Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60
NO CONSENSUS
3-2, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2018 (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 Anna Politkovskaya

Russia's most famous journalist. [1] The article appears in 63 languages. Another investigative journalist, Ida Tarbell, has 14 language versions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Diversifying this list would be good. GuzzyG (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Politkovskaya was also known as a human rights activist. Her assassination in 2006 attracted international news coverage. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose unfortunately there are dozens of assassinated journalists and dissidents we might include. International coverage of a murder does not make the victim notable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Journalists are simply not vital as a profession; we would be better off to abolish the section and reallocate space to actually vital professions. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2018 (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
Removal fails, 2-5, after 30+ days pbp 15:23, 1 April 2018 (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 Tenzing Norgay

Might be controversial but we don't list both people in other cases like this with even more notability (We do not list Buzz Aldrin). As much as i sympathize with diversity coverage and being fair (as you can see by my work on these lists), he is the less notable one out of him and Hilary. Now that we have a level 5 list, we must be stricter on this list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong Oppose easily vital. Norgay was named in the TIME 100 most influential people of the 20th century unlike Aldrin. In terms of what is publicly known, Norgay and Hillary reached the summit of Everest jointly unlike Aldrin who was clearly second to Armstrong. And Norgay is a household name outside of his own country unlike Balanchine above (gets 2.5 times the pageviews). Gizza (t)(c) 21:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose. Add Aldrin for that matter. He should be on the list as the second on the moon. Now that we have a level 5 list, we must be stricter on this list: Really? Make it go down to 9000 with no change in target? That's illogical. J947 (c), at 04:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Besides conquering Everest, Norgay helped establish a tourist industry in Bhutan (by getting royal permission to bring American tourists to the isolationist country) and established his own company, specializing on "providing trekking adventures in the Himalayas". A rather important figure in the tourist industry, vital for several countries around the Himalayas. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I might support a removal of both him and Edmund Hillary in favor of 1953 British Mount Everest expedition or something, but don't see any specific proposal of that sort I'd support. On a list of this size I can't fathom including Hillary but not Norgay. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Hillary always acknowledged it was a joint effort and they got to the top together. Neljack (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Norgay's article appears in more languages than all current proposed additions (Politkovskaya, Okuni, von Trier and Balanchine). It gives an indication about how global his impact was compared to the others. Gizza (t)(c) 21:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And High School Musical star Corbin Bleu is in 214 languages, so that's not a useful measure. There's plenty of people in that Time list that we do not list like Lucky Luciano and Juan Trippe etc, would you support Lucky based on the Time list? I'd prefer listing the expedition over the people but clearly that's not going to happen. Listing two people for the same thing on this list seems silly. Why do we list Bob Woodward but not Carl Bernstein then? Landing on the moon is more important then climbing Everest, as more people work on getting humans into space their importance will only get bigger.
I would support adding Luciano. Rising to power following a prolonged gang war in 1931, Luciano attempted to end gang wars by establishing The Commission (a ruling committee of the American Mafia, where major crime families had their own representatives and votes) and led the way for the formation of the National Crime Syndicate (a multi-ethnic confederation of American organized crime families, where Italian, Jewish, and Irish crime families co-operated with each other.) During World War II, Luciano was a key figure in Operation Underworld, where American authorities pretty much purchased the services of the Mafia for the duration of the War. Whether it was worth it is still debated. Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2018 (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 Peace of Westphalia

Very important peace treaties that ended the European religious wars and laid the foundations of the modern sovereign nation state system. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 12 April 2018 (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 power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:57, 14 April 2018 (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 Antarctic ice sheet

Per the article, the Antarctic ice sheet "is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square kilometres (5.4 million square miles) and contains 26.5 million cubic kilometres (6,400,000 cubic miles) of ice. Approximately 61 percent of all fresh water on the Earth". Seems vital to me.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support we could add Arctic ice pack too. Gizza (t)(c) 21:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Very important topic. J947 (c), at 06:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - Clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2018 (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
7–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2018 (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 Cave painting

I think we should cover dominant forms of arts from different periods and this certainly qualifies enough for being on this list in my opinion. There's no way a proper encyclopedia would miss this if they were covering "vital art forms".

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  02:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support "The earliest known cave paintings are at least 64,000 years old. Represented by three red non-figurative symbols found in the caves of Maltravieso, Ardales and La Pasiega, Spain, these predate the arrival of modern humans to Europe by at least 20,000 years so must have been made by Neanderthals." Dimadick (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support mainly per Carlwev. J947 (c), at 01:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

We list Prehistoric art an rock art. I nominated cave painting before Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_37#Add_Cave_painting. There is overlap but I think, if the overlap from pop art and Campbell's soup cans isn't too much, then the overlap here shouldn't be. Definitely more vital than the urinal the fountain.  Carlwev  02:52, 30 March 2018 (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
8–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2018 (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 Protest song

The protest song is a significant type of song in much of the world, as the genre has had a both a cultural and a political impact.

Support
  1. Support as nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Addition. Jclemens (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support - per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. Weak support —J947 (c), at 05:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't think this is vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

There are several song types genres. Love song, lullaby, nursery rhyme, national anthem, Yodeling. We removed bluegrass music and alternative rock.  Carlwev  18:54, 22 February 2018 (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
2-2-2, no consensus after 60 days power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:53, 14 April 2018 (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 World Symphony

Mildly biased towards Dvorak, but it is one of the most popular symphonies of all time. "universal favorite." It was performed [as of 1978] more often "than any other symphony at the Royal Festival Hall, London" and is in "tremendous demand in Japan." Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support The main article is Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák), and it is apparently the most popular symphony composed by Antonín Dvořák. Also somewhat unusual in using the pentatonic scale in a classical work. It was far more common in folk music. Dimadick (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose it is perfectly possible to be mildly knowledgeable about classical music and not know this symphony.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm neutral here. This would be a shoo-in on a 20k list but I'm not convinced either way yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm neutral as well. This area is certainly not one of my strengths. J947 (c), at 05:50, 14 March 2018 (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 listed under Technology section

The following discussion is closed. 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 Photography

Photography “is one of the new media forms that changes perception and changes the structure of society”[1], and is one of the Level 3 Vital articles listed under Visual arts.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Qono (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2018 (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, 7-0 power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 14 April 2018 (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 a "Mesopotamian mythology" section with Inanna, Enki, and Enlil in it

I was reading through the list and I happened to notice that there is no section at all about ancient Mesopotamian mythology. I think that there should be a section for it, since Mesopotamian mythology is the earliest attested mythological tradition in world history and the only major world mythology that is not listed. The section for it does not have be a long one; it could just have three names in it. I would deem Inanna, Enki, and Enlil to be probably the most significant deities in Mesopotamian mythology, so I think those three names would be the best ones to put on the list. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

To clarify, you're proposing a new section and adding three deities to the list that aren't currently listed? Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I am proposing that the new section have those three deities in it. If you think three deities is too much I suppose we could shorten it to just one or two. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see the archives here for a previous proposal to add six Mesopotamian deities. It failed though the situation was a bit different to now (at the time many mythological figures were being added and usually with little rationale, hence the strong opposition). Gizza (t)(c) 04:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. I think that adding six Mesopotamian deities would probably be far too many, but I do not think it makes sense to not have any at all, especially considering that the Sumerians were the first literate civilization in history and their religion is the earliest one recorded. I chose the three deities above as the ones that were most important in the pantheon. If we can only have one of them, I would choose Inanna, since she was the one with the most lasting influence. (Her own cult survived until the sixth century AD in the form of Ishtar and also strongly influenced the cults of Astarte, Aphrodite, and Venus.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus generally for tiny sub-sub-sections in this section (Mythology) so I'll support that at least. We also should add mesopotamian mythology if we add these. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@J947: Ancient Mesopotamian religion is already listed under the "Other religions" section. We could move it to the "Mythology" section if you think that would be a better location for it, but I think that ought to be another discussion for later. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Oops; didn't check. That should not be a priority though (moving it) as we're not here to organise a list of 10,000; we're here to make it. J947 (c), at 04:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: in the 2016 discussion, it was questioned why these should be included ahead of Guanyin. I note that the bodhisattva of compassion is listed as Avalokiteśvara. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Poll

Support
  1. Nom
  2. Support as per nom and my comment above. Also add Ancient Mesopotamian religion (basically Meso. mythology). There seems to be a gap here. Quota-wise this would transform it from 2 below to 2 above so I'll be happy with just two deities as well. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support As Mesopotamian deities were highly influential on religions. I am not certain whether other local deities qualify for additions. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I'm not an expert here, but I can support adding 2-3 articles here. Best to add the three and let later discussions determine which should stay. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Mesopotamian mythology should be represented. Gizza (t)(c) 21:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I've removed the many headings as this proposal is looking to be unanimous making the proposal appearing more complicated than it should be and the headings redundant. Gizza (t)(c) 21:31, 25 February 2018 (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, 8-0. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:50, 14 April 2018 (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 Loch Ness Monster

Fairly well known, but not vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support mostly about paranormal, sightings rather than actual mythology or impact Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support it's not more vital then Bigfoot in it's field. GuzzyG (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support The Loch Ness monster may be famous worldwide, but it is inherently a regional legend confined to the specific geographic vicinity of Loch Ness. There are other articles that are much more vital in terms of global mythology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. Sadly, support. J947 (c), at 01:54, 31 March 2018 (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/FAILED
8–3 added; 7–4 not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2018 (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.

Replace New Year's Day with New Year

This seems to be the best page for a generic term for new-year festivities, independent of the date January 1.

Support
  1. as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support the new article is slightly better choice, not completely sure we need 2 separate articles at all, see my comments below.  Carlwev  16:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It would be very strange to include Chinese New Year and Rosh Hashanah in the list but not New Year's Day. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as Rreagan007 said, we have the other specific dates. We don't need to pick a cover-all article. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Other
Discuss (as "remove New Year's Day")

Perhaps a New Year overview would be good. But that aside, if an overview could cover the Persian, Chinese and modern west and others, why should we list Chinese and Nowruz but not the western singularly if the western one is the most celebrated probably? Either list them all singularly or none?

This article does concentrate on the Gregorian Calendar January 1 holiday, calling it probably the most celebrated public holiday. It then talks a lot about new year traditions in other cultures and includes information on Nowruz and the Chinese New Year and many others.

But...Just for a big headache...I just done a bit of looking around, and I realize it's a bit more complicated. There are separate articles New Year's Day, New Year's Eve and New Year. One could presume the "Eve" should write about the 31 December or equivalent, "Day" about 1 January or equivalent and "New Year" about the whole thing. Which is partly correct at the moment but not exactly. New Year has the most examples of different new years' but they are very short descriptions and list-like, New Year's Eve appears to be completely about the 31 Dec/1 Jan and doesn't mention other dates really. New Year's Day is a mixture of the two talking half about 1 Jan, then several examples of others, less examples than New Year's Day, but each example is a tiny bit more fleshed out. Bottom line is, any of the information, wouldn't necessary be out of place in any of those articles as long as the lead explains what it's talking about, The title "New Year" seems the most neutral at first, as though doesn't have to concentrate on the specific day before or day after but the whole thing, including different cultures' dates more easily.

Page views and languages...[2]

New Year - 110 languages - 538 average daily views

New Year's Eve - 59 languages - 437 average daily views

New Year's Day - 27 languages - 536 average daily views

Not much difference in page views, but New Year leads in different languages, may be as other languages concentrate all content in one article and link it to this English one, just a guess. "New Year" also has by far the most "watchers" how ever important that is?

I recon the topic should be included, but which article is the best for that I'm not sure. And whether we should list an overview article and a specific only 1 jan article as well, I'm not sure either, the articles overlap a lot at present anyway. I would be happy to swap for New Year, being in much more languages, highest page views, but only just, most watchers, and the most neutral encompassing sounding term, that could naturally cover all the other topics.  Carlwev  07:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel the Chinese New Year is notable as a holiday independently of New Year. It shuts down all of China for a week. [3]
I'm not sure January 1 is more of a holiday (at least in the US) than December 31, and both are dwarfed by Christmas. I would support a swap of New Year's Day for New Year. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like I decided the whole thing! 7–4 on removal and 8–3 on addition! :) J947 (contribs · mail) 22:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Close please... It can be closed as keep/add both if my tally is right. J947 (c), at 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Curriculum

Know this isn't typically the issue raised here but since the associated project seems dormant, is this article really of a start rating quality? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–3, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2018 (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 transliteration

Not a very central concept, simply the act of transfering linguistic information from one writing system to another.

Support
  1. As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Transliteration is a very important concept when dealing with any language that is not written using the same alphabet. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    It is a simple mechanical transfer of information between systems - it is not central for understanding any aspect of language or writing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

This was added less than six months ago, 5 supports no opposes Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_52#Add_transliteration.  Carlwev  20:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–5, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2018 (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 Reading (process)

Already subsumed under literacy.

Support
  1. As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think it would be better to keep both reading and writing and drop literacy instead since one cannot understand literacy without first knowing what reading and writing are. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    The concept that has a literature is literacy, reading is an activity that requires literacy it is not a concept that people write about - it is called literacy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose  Carlwev  20:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as a core part of learning. I've fixed the link and indentation (when replying to a (!)vote please use '#:'). J947 (c), at 18:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per J947. Jusdafax (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

reading is currently a disambiguation page. Which makes sense because if the topic of reading is covered under "literacy"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the article in the list is Reading (process) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:50, 24 February 2018 (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/FAILED
9–2 added; 8–5 not removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2018 (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 Meet the Press, add Eurovision Song Contest

Eurovision is a major European TV spectacle. Meet the Press is just a weekly news program (though a very old one).

Support
  1. Support as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Good to add a non-US TV show of sorts. Close in scale to some of the sports events listed. Gizza (t)(c) 06:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support The contest has been organized since 1956 and is broadcast throughout Europe and in countries beyond it. Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    (Changed to neutral) Support, rather tentatively. J947( c ) (m) 21:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support inclusion of Eurovision - audience figures of "between 100 million and 600 million internationally". Huge contest. Being longest-running program seems more trivia (and the format has bears little resemblance to the original apparently), so remove Meet the Press too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support swap. GuzzyG (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. (Changed from support) I don't really have a major opinion here. Landing here for now. Definite support for addition. J947 (c · m) 04:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support removal. --Thi (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support removal·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal, support addition Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. Meet the Press is the longest-running program in television history. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. The removal, per above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    Do you oppose the addition? J947 (c · m) 04:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    Weakly. Ok, has been around since 1973. Is it vital? In terms of pageviews? Hmm. Jusdafax (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I have never even heard of Eurovision Song Contest. I am assuming it must be popular in Europe, but lacks global significance. I do not see why it would be more "vital" than Meet the Press, which, as pointed out above, is the longest-running television program in history. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Katolophyromai: Well, Meet the Press is American only, and Europe is a bigger place than the US, for one. Also, Australia also takes part in the Eurovision Song Contest. And in my opinion Eurovision is more global than Meet the Press. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    I would say it is considerably less parochial than Meet the Press.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    Great wording. J947 (c), at 18:47, 26 February 2018 (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
6–0, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2018 (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 National security

Support
  1. Support as nom. I'm very surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support —J947( c ) (m) 02:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Core concept in public policy.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support This is a subject of clear importance. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - Obviously vital. Jusdafax (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2018 (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
6–0, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2018 (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 Esophagus

The only missing part of the digestive tract.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2018 (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
7–0, added. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2018 (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 Habitat

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  21:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Jclemens (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

When would someone look up "habitat" in an encyclopedia? Wouldnt that mostly be if they dont know the word, in which case a dictionary would be better. Is there a literature about "habitat" as a general concept in biology? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, Removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (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 bowerbird

Bowerbirds are not particularly significant or well known in New Guinea or Australia (which is where they live)

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 08:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (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
5-0, Removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2018 (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 Syngnathiformes, Gadiformes, Clupeiformes, Tetraodontiformes

All of these are taxon of fishes with their most-known representative(s) listed separately.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom and per comments at #So many organisms Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support All plant orders and many bird orders have been removed previously. Just because a taxon is at a relatively high rank (order) doesn't make it vital. Time to trim the fish orders. Plantdrew (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (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
5-0, Removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2018 (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 Green sea turtle, Leatherback sea turtle, Loggerhead sea turtle

Sea turtle is sufficient coverage at this level.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom and per comments at #So many organisms Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (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
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2018 (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 Lophotrochozoa and Ecdysozoa

These articles work as explanations for section headers, but apart from that they are not as vital topics as specific worms.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom and per comments at #So many organisms Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support High taxonomic rank doesn't make a taxon vital. Plantdrew (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2018 (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
5–0, Removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2018 (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 Lipizzan and Appaloosa

I don't see anything vital about each nor any great importance/impact of the breed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 20:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2018 (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
5-0, Removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2018 (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 Sable

Apparently a species of Marten which we do have. Either that or remove Marten

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom; Marten is sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2018 (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
5-0, Removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2018 (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 Kingsnake

Not sufficiently vital.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I think we should have a snake that kills by constriction instead of venom but the kingsnake isn't it. The boa constrictor and pythonidae (pythons) are more famous. Pageviews - [4]. Gizza (t)(c) 20:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2018 (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
5-0, Removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2018 (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 Pandanaceae

Redundant to Pandanus.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Per nom, and Pandanus probably doesn't belong on the vital list either. Plantdrew (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 20:52, 14 March 2018 (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
6–0, swapped --Rreagan007 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap: Add Hydrogen peroxide, Remove Peroxide

Peroxide has kinda been turned into a set-index article. So remove it and add Hydrogen peroxide, being just generally important in chemistry and in other uses.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. It does look like peroxide has become a semi-disambiguation page. Gizza (t)(c) 00:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Strong support as it does seem to be close to a disambig and should be uncontroversial. J947 (contribs · mail) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2018 (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 power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:56, 14 April 2018 (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 Theoretical physics

Even in the level 3 vital 1000 list we list a theoretical physics topic quantum mechanics and a theoretical physicist Albert Einstein. In this list we also list string theory, quantum gravity and dark matter which are related to the broad topic of theoretical physics. There are other theories that might not be vital enough on their own like worm holes, Theory of everything, and more, which are part of theoretical physics. I think the topic is important enough at this level, physics that have a strong theory and following but less experimental observation at the moment, covers several important topics and the general idea that science sometimes has theories before observations.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. pbp 21:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discus
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 5–5. --Thi (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2018 (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 Bill Cosby

Bill Cosby was among the world's top comedians in the 1980s. Not sure about him now. [5]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  16:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. The person who nominated this has an IQ of 300...thousand. He'd go around asking the questions, like, WHY...IS...THIS...ARTICLE...VITAL? pbp 19:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    Quite obvious really, the most important black person in television history aslong as being a pioneer in comedy. (Also has the third most mentions in books out of all of our listed comedians.) De Funes, Cook and Burnett better go if Bill goes, and i am certainly the FARTHEST thing of a fan of Bill but you have to be realistic. GuzzyG (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    I'm going to retract my vote, but I don't see the need for more than about a dozen television personalities. pbp 20:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    There's half a dozen, Lucille Ball (covered by tv show), Johnny Carson (covered by tv show), Oprah Winfrey, Carol Burnett (weakest on the list imo), Ed Sullivan and Cosby. We have no show creators like Norman Lear, Aaron Spelling or Gene Roddenberry who are more important then the likes of Burnett, she should be swapped with one but that's another discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    You know what? In light of recent developments, I'm bringing back my support of removal. pbp 16:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Historically important for his work for black people and their roles and coverage in television and also one of the top comedians of his time, up there with Bert Williams. His recent exposure may make him severely unlikable but that does not take away his contributions, . GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Cosby created Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids (1972-1985), one of the longest-running animated series. Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per both of the above. Yes, he's fallen out of favor and is currently on trial for very bad behavior, but it's hard to overestimate the impact of The Cosby Show in normalizing the idea of a black middle class in America. Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as per above comments, as well as the recent convictions mentioned in his article. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose After further consideration, I think he's vital. My initial reaction to this proposal was more emotional than logical. The bad things he's done don't negate all of the things he has done that made him vital to begin with. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • So i checked Google books and searching by the results [6] Bill comes in third of all the comedians on this list that are mentioned in literature. A shame that he looks to be deleted first.
  • Even on Google Scholar he outdoes people like Richard Pryor 137 results [7] compared with 98 for Pryor [[8]. Compare that with someone like Carol Burnett who was kept [9] 35 results, mostly fluff. GuzzyG (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope you support every other person convicted of a crime on here's removal then because honestly that's one of the dumbest reasons i have seen for a removal vote ever. Being convicted of heinous crimes doesn't take away your vitality, period. GuzzyG (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 2-3. --Thi (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap Ed Sullivan for the The Ed Sullivan Show

This may be a bit controversial but i strongly believe that the television show is more important to history then it's namesake, if an encyclopedia could only cover one they'd pick the show over his biography. I don't think much more needs to be said then that. If the television show doesn't deserve to get on here then why does he? The same could be said for Carson, Ball and Burnett but i guess television needs some representation. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Jclemens (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - I again insist Sullivan is vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, largely procedurally. I'm sympathetic to GuzzyG's argument; on the other hand we have (roughly) 2000 biographies and 10 TV shows at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
The simple argument in that case is, if the TV show is not notable enough to be on this list, then how is the host notable? We have I Love Lucy and The Tonight Show so Lucille Ball and Johnny Carson are not entirely out of place, although i wonder if we have removed people like John Lennon and other band members for being overlaps, why we continue to have this overlap in the realm of American television (less impact then Rock). Since Cosby seems to be going and our only other television rep is Carol Burnett, so if Cosby and Bruce go, she should be straight after them. I wonder if we need any representatives of television people on this level as they are mainly restricted to one show and it's the show that has the impact. Now that we have another list losing them is not that bad. GuzzyG (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. I'm not sure that Sullivan is vital at this level and most tv shows go to the level 5. --Thi (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Ed Sullivan has been proposed for removal twice: once when I was starting here at /Archive 53#Remove Ed Sullivan and at /Archive 34#Remove Ed Sullivan. In both the swap was proposed. J947 (c), at 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it boils down to one question, if an encyclopedia was strapped for space (a 10k list), what would it cover, the TV show or the host? GuzzyG (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You could be surprised what an encyclopedia can cover, and what it does not. I enjoyed reading encyclopedias as a child, and I have inherited several sets of Greek encyclopedias from my mother and grandfather who had similar interests (and are both dead). It was often a frustration for me that entries on notable politicians, generals, artists, and writers were missing entirely, while they had entries on obscure Christian saints, martyrs, bishops, and monks. One of the reasons I joined Wikipedia was my frustration with the encyclopedias available to me, and that it is far more secular in its subject matter. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (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
No swap, 3–3. --Thi (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap Alec Guinness for Dilip Kumar

Seems rather American/Anglo bias to have only two representatives from Bollywood/India and mostly Americans - and almost entirely hollywood - in the actor list. Considering the significance and size of the Indian film industry, makes sense to a have a few more Indian actors. Gene Kelly ranks the lowest in the AFI's_100_Years...100_Stars list; I've chosen Dilip Kumar but there's a lot of competition and not 100% on him specifically.

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom, Kumar is more vital worldwide. GuzzyG (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose swap. Jclemens (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Guinness’ lengthy career is vital. Suggest you nominate Kumar direct, without a swap. Jusdafax (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agreed with Jusdafax. Do a direct nomination. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I think Alec Guinness is the more likely candidate that should be swapped, but i will wait for others as i do agree with you in principal. Not to mention we're missing the likes of Douglas Fairbanks, Lon Chaney or Rudolph Valentino because silent film wasn't included in the AFI lists. GuzzyG (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think it should be Alec Guiness I can change it, have no idea about these actors really Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Kelly's more of a dancer but he's probably the better option to list here for now. GuzzyG (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, changed to Alec Guinness Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:00, 4 March 2018 (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
No swap, 4–4. --Thi (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Swap Sophia Loren for Hema Malini

Similar as above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose swap. Jclemens (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I understand the need for Bollywood, but that doesn't mean we should forget about Hollywood. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'll wait and see on this one until other editors chime in, Sridevi might be slightly more vital. GuzzyG (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the problem is that I can't find even a decent ranking of indian actors/actresses Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The general consensus is that in the 50s and 60s, the three greater male and female actors in Bollywood (in no particular order) are Raj Kapoor, Dilip Kumar and Dev Anand, and Nargis, Madhubala and Meena Kumari respectively. The first male superstar to stand on his own (clearly above his peers) was Rajesh Khanna followed by Amitabh Bachchan who peaked in the 70s. Sridevi was the first standalone female star though she came in the 80s. Beyond that, you're entering recentism territory. Also in the 1940s K. L. Saigal was the first superstar ever though it was during quite a different era (most of what I said is referenced in the articles and rest can be confirmed in a Google search). Hema Malini is right up there too and had the main female role in Sholay, regarded as Filmfare Best Film of 50 Years (equivalent to the Oscars). Gizza (t)(c) 21:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup yup, I do generally know who's the greatest stars but of which picking one or two..actually that does remind me that the same problem is there in the film section, with mainly french and american films Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 3-2. --Thi (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2018 (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 Lars von Trier

One of the most influential and debated filmmakers of the last 25 years. [10]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support His filmography indicates that he is an active director since 1977 (debut film: The Orchid Gardener) and his first hit film was The Element of Crime (1984). Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Influential European director. GuzzyG (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Controversial != vital, especially not at this level when so many other good directors are not represented here. Jclemens (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as per Jclemens --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2018 (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, 2-3 for Paul and 2-4 for Bevel, after 60+ days pbp 20:02, 27 April 2018 (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 Alice Paul and James Bevel

Would like to nominate Alice Paul and James Bevel as American vital articles. Bevel was the Alice Paul of 1960s Civil Rights Movement, and Paul the Bevel of the 1910s Women's Suffrage Movement, as both strategized and directed the main movements and actions of their eras (Bevel, with the Birmingham Children's Crusade, Selma to Montgomery marches, Chicago Open Housing Movement, etc., and Paul the Woman suffrage parade of 1913, Silent Sentinels, Night of Terror, National Woman's Party, etc). Paul is scheduled to be among the activists pictured on the reverse of the 2020 $10 bill, which will also feature her 1913 march. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose James Bevel. I don't think he rises to the level of significance necessary for this list. Neutral on Alice Paul. pbp 21:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    Please, if you would, what is the "level of significance" that Bevel doesn't rise to? If Martin Luther King, Jr.'s page is a vital article, then his equal partner in the Civil Rights Movement's page should also be added in as a vital. Dr. King is known because of James Bevel, who initiated, strategized, organized, and directed all of SCLC's major Civil Rights Movement actions of the 1960s, and in doing so took society from one place and set it down in another. I really would like to know what level of significance means in this situation. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose suited for level 5; we already have 16 americans out of 43 in modern history, which may already be too much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Galobtter. --Thi (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. These are Level 5 material. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Is Bevel really the next most vital leader of the civil rights movement? He wasn't one of the Big Six. Was he more important than the likes of Roy Wilkins, James Farmer, A. Philip Randolph and John Lewis? As for Paul, I would be more inclined to add Millicent Fawcett if we want another suffragist on the list (she strikes me as at least as important as Emmeline Pankhurst). We already have a lot of Americans in this category, including Anthony and Stanton. Neljack (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what Neljack said about Bevel. We're pretty strong in American activists already and Randolph would be the next I'd add anyway. pbp 14:51, 9 March 2018 (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 --Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2018 (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 Chris Evert

12 tennis players is too much at this level. ”In 2012, Tennis Channel conducted a poll of players and experts to determine the 100 greatest players of all-time, in which Evert ranked ninth overall, and fourth highest among women (finishing behind Graf, Navratilova, and Court in that order.).”

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Bjorn Borg and Billie Jean King need to go too. GuzzyG (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support – Remove the overload here. J947 (c), at 04:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Too many tennis players. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I agree with GuzzyG that more tennis players can likely be removed, though I'm not entirely sure which. Overall, with L5, I think we can get sports down from 108 to 100 articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

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


PASSED
Removed, 5–0 --Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2018 (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 Li Ning

Li Ning was added as a representative of Chinese sportspeople, but I don't think that it is necesessary now when Level 5 is created. Actor and martial artist Bruce Lee from Hong Kong is now listed in the Sports figures section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I am not convinced he is as important as other gymnasts we have (or even that we do not have). Neljack (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - Agree with the reasoning here. Jusdafax (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support not vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2018 (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
1-2 against removal, no votes for 30+ days.--Thi (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2018 (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 Juan Manuel Fangio

Not as famous as Michael Schumacher or Ayrton Senna. --Thi (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose But probably the greatest Formula One driver of them all. Neljack (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Nejack. Jusdafax (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2018 (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.


Kanem-Bornu

Just a heads up, Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire were merged to Kanem–Bornu Empire recently. The list of vital articles was updated as a result. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


PASSED
Added, 5–0 --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2018 (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 American Revolution

American Revolutionary War is listed, but American Revolution is not. We list both the French Revolution and French Revolutionary Wars. I think these are on par in terms of vitality, especially given that this list is supposed to be tailored to the English Wikipedia, and both of these articles have great significance to the two major English speaking nations, Britain and the U.S.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support The wider conflict pulled in both France and Spain, and marks an important moment in European history. See articles France in the American Revolutionary War ("France's help is considered a vital and decisive contribution to the United States' victory against the British. As a cost of participation in the war, France accumulated over 1 billion livres in debt.") and Spain and the American Revolutionary War ("Beginning in 1776, it jointly funded Roderigue Hortalez and Company, a trading company that provided critical military supplies. Spain also provided financing for the final Siege of Yorktown in 1781 with a collection of gold and silver in Havana, Cuba. Spain was allied with France through the Bourbon Family Compact and also viewed the Revolution as an opportunity to weaken its enemy Great Britain, which had caused Spain substantial losses during the Seven Years' War. As the newly appointed Prime Minister, José Moñino y Redondo, Count of Floridablanca, wrote in March 1777, "the fate of the colonies interests us very much, and we shall do for them everything that circumstances permit"." ) The Revolution also caused both the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780-1784) ("The war, contemporary with the War of American Independence, broke out over British and Dutch disagreements on the legality and conduct of Dutch trade with Britain's enemies in that war.") and the Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-1784). ("At the time, Mysore was a key French ally in India, and the conflict between Britain against the French and Dutch in the American Revolutionary War sparked Anglo–Mysorean hostilities in India."). Dimadick (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - per above reasoning. Good catch. Jusdafax (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support pbp 16:12, 29 April 2018 (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 --Rreagan007 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2018 (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 Greenland ice sheet

The other major continental glacier on the planet.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Clearly vital. Jusdafax (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2018 (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, 7–0. --Thi (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2018 (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 Concert

Seems vital at this level.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support no doubt you'd expect to encyclopedia to discuss the performance of music and not just music itself. Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. For the barrier, J947 (c), at 05:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2018 (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
4-4, no consensus. --Thi (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2018 (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 Campbell's Soup Cans

Not vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  21:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support removal; an ideal candidate to be retained at level 5. Jclemens (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. A representative artwork of pop art.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose pop art deserves a rep. GuzzyG (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose I have personally never been a fan of pop art or Andy Warhol, but I think that pop art is historically significant enough that it needs to be represented in our list. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Qono (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2018 (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 World view

An important concept in philosophy and social sciences.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support —J947 (c), at 01:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2018 (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 --Rreagan007 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2018 (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 Swastika

Common topics in eastern religions, Swastika is an important symbol with strong historical significance.

Support
  1. Support -- Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Used since prehistory and widely spread. "According to Mukti Jain, the symbol is part of "an intricate meander pattern of joined up swastikas" found on a late paleolithic figurine of a bird, carved from mammoth ivory, found in Mezine, Ukraine and dated to 15,000 years old. These engraved objects were found near phallic objects, which states Jain may support the idea that the meandering pattern of swastika was a fertility symbol.[2] However it has also been suggested that this swastika may be a stylized picture of a stork in flight and not the true swastika that is in use today.[3] Mirror-image swastikas (clockwise and anti-clockwise) have been found on ceramic pottery in the Devetashka cave, Bulgaria, dated to 6,000 BCE.[4] Dimadick (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. I remember when I nominated sickle for removal some time ago, that one of the main reasons it was kept was because of its recognizability due to its use as a symbol of communism. The swastika is certainly as recognizable and famous (or infamous) as the sickle, and certainly has a much longer history and usage for thousands of years across many different cultures and religious traditions. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. Rreagan is referring to /Archive 55#Remove Sickle, Add Wheelbarrow by the way. The swastika is as important as a sickle and I opposed the removal of that. J947 (c), at 04:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography#Social_and_cultural_implications
  2. ^ Campion, Mukti Jain (23 October 2014). "How the world loved the swastika - until Hitler stole it". Retrieved 14 February 2017 – via www.bbc.com.
  3. ^ Campbell, Joseph (2002). The Flight of the Wild Gander. p. 117.
  4. ^ Dimitrova, Stefania: "8 000 Year Ago Proto-Thracians Depicted the Evolution of the Divine"
The discussion above is closed. 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 --Rreagan007 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2018 (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 Mantra

Important aspect in eastern religions.

Support
  1. Support Capankajsmilyo (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support mantra has been on my mind for a long time. Good suggestion. As critical to know as karma and yoga really. And more important than tantra to be honest. Gizza (t)(c) 22:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Relatively wide-spread concept. "The earliest mantras were composed in Vedic Sanskrit by Hindus in India, and are at least 3000 years old. Mantras now exist in various schools of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. In Japanese Shingon tradition, the word Shingon means mantra. Similar hymns, chants, compositions, and concepts are found in Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Christianity, and elsewhere." Dimadick (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support J947 (c), at 01:49, 31 March 2018 (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.


PASSED
Added, 5–1. --Thi (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2018 (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 BDSM

This is also listed in Top-importance Sexuality articles. In recent years it has become more visible in media (Fifty Shades of Grey). [11] It is probably a vital subject.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  10:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not enduringly vital, c.f. my comments on Hip-Hop. Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Fifty Shades of Grey is recentist and clearly not vital but BDSM itself has had a long history. I'm neutral for now. Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 19 March 2018 (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
Not added, 2–1 --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2018 (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 Paper-and-pencil game

Support
  1. Per nom Dawid2009 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    ​ Reasoning? J947 (contribs · mail) 05:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    I have thought that "per nom" mean per nominator. Sorry for my English. Anyway I think that paper and pencil game is important concept. Some paper and pencil games like to Sudoku, Battleship and Hangman are are very popular. Paper and pencil games in my opinion is important concept, at similar level to Nine Men's Morris. It should be at the level 5. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    Per nom does mean per nominator. But as you are the nominator, you are basically saying per yourself when you hadn't provided a reason. Anyway, thanks for the rationale. In relation to It should be at the level 5, do you mean at the level 4? (emphasis mine) J947 (contribs · mail) 21:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support for now so this doesn't get NC'd. The article isn't too good but it seems like a topic that could possibly edge in here. More thoughts from other users would be nice. J947 (c), at 03:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2018 (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 Stuffed toy

Support
  1. It should have level 4. It is the same I important like to Teddy bear Dawid2009 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support – If teddy bear has a place on this list, then the overarching topic for it should as well. DaGizza, what do you think a good section to put this in would be? J947 (contribs · mail) 21:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support I would actually favor replacing Teddy bear with Stuffed toy because I think stuffed toys are far more universal; teddy bears have only been around for a hundred years, but stuffed toys are much older. Also, even today, the majority of stuffed toys are not teddy bears. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
My nominations there were similar lasast year. I have nominated remove teddy bear and action figure, due to fact that mascot and stuffed toy there weren't on the list ( [12] ). For this actual discussion I nominate stuffed toy and mascot. What do you think about it: Teddy bear at the level 5 and stuffed toy at the level 4? Dawid2009 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2018 (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 --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2018 (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 Mascot

Support
  1. It should have level 4. It is the same important like to Teddy bear Dawid2009 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support International relevance, broad scope, massive influence.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support – Vital and global. Part of many sports. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (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. --Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2018 (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.

Cue sports

We should probably specifically include Pool (cue sports) and Carom billiards, in addition to Snooker (already listed). There are three general families of cue sports subject to global professional and amateur competition (and usually completely separate competition and governance; snooker is under WPBSA and IBSF, pool under WPA, and carom under UMB). Very few pros compete across these lines, but narrower topics like nine-ball, eight-ball, and straight pool within pool are normally competed by the same people. It's similar to the fact that a professional skiier is likely to compete in various forms of snowskiing but probably not also water skiing, or a pro snowboarder is probably not also a pro skateboarder, despite the historical connections between these sports, which have separate governing bodies, different equipment specifications, and involve different skills. The same is true of the three cue sports fields, despite their superficial similarity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss
I tend to agree and would support those additions. Pool in particular should be added. If we can have multiple types of skiing, rugby and wrestling, there is no reason why we can't have multiple cue sports. I have though about carrom too. To be honest, they are all more significant than basque pelota for instance (not that anything needs to be removed). Gizza (t)(c) 21:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal moved by J947 at 02:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Nom
  2. DaGizza
  3. Support as per the nom and Gizza. J947 (contribs · mail) 02:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2018 (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.
FAILED
3–3, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2018 (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 Carrom

Popular game in South Asia. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose No. Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not vital for this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–1 --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2018 (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 Croquet

Popular sport of the 19th century, we're lacking in historical sports and under quota. Better option then newish paintball. Used to be an olympic sport.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  07:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak support after consideration. One of the most popular sports in the 19th century with the advent of international sporting deserves a spot on this list IMO. For the barrier. J947 (c), at 05:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - Also after consideration. Jusdafax (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose why? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    Read the nominating statement that's why. I'm undecided as of yet. J947 (c), at 04:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)'
    "popular sport of the 19th century" is not an actual argument for vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    What encyclopedia covering the history of sport, would leave out croquet, one of the earliest popular ones? It makes no sense when we're under quota. GuzzyG (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    The Oxford handbook to Sports history mentions it twice in passing[13]. The encyclopedia of "Sports around the World" does have a short entry, but also has entries for coursing and he Cotswolds games - which I assume we don't consider vital.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    So you're saying every encyclopedia you checked covers Croquet but we should be the exception? Did they have a spot for all of our listed sports?GuzzyG (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    I assume the point he's making is that if even sports history books barely mention it, probably not in the top 10000 topics for a general purpose encylopaedia, which is reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    Exactly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    The fact is this, if we're covering all of these brand new sports then while we're UNDER quota, covering one that was the MOST played in a century won't hurt. An encyclopedia covers history and while croquet may not be current pop culture and not vital now, it IS historically important in the field of sports as one of the popular sports before the mass promotion of such. GuzzyG (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    What is your source stating that it was the most played game in a century?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    I can't find a definitive source for that, however i searched for only 30 seconds and i did find this excerpt from a book [14], which draws attention to the fact Croquet was also one of the first sports women played with men equally too. Which would raise it's vitality. I am sure a stronger search could produce more results.
Discuss

Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Actually I've become neutral on it.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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


FAILED
3–3, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2018 (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 Idiom

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    An idiom I think is slightly more important than a proverb and we don't need both, thus weak support. Would like to see other opinions on the matter, though. J947( c ) (m) 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support An important concept in translation studies. --Thi (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. (Changed from neutral) Crazily, I have to change again. I still believe idioms encompass more ground, but the ground that proverbs cover is more dense with the historical importance that they convey and have. Thus, weak oppose. Hopefully I don't change again... J947( c ) (m) 05:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Proverbs have greater significance, I think. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. oppose there are many aspects of language use that are more important to include than either proverbs or idioms.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Neutral
As per below. J947( c ) (m) 02:22, 12 November 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
Added, 6–0 --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2018 (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 Grammatical tense

Tense and the expression of time relations is a basic category of human languages. This would definitely be in the top 50 of topics to be covered by a basic introduction to language and grammar.

Support
  1. As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support This is a very important grammarical concept, but the title of the article is actually grammatical tense. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support very important  Carlwev  20:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 05:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - I’m convinced. Let’s add it. Jusdafax (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped, 7–0 --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (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.

Replace toxin with toxicity

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support dosis facit venenum.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support addition. J947 (c), at 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

In case anyone wants to know, toxin (the article) was created in November 2001 and toxicity (the article) was created in January 2003. J947 (c · m) 03:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently thinking that having both might be the best option as toxin is a pretty broad article and we have at least one sub-article of it (venom) one this list. Thoughts? J947 (c), at 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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


PASSED
5–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2018 (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 Quinine

Under a new section, medications - see #So many organisms for explanation (very important malarial, that allowed colonization of africa). Also

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Historically significant medicine. "Quinine is a medication used to treat malaria and babesiosis. ... Quinine was first isolated in 1820 from the bark of a cinchona tree. Bark extracts have been used to treat malaria since at least 1632." Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2018 (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
6–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2018 (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 Aspirin, Benzodiazepine, and amphetamine

All important drugs/classes of drugs. Again see #So many organisms

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm shocked aspirin in particular wasn't already included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2018 (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
5–0, removed (past Cf)/added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2018 (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 elements past Plutonium, Add Synthetic element

None of the elements past Plutonium are of great importance - definitely the ones past Californium, which have no use whatsoever aside from research. Can generally be covered under Synthetic element. I've split this into three based on possible opposition. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove Americium, Curium
Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Support --Thi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose These elements actually have practical applications. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Remove Berkelium, Californium
Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Support --Thi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Californium has practical applications, and Berkelium's half life is long enough that I think it should remain listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Remove past Californium
Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. No we don't need these unimportant atoms for a couple of years or more. I'm unsure about the other ones, but this should slow down the rapid growth in this section. Support for the add as well. J947 (c), at 03:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No consensus, 4–4. --Thi (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2018 (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 Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five

If we were to balance this list out, i think at this point Hip-Hop has been the main music genre of the newest century so two representatives does not seem that bad an idea. They were the first hip-hop group in the rock and roll hall of fame and are the most vital people in the development of early hip-hop. The only other rappers that would be on this level are Run-DMC, Eminem and Dr. Dre and the Furious Five are the earliest so they would be the better choice.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support The earliest notable hip-hop group, formed in 1976. Dimadick (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Hip Hop is currently the dominant music genre worldwide. It is completely false to say that it is too recent or too urban.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Hip-hop is only ~40 years old and is predominantly a phenomenon of a few American urban areas. Recency bias, anybody? pbp 23:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    ...And this group's start was more than 40 years back, having been around at the very start of hip-hop. No opinion as of yet. J947 (c), at 05:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose I do not think this is sufficiently vital at this level and I would strongly disagree with the assertion that "Hip-hop has been the main music genre of the newest century." I will agree that it is popular with some groups, but it is far from "the main music genre." As far as I am aware, there is only one person I know well who regularly listens to hip-hop. (Of course, I come from rural Indiana, which is about as far from hip-hop territory as it is physically possible to get, and I personally generally do not listen to any music written later than the northern Renaissance, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Addition. Hip-Hop/Rap/Whatever it's going to be called in 10 years is simply too new to be vital. Jclemens (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Either just one representative or the list of 5–6 artists is best solution in this section. --Thi (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Hip-Hop has clearly been the dominant music genre for the last 20 years that at this point a second representative is fair, especially if Funk and Electronic have two each. The Furious Five were founded in 1976 too, within a few years of a couple of the listed rock bands, so no, i do not think recency applies to this, especially as hip-hop gets bigger and bigger. Hip-Hop has undoubtedly had more impact worldwide then American Country or Folk which has 8 representatives, too. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Funk should probably only have a single representative as well. "Clearly the dominant?" What about the other 95% of the world? Folk and country may be bloated as well, but I'd note that, even today, I believe country gets more airplay than hip-hop, while folk is a significantly older genre than hip-hop. pbp 02:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
"What about the other 95% of the world?" Which is why I voted in favour. There are regional hip-hop scenes all around Europe (European hip hop), Africa (African hip hop), Asia (Asian hip hop), the Middle East (Arabic hip hop, Iranian hip hop, Israeli hip hop), Oceania (Australian hip hop, New Zealand hip hop), Latin America (Latin hip hop), and even in North America (!) (Canadian hip hop). In Greece, much of youth culture revolves around hip-hop and rappers, and has since the 1990s. Groups like Imiskoumbria are known for satirical lyrics, ,are over 20 years old and keep going. (I don't particularly like hip-hop, but given its frequent use in Greek films, it is rather hard to escape. There are also documentaries about the regional European scenes broadcast by BBC World News and Deutsche Welle, which is where I typically get my news of foreign events.)Dimadick (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
My country (not the US) youth scene is completely dominated too, hip-hop has heavily influenced k-pop and there's famous acts all over the world like Kollegah, Orelsan Subliminal (rapper), DAM (band), Yo Yo Honey Singh, Teriyaki Boyz, Hilltop Hoods, Wiley (musician), Falz GAI (musician), Lazy Mutha Fucka, Sabotage (rapper), Canserbero, Zedbazi, Anónimo Consejo and Bad Balance, even Greenland has a popular group Nuuk Posse. You could not do the same for country music and that overrides any "radio play". GuzzyG (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
If you're claiming that hip-hop is such a global phenomenon, if there are two hip-hop artists on here, one of them should be non-American pbp 13:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no continent that does not have a hip hop scene, and few countries in which hip hop is not among the main motors of influence in popular music. There are also Hip hop artists in rural indiana.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
"There is no continent that does not have a hip hop scene" Apparently there is one: Antarctica. With a population of about 1,100 people, it has no active music scene. Dimadick (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but saying something is not listened to worldwide because you do not hear it in rural Indiana while i've giving examples of rappers who are popular in every country you can think of internationally is a joke. My countries youth culture is exactly how Dimadick describes Greek's youth culture, where Hip-Hop is unavoidable. There's clearly a bias on this list of what a typical Wikipedia editor is into and that reflects in the "I don't know it so it's not vital" comments that are happening recently. It reflects in the fact that rock has the same amount as romantic composers and more then jazz. I do also find it extremely funny that the international people are voting yes saying it is unavoidable but American's are saying it is not known worldwide. GuzzyG (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I said to take my opinion with a grain of salt. In any case, even if it really is as "dominant" as you say it is, is this really the most representative composer from the genre? I hate to say this, but I have never heard of him; whereas I have at least heard the names of a few of the other rappers you mentioned. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
They're the creator and are the Chuck Berry of Hip-Hop and i thought there'd be more resistance to the other names. I think the next one should be Eminem but he's too recent. GuzzyG (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Very well. I am withdrawing my "oppose" vote; I suppose one representative of hip hop would perhaps be acceptable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2018 (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. --Thi (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2018 (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 Haitian Revolution

The Haitian revolution is listed in the "Modern history" section, but taking place at the end of the 18th century it should be in the early modern secion with the other independence wars.

Support
  1. Support As nominator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I don't think this really requires 5 supports to go ahead, you could just go and do it, but I suppose it's only polite to ask. But I'll still give my support, and it only needs one more support now anyway, which I'm sure it will soon get.  Carlwev  16:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support. But moving articles from one section to the other is generally a WP:BOLD action. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support pbp 16:12, 29 April 2018 (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
There seems to be general consensus here that the song should be removed and Lennon added --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2018 (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 Imagine (John Lennon song)

With all the recent modern music removals i don't think this belongs on here anymore, not one of the top 16 vital modern music pieces. We have more modern music pieces then classical, which is absurd.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support It makes no sense to have a John Lennon song but not John Lennon.  Carlwev  18:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support I'd pick Yesterday (Beatles song) over this if I had to include one Beatles single. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support either removal or swap as proposed by J947, below. Jclemens (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Swap
  1. Swap with John Lennon as Lennon is one of the most iconic musicians in modern history. It does not make any sense whatsoever that that Lennon has one of his singles on the list but not himself. And it isn't like Lennon is only known for his iconic career as the most known musician part of possibly the most famous band ever. Of course not. In my opinion The Beatles deserve two representatives on this list and as always I think that here at L4 the number of songs/albums/films should be kept to a minimum. L5 is different. J947 (c), at 02:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Swap As founding member and leader of the Beatles, in addition to his solo career, Lennon is clearly vital. A swap for Imagine is a fine improvement to this list. Jusdafax (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Swap Rreagan007 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Swap Lennon has had more of an impact than a single song, though Imagine is among my personal favourites. Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Swap Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I would like to point out, yes I understand 5 people expressed they wanted to add John Lennon in. But anyone you was was opposed to adding Lennon may not have voiced their opinion, they may not have noticed what was suggested, or may not have thought it was necessary to voice that opinion as this was never officially a thread to add Lennon himself people could not oppose the addition that was never opened. He was removed under 8 months ago, with 6-0 people asking to remove him. Perhaps open an add thread for Lennon with 5 supports off the bat who already want him back, and give people 2 weeks to oppose or not?... Or perhaps no one really minds, but the recent 6-0 support for removal suggests they may?  Carlwev  08:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I should've put my comment as an oppose but i think it should've been a different discussion. Lennon is such a prominent pop culture figure that even though he's covered by The Beatles, people are continually gonna wanna list him to the detriment of people we don't cover at all like the ones i have listed above. I still think prominent band members should have a section on level 5 only because this level is just too exclusive. John Lennon's solo career by itself would not get him onto here (in my opinion). Also the fact that Paul McCartney has had the more notable career music-wised post-Beatles (minus the murder). GuzzyG (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2018 (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. --Thi (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2018 (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 Inheritance

This is more general article than Will and testament.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. support - only the concept inheritance is broader than the legal concept since it also includes biological and cultural inheritance.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support mainly as per Maunus. J947 (c), at 05:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. If this passes, I'll probably propose removing Will and testament. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I don't think we need to list both. I would probably support a swap with "Will and testament". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The biological aspect of inheritance in dealt with in the heredity article. Gizza (t)(c) 21:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2018 (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 Underworld

This article has been merged with and turned into a list. As a general rule, we don't include lists at this level, and I see nothing special about this list that makes me think it should be included at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support as per Rreagan007 --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - Interesting list, but as the nom notes, not what we want. Jusdafax (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2018 (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, 6–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2018 (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 Moiety (kinship)

I must admit I did not know what this was. After reading the stub article, it doesn't appear to be vital at this level, and there also seems to be overlap with Exogamy, which is also listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support. Only 4 wikidata entries, low pageviews. wumbolo ^^^ 12:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I guess I'm neutral on it like last time since anthropology and kinship are weakly covered areas. This was added before exogamy and endogamy were though, and now there is overlap. Gizza (t)(c) 02:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We currently have 52 articles in the family and kinship section. That doesn't seem to be "weakly covered" to me, but I suppose it's subjective. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2018 (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. --Thi (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2018 (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 Speech act

One of the main things that humans do with language is to carry out speech acts - naming, promising, asking, answering, threatening, etc. This would definitely be in the top 50 of topics to be covered by a basic introduction to language and grammar.

Support
  1. As nom.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2018 (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 dimorphism

Relevant topic with concern to humans and many species across many domains of life including mammals, birds, fish, insects, spiders and lots more including some plants. Differences including varying plumage of birds, radically different sizes and behavior of the sexes of certain mammals like seals, spiders, angler fish and more is all covered by the article. I would think experts and general readers would be interested in the topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  15:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discus
The discussion above is closed. 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. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2018 (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 Plant anatomy

Seems like a pretty important topic that is missing. Anatomy really only covers animal anatomy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support good find. Gizza (t)(c) 23:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discus
The discussion above is closed. 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. --Thi (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2018 (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 Viverridae

Nothing vital I see about them

Support
  1. Support as nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:36, 2 May 2018 (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. --Thi (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2018 (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 Oncorhynchus

Redundant; its family Salmonidae and its members Salmon and Trout are listed.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support redundant intermediate rank. Gizza (t)(c) 23:11, 2 May 2018 (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.
5-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:06, 4 May 2018 (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 Contact lens

Distinct enough from glasses/spectacles, article states 125 million people wear them. Been mentioned before in discussion but never opened as an addition. I don't think a second article on corrective eyewear is too much, we list 5 articles under dentistry for example, we list many diseases/disorders which effect much less than 125 million people.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    Support for the barrier. We should up the quota here though. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm changing to neutral as I am torn for opinion. J947 (c), at 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not a vital technology item, it is just a form of eye glasses. Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with Maunus; they are just a form of eye glasses. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Changed to Oppose. Tend to agree with Maunus and Katolophromai. Contact lens are just a type of glasses. Something more vital IMO (because it serves a different purpose) is sunglasses which shields your eyes from the sun as opposed to making what you see bigger and clearer. Gizza (t)(c) 21:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Contact lens and dentures are technological devices. They could be in the same section as wheelchair and prosthesis as they are medical. Contact lens can also be placed alongside glasses in optical technology. Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, contact lens should be adjacent to eye glasses. I knew glasses were in and contact lens wasn't but I forgot to check which sublist it was in when I opened this.  Carlwev  05:48, 28 November 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, 7-1. --Thi (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2018 (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 Dentures

We list Dental restoration and Root canal, but not dentures, removable dentures are fairly common, especially in the elderly, seems more important than root canal. Looking up facts about them, I read 57 percent of Americans aged 65 to 74, and 51 percent of those age 55 to 64 have full or partial dentures. 45 million Americans 16% of the total population or approximately 1 in 7 people wear dentures, (11% full and 5% partial). I imagine numbers in other western nations more or less similar.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - Regrettably vital. Jusdafax (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support as per the detailed rationale by Carlwev. J947 (contribs · mail) 04:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose No. Not a vital technology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Also on the topic of teeth, I am wondering about baby teeth, something that effects, well pretty much everyone? Is human tooth enough? maybe.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Baby teeth are indeed a much more important article as it is a a basic biological aspect of human anatomical development.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd support that as well. You should open a proposal for it. J947 (c), at 04:10, 31 January 2018 (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 power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 15 May 2018 (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 Cyanide

Seems important enough for this level, and a broader article than Cyanide poisoning or Hydrogen cyanide.

Support
  1. Support as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Unlike most chemistry topics, this one has had a historical impact. "Deliberate cyanide poisoning of humans has occurred many times throughout history.[1] For notable cyanide deaths, see Cyanide poisoning: History. Most significantly, hydrogen cyanide released from pellets of Zyklon-B was used extensively in the systematic mass murders of the Holocaust, especially in extermination camps. Poisoning by hydrogen cyanide gas within a gas chamber (as a salt of hydrocyanic acid is dropped into a strong acid, usually sulfuric acid) is one method of executing a condemned prisoner as the condemned prisoner eventually breathes the lethal fumes." Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2018 (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. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (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 Absolute zero

How is this not already listed?

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:24, 4 May 2018 (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. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (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 Scientific notation

EUREKA! I have finally found the last Level 4 Mathematics article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support I'm sure the mathematics section will still change over time though this is a good add. Gizza (t)(c) 22:11, 6 May 2018 (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.
FAILED
5-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (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 Logical positivism

An important school of modern philosophy. Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap and others (see Vienna Circle) are important names in 20th century philosophy, but they are currently not listed in Peoples section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support The main doctrine of this school was verificationism: "the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies). Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics." Dimadick (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support this is movement is of historical importance, and is something one needs to know about if one wants to converse intelligently about the history of science, the history of philosophy or the philosophy of science.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Per Maunus. Jclemens (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Logical positivism was of some historical significance, but fizzled out fairly quickly. There are virtually no logical positivists or verificationists these days, and haven't been since W.V.O. Quine's devastating critiques in the early 1950s. We don't list many philosophical schools and this wouldn't be where I would start if looking to add more. Neljack (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose "Per Neljack and "The movement flourished in the 1920s and 1930s in several European centers" a movement that was for say 20 years of some importance and eventually fizzled out by 1960 doesn't seem to have the importance that would be needed for inclusion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above Gizza (t)(c) 10:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose that's a disaster of an article, and it doesn't convince me we need that article here. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, etc. are included as biographies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:01, 24 February 2018 (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. ^ Bernan (2008). Medical Management of Chemical Casualties Handbook (4 ed.). Government Printing Off. p. 41. ISBN 0-16-081320-4., Extract p. 41
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_56&oldid=1137397515"