggesting, interested on thoughts about that also.  Carlwev  11:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6-0 pbp 15:49, 13 April 2017 (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

Recent, since we are doing heavy cuts (potentially JFK), we should be cutting down british stage which is severely over represented. Remember popular and being awarded alot does not mean vital. Vital is the actor or their technique is widely influential and will be studied in acting history, this person does not fit that bill to me.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - not globally 'Vital'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Iamozy (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6-1 pbp 15:49, 13 April 2017 (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 Maggie Smith

Recent, since we are doing heavy cuts (potentially JFK), we should be cutting down british stage which is severely over represented. Remember popular and being awarded alot does not mean vital. Vital is the actor or their technique is widely influential and will be studied in acting history, this person does not fit that bill to me.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - not globally 'Vital'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I do not buy the idea that we need to do "heavy cuts" and need to be "globally vital." Smith's article is vital, in my book. Jusdafax 23:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

@Jusdafax: The reasons cuts are needed is because Entertainers are bloated in comparison to other topics. We have over 100 entertainers and behind-the-camera personalities. Most of these people are 20th century Brits or Americans. We have more entertainers and behind-the-camera personalities from the 20th century than we do political and religious leaders combined, and that seems a bit off IMO. pbp 02:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 7-0 pbp 15:49, 13 April 2017 (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 Helen Mirren

Recent, since we are doing heavy cuts (potentially JFK), we should be cutting down british stage which is severely over represented. Remember popular and being awarded alot does not mean vital. Vital is the actor or their technique is widely influential and will be studied in acting history, this person does not fit that bill to me.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Prevan (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6-1 pbp 15:49, 13 April 2017 (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 Vanessa Redgrave

Recent, since we are doing heavy cuts (potentially JFK), we should be cutting down british stage which is severely over represented. Remember popular and being awarded alot does not mean vital. Vital is the actor or their technique is widely influential and will be studied in acting history, this person does not fit that bill to me.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Vital article. Jusdafax 23:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 15:49, 13 April 2017 (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 Anthony Hopkins

Recent, since we are doing heavy cuts (potentially JFK), we should be cutting down british stage which is severely over represented. Remember popular and being awarded alot does not mean vital. Vital is the actor or their technique is widely influential and will be studied in acting history, this person does not fit that bill to me.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Clearly vital. Jusdafax 23:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 15:49, 13 April 2017 (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 Roberto Benigni

He is only known for Life is Beautiful, i understand having diversity in nationality but surely if he were so vital it'd be fit to list the movie instead but the movie is not vital either. Warren Beatty did similar but he is not on here. Remember popular and being awarded alot does not mean vital. Vital is the actor or their technique is widely influential and will be studied in acting history, this person does not fit that bill to me.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support never understood why he was listed. Prevan (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-1 after 60+ days pbp 15:51, 13 April 2017 (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 Fan Kuan

Now that he was considered to be one of the 100 most influential persons in 1000-1999 on the world by Life in 2000, and he was a Han Chinese, Life is an American magazine, and this list made by Life has been considered too Western-centric, it is absurd that the expanded VA list, which should be less Western-centric than it lacks this Chinese painter.

Support
  1. As nom. Many Chinese painters are influenced by him, and Chinese art is listed in the expanded list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would add other Chinese artists like Zhao Mengfu or even Emperor Huizong of Song first. Gizza (t)(c) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped, 8-2 pbp 15:54, 13 April 2017 (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 J. K. Rowling Add Harry Potter to arts

If we have decided not to have Ian Fleming, Bram Stoker or any other of the one hit cultural wonders and instead list their work then what makes Rowling special? Is it Harry Potter the franchise that is vital or are Rowling's contributions to literature which deserve to be represented? Not to mind the recentism of it all. Just like we have Pokémon and not its creator, which is similar to Harry Potter phenomenon. GuzzyG (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support As the nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - Harry Potter is probably just as famous for the films as for the original novels. Rowling has little or no notability outside of her role as Harry Potter author so this is an instance where the creation is probably more 'vital' than the creator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. The addition. Harry Potter is in fact a highly influential text on earth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support the switch. Rowling is thus far a one trick pony. Similar to the Fleming/Bond scenario. Betty Logan (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since J. K. Rowling is currently the most influential woman in Britain.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. More influential than Theresa May, Elizabeth II, or Nicola Sturgeon? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
      1. According to leading magazine editors in the UK, yes (cf. [8]).--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per RekishiEJ. Jusdafax 06:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 8-2 pbp 01:27, 12 April 2017 (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 Cher

We'll still have plenty of other popular musicians. Popular musicians is one of the main sources of American bloat. pbp 13:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 13:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Not understanding why Cher was ever deemed vital in the first place. Successful, long career does not a vital musician/actress make. Jclemens (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Another in the long line of successful, popular singers and actresses but a long career is not a indication of being vital. GuzzyG (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Probably the weakest biography listed Prevan (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support - an important individual in the history of U.S. popular music, but not really 'Vital'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The fact that she maintains female autonomy in the male-dominated entertainment industry, which is rare in America means that she is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per RekishiEJ. Jusdafax 23:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6-0 pbp 01:27, 12 April 2017 (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 Aerosmith

I think the history of the world can be understood without this rock group. There are over two dozen rock groups and I don't except most of them to stand the "500 year test" posited for people of other professions. pbp 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Not revolutionary in rock and did not do anything but have a long successful career. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Prevan (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support neither influential nor very successful. Gizza (t)(c) 09:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support - I'm very surprised to see Aerosmith even listed as 'Vital'. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 01:27, 12 April 2017 (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 Metallica

I think the history of the world can be understood without this rock group. There are over two dozen rock groups and I don't except most of them to stand the "500 year test" posited for people of other professions. pbp 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. How on Earth did this band get listed as 'Vital'? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I can kind of see Black Sabbath on here (heavy influence/creation of heavy metal) but just selling alot of albums and having a long career is not vital for an encyclopedia to cover when limited to 2000 biographies over 5,000 years of recorded history. There's no way since rock was founded in the mid 50s that over 28 biographies should be representative of it which is 1 band/person for every 3 years of rock. We only have 47 composers in comparison. We have the same level of rock music representation as explorers (30) or business people (30) which is just ridiculous. Nostalgia affects judgement but we have to put it into perspective.GuzzyG (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Iamozy (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The most successful heavy metal band ever. Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
  • @Cambalachero: Heavy metal is a very niche topic (only about 40 years old, only a fraction of rock, predominantly in US and Western Europe) and I'm not sure we need any musicians from it, let alone two or more. pbp 17:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 01:27, 12 April 2017 (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 Nirvana (band)

Nirvana was a band that was hot stuff for a few years in the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. I just closed their proposals as failed. There are dozens of American musicians/groups and hundreds of Americans in other fields more noteworthy than this band. pbp 14:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 14:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I know nostalgia and all that but Grunge (not on the list fyi) only has a 20 year history and did not last long and it's main influence today is in Post-grunge which does not make it vital. We already have The Velvet Underground which is a truly influential alternative band that is exactly what a list like this should represent. If we are to keep something related to Grunge it should atleast first be the thing itself and not a representative of it. We do not have any other case of having a practitioner and not the artform they worked in (that i know of). We do not list any punk bands which as a whole have had greater socio-political and cultural influence then any grunge bands. GuzzyG (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support only famous for one song. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 16:11, 13 April 2017 (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 Elton John

"Rolling Stone ranked him Number 49 on its list of 100 influential musicians of the rock and roll era" that does not sound like a vital biography out of 2000 to me. He is very popular and has won alot of awards - yes and he does have the highest tracked selling single (Princess Diana it's honoree is not on the list) but sales are not everything. On a list of only 170 musicians in the course of human history i do not think he should be on the list. An encyclopedia would not lose much missing him.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 10:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. pbp 15:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 16:11, 13 April 2017 (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 Bee Gees

ABBA is the best example of successful pop group. --Thi (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. I thought we'd removed them ages ago. I guess not. pbp 22:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support They were added so Disco had a representative but i do not really think it needs one. GuzzyG (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Moved, 5-0 pbp 14:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Charlie Chaplin to Directors, producers and screenwriters

Influential as both but better listed and more influential as a filmmaker. Listed as a filmmaker on level 3 not as a actor.

Support
  1. As nom. 20:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)GuzzyG (talk)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support with the caveat that I think, per my comments below, that any change in categorization made at the Level 3 (or higher) should be reflected here, and that any existing disconnect should be resolved in favor of the Level 3 list. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

If he's listed in a particular category in Level 3... shouldn't this automagically mirror that? I'm not sure what needs to be supported, as I would expect that each VA level could only mirror and expand on the next higher level... Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Technically yes but i just thought this way would make it clear that there's no contention. GuzzyG (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Moved, 5-0 pbp 14:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Woody Allen to Directors, producers and screenwriters

He is known as a filmmaker who does comedy films, yes he is highly notable in comedy but he is vital for his revolutionary filmmaking.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. pbp 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-2 pbp 22:38, 16 April 2017 (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 AC/DC

I think the history of the world can be understood without this rock group. There are over two dozen rock groups and I don't except most of them to stand the "500 year test" posited for people of other professions. pbp 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support pbp 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - not even one of the most influential rock acts of their generation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support sold a lot, changed nothing. GuzzyG (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Few groups have the long and sucessful career that AC/DC has. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Non-US, Non-UK groups are underrepresented, and AC/DC are probably the biggest among them. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 22:38, 16 April 2017 (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 U2

Very famous and very popular but what did they do to change music other then sell records and have high grossing tours? They were added when the list first started and the whole 50 or so top rolling stone list was added, now that we have proper standards they would not qualify if they were nominated today.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Vital for being a non-US megagroup with popularity over decades. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 14:58, 16 April 2017 (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 Richard Branson

Was added back when the list first started and since then the standards have rose significantly, does not have a revolutionary impact on business or British society. Not vital to an encyclopedia of only 2000 biographies. Jack of all business industries, vital in none.

Support
  1. As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Without prejudice to re-adding him in 10-20 years. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6-0 pbp 23:09, 16 April 2017 (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 Friedrich Hayek

Hayek, along with Milton Friedman (listed), were the two most prominent economists on the right-wing side of politics in the 20th century. Compared to psychologists, historians and other social scientists, economists are actually underrepresented on the list. Hayek's theories and ideas were influential in many conservative governments in the Western world, including those of Reagan and Thatcher.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. One of his books, The Road to Serfdom, has been quite popular and he influenced Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Wilson Reagan a lot, meaning that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - very influential thinker when it comes to right-wing liberal economics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Important as a political theorist as much as an economist. Neljack (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Influential in economics and we do not have alot of economists. GuzzyG (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0 pbp 17:52, 15 April 2017 (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 Jonah Lomu

From the article itself: He has been described as the first true global superstar of rugby union and as having a huge impact on the game. He is a must. Not everyone knew the game, but everyone knew Lomu. -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support I think that's a fair call. He certainly was the most famous superstar the sport has ever produced. Neljack (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Per Pumpernikiel90 and Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 23:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support If American football has three then a sport like rugby should have three. GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 17:52, 15 April 2017 (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 Fausto Coppi

There's 11 other people who won the Tour De France twice, yes he won the Giro d'Italia five times but that does not make him a vital biography for an encyclopedia with only 2000 of them. The only two cyclists notable in my mind are Eddy Merckx and Lance Armstrong (maybe Indurain). To put some of this fluff into perspective we are missing - George Cayley one of the first major pioneers of aeronautics and Nicéphore Niépce widely ragarded as the inventor of photography. GuzzyG (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Undoubtedly one of the greatest cyclists, but I'm not convinced we can justify having five male cyclists on the list. Neljack (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 14:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0 pbp 17:52, 15 April 2017 (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 Jean-Claude Killy

We have three skiers on the list and when up against Stenmark he has the weakest case. Skiing is a relatively niche sport yet on here has as much representation as Ice Hockey and American Football, more then Chess, Figure Skating, Swimming and Speed Skating and nearly on the level of Boxing. While we are cutting down on american presidents we can cut skiers down to two which is perfect representation for it. GuzzyG (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support His dominance was over a shorter period than Stenmark's. Neljack (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 14:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:20, 19 April 2017 (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 Edgar Wallace

Though few of his works are still in print in the UK, he should still be added to the list because The Economist considered him "one of the most prolific thriller writers of [the 20th] century" and he was the creator of King Kong.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose if Rowling is being removed, there is no way Wallace is being added. In any case, the number of UK writers needs a trim. Gizza (t)(c) 11:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Iamozy (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-3 After more than a month. Not added pbp 13:38, 17 April 2017 (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 Evo Morales to "South America"

Evo Morales has been the President of Bolivia since 2006 and shows no sign of disappearing any time soon. After Hugo Chávez he has probably been the most important leftist leader in Latin America in recent years, and he was a key figure in the establishment of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas. His significance has been boosted for being widely regarded as the first 'indigenous' president in a country where the majority of the population are indigenous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. As nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Per nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    Cambalachero (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Very influential in Latin America. GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't like adding current leaders unless they are a particularly special case. This person is not. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Changed my mind, Rreagan is right, we should avoid current leaders. Cambalachero (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. --Thi (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Five to none in favour of adding "New Age"; four to one in favour of removing "Wicca". The switch has been made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2017 (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 New Age; remove Wicca

At present we have three articles in the "New Religious Movements" section: New religious movements, Modern Paganism, and Wicca. Wicca is a form of modern Paganism, so there is some duplication there. Conversely, New Age is a significant phenomenon on its own. Moreover it is probably larger and more widespread than Wicca. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support addition oppose removal. I think Wicca is vital enough to retain. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support both parts. I thought Wicca was vital enough too but its overlap with modern paganism, witchcraft and NRM (not to mention bigger NRMs are absent from the list) make it reasonable to remove it. Gizza (t)(c) 08:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This sub-section has since been superseded by another calling for the renaming of the sub-section "Esoterics, magic and mysticism" as "Western esotericism". This change entails the moving of some of its contents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Move Mysticism, Magic (paranormal), Witchcraft, Divination, and Astrology to "Beliefs" in "Religion and spirituality" section

As highlighted above, "Esoterics [is that even a word?], magic and mysticism" does not make any sense as a section. It looks like it was created by editors with little or no familiarity with the academic study of religion. Most of its contents would be better placed if moved elsewhere. Mysticism, Magic (paranormal), Witchcraft, Divination and Astrology would be far better placed alongside other 'religious' topics like animism, curse, eschatology, and spirituality in the "Beliefs" sub-section of the "Religion and spirituality" section. There is no obvious reason why they have been divided off into their own section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Renamed: five statements of support, none of opposition. Moving the various articles in accordance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2017 (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.

Propose renaming "Esoterics, magic and mysticism" to "Western esotericism"

If all of the articles on East Asian religious concepts like Qi and broader, pan-cultural ideas about astrology and divination are moved to more appropriate sections, that leaves us with only three articles in this section: Western esotericism, Freemasonry, and Rosicrucianism. I think that all are appropriate as vital articles, but would better be labelled under the heading of "Western esotericism". This is certainly a better term than "Esoterics", which frankly I have never even heard of; I'm not sure that it is even a word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2017 (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 Identity (social science)

No doubt it's crucial.

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support It is a topic that has become much more important in recent years and will likely only continue to. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support could fit in psychology too. Gizza (t)(c) 08:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  14:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2017 (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 Militia

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  17:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_50&oldid=1137397578"