Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Jailhouse Rock (song)

Discussion

Much as I don't want to be contradictory, this is exactly what me and some other editors find wrong with this list. There are three things wrong with this: 1) it's recent when our list is skewed too much toward post-1900 already, 2) it's American when several editors have expressed concern about this list being too Amero-centric, 3) it's a song at a time when we're replacing songs with genres, books with genres and authors, even bios with topics. We have Rock and roll, rock music and Elvis on this list; having Jailhouse Rock as well is a tad overkill. At the very least, I'd like to see six other modern songs deleted if Jailhouse Rock is kept pbp 02:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Recent" in relation to what? How many pre-1950s songs do you want to include? MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 09:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
See below for my songs vs. genres comments. I break it at 1900; the number I like is 12-15 songs from the renaissance or classical, and 15-18 songs from the modern era. In relation to the scope of human history (roughly 5,000 years recorded), Jailhouse Rock is fairly recent. Even in relation to Bach, Jailhouse Rock is fairly recent. But keep in mind that I also opposed it because of narrowness in scope (see Carl below) and redundancy to Elvis and rock and rock pbp 15:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I like your enthusiasm, but good luck on finding pre-1900s songs that are more vital than Jailhouse Rock. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Greensleeves. Brandenburg Concertos. Beethoven's 5th. I could go on... If we're going to have individual works of music, they shouldn't just be American, Canadian or British pop hits pbp 20:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit busy today to add a lot, but in general I think individual songs and things of similar merit are a tad too specific, we need more wider concepts. We are trying to reduce individual musicians, adding individual songs is even more specific than individual musicians; at least a musician is a slightly wider concept than one song. Carlwev (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong

Neil Armstrong has been on the 10'000 list for a while, I think that's good. Buzz Aldrin is not on the 10'000 list. Recently Neil Armstrong was added to the 1000 list. But still Buzz Aldrin is not on the 10'000. As the biographies jump from 135 in lev 3 to 2212 in lev 4. Is the difference of importance between the two such that, Armstrong is in the 135 most important people ever, but Aldrin is not even in the 2212 most important people ever. I didn't really like Armstrong being added to lev 3 although I don't have very strong opinions on it; but it seems unbalanced that Armstrong can make lev 3, but Aldrin can't even make lev 4. I thought I would just bring this to peoples attention, to see if they think it is also unbalanced like I do. (Oh and no one ever seems to mention the other guy so I won't either). Carlwev (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree. In fact, one could argue that Aldrin is more important because he invented the system of footholds and handholds that make it possible to move around spacecraft. Gene Cernan nearly killed himself on Gemini 9 because he couldn't maneuver himself around in space. Aldrin's work is still in use today, with some modifications. I don't think Aldrin gets the respect he deserves because Armstrong got out first. KrakatoaKatie 06:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Katie, I don't disagree with your comments, but we have a limited number of slots for explorers with zero room for expansion without the deletion of another topic. Yes, it may be unfair to Buzz, but it's also unfair to Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn as the first to orbit, and many other engineer astronauts who contributed not only their skills as pilots but their engineering design knowledge to their respective space programs. As the first man to set foot on a non-terrestrial body and the commander of the mission, Armstrong is the best single representative of the first generation of space-faring explorers for the list of VA list of 1,000 topics (in the same way Columbus was the commander and best representative of his 1492 voyage of discovery). As for the expanded VA list of 10,000, it is currently 300+ topics over its limit, and we are doing our best to eliminate lower priority articles to bring the expanded list back down to 10,000 topics. We would welcome your regular participation in those discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Musée du Louvre renamed

Musée du Louvre was renamed The Louvre. Not sure how you want to handle the rename's ordering in your project's list, so posting it here. czar · · 18:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, Czar. If it was a simple renaming of the existing article, I would suggest you go ahead and change the name on the Vital Articles list(s) to correctly reflect the current article title. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Add Camouflage

Discussion

I'm sorry although I think this belongs I don't know for sure where to put it, the article covers both animal and military camouflage. It is vary important to military, we have several military ranks included, camouflage is more important to military than descriptions of 10 or so different ranks. We have over 700 animals, but the concept of animal camouflage covers all sorts of very different animals and is well studied. It would more likely appear in a real print encyclopedia as its own article before it reached 700 individual animal articles. I am sure it belongs and may have added it a while back but I didn't know where to place it. Of the top of my head I would think in military, or biology, or color, or somewhere else? thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Moms Mabley out, Amelia Earhart in

Moms Mibley was only added in the last week, replacing Benny Hill, with no discussion. We are trying to get comedians down to within 25-40, She is not within the top 40 most vital comedians. She only appears in English and Spanish Wikis which suggests she does not have a lot of world wide recognition, part of the argument someone may use to include her maybe because she is a black woman, which I find odd, and we have Whoopi Goldberg. I propose we replace her with Amelia Earhart famous aviator, her fame, skill, recognition and impact on society and culture is probably a lot more than over half of the sports people we have here, she set many world records like some srortspeople. She could be added to explorers or sportspeople depending on your view. Carlwev (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  2. Weak support: I think Mabley should be axed more than I think Erhardt should be added. But I think Carl does have a point that we need another female explorer, really Erhardt and Sally K. Ride are the only viable options pbp 23:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Mabley is a pioneer of comedy, and the only representative born in the 19th century. Also, pitting an aviator/explorer against a comdian is an odd choice. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  2. Agree with GabeMc on trading a comedian with an aviator. Can we get Benny Hill back?--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Both articles are biographies, both are American women born in the mid 1890s but yes they are very very different kinds of people. It is not good to add an article without deleting one at present. I cannot propose removing another aviator because there are none there, so one could also use the argument that Earhart's profession/skill of flying is hugely underrepresented having none. There was an effort by several users to reduce the number of comedians, possibly to 25, so we were kind of saying comedians were over represented. I would call it a sensible proposal. Also as a "hint" of the scope of their global recognition Moms Mabley appears in 2 different language Wikis English and Spanish, Earhart appears in about 63 different language Wikis. Carlwev (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And no one else added Mabley before you did this week. But no one added Earhart either, but you got in just before the changes cease fire. Carlwev (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


Remove Harry Potter, add Kahlil Gibran

Potter is/was a 16-year old pop craze (born 1997), Gibran is the third best-selling poet of all-time (born 1883). Also, J. K. Rowling is not included on this list as a writer, so why would we include one of her characters? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nom. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support per GabeMc's reasoning. Harry Potter is too recent...in 100 years he might be as well known as George Gissing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - I consider Potter to be vital. As a book and movie combination the worldwide franchise is in the very top rank of public interest. Not having Potter on this list is just wrong. Jusdafax 18:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Discusssion

  1. Support adding Kahlil Gibran Carlwev (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  2. Harry Potter? remove something else first/instead, very very weak keep, almost leaning the other way now you're wearing me down. You do hate Potter don't you? Carlwev (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't hate Potter at all. I just think 16 years is too recent to judge his "influence" on literature. Also, J. K. Rowling didn't make the list, so why should Potter? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes a character becomes more famous and influential than the author, We include Tarzan but not Edgar Rice Burroughs, James Bond but not Fleming, Frankenstein albeit book not character but not Mary Shelley. In these few cases it looks like the better way. Tarzan, Bond Potter and Frankenstein's Monster all went on to be in Films, cartoons, games, and become stock characters the authors get forgotten. Carlwev (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Point taken, but the characters you mentioned above are quite a bit older then Potter's 16 years. Also, your above logic seems to contradict a comment you made on 25 March: "Poetry, we are apparently missing the 3rd best selling poet ever Kahlil Gibran, but we do include individual poems like The Second Coming (poem) and Howl and Other Poems, when I believe a proper encyclopedia would have it the other way round." Please clarify your position. Are you arguing for writers over works/characters generally, or is Potter a special exception to your thinking? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should nom those to be dropped in favor of Gibran, then pbp 01:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not an exact science with an exact answer. The vast majority of the time I think a works creator is more important than the work. Most of the time, not all, an artist is as famous as they are, because the have created many works, whether it's Shakespeare, Spielberg, Monet, or Elvis. In majority of cases like this I believe a real print encyclopia, if it were to get so specific, would probably include Spielberg before ET, Shakespeare before Hamlet, Monet before Water Lilies, And it would include Elvis but maybe not Jailhouse Rock. I would for example expect an encyclopedia to have Stanley Kubrick before A Clockwork Orange, which is the opposite to what we had until recently. And I believe most poets are known for many poems and are usually more vital than single poems, most of the time. There are other times when a creator is not the most famous or talented artist in the world but they get lucky with one work or character, that then becomes their best known by far, and also one of the beast known in the world. The character then gets used by many other people in many other works and in many other mediums without much or any input from the original author, and the character is then part of many peoples works not just one, and the character becomes much more famous, influential and perhaps vital than it's original author. It would not be silly in cases like this to expect a print encyclopedia to include an article on Dracula and his use in books comics movies TV and games, but not have an individual separate article on Bram Stoker himself.
Here are 16 character's and works that we have listed, that don't have the original creator listed separately, that I can remember, but there may be more. All of these have been used in many works created by many people in addition to the original author, and across many mediums. It is not unreasonable to believe a print encyclopedia to have it this way in most of these cases. Frankenstein, Count Dracula, Tarzan, James Bond, Buck Rogers, Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Star Trek, Spock, Captain Kirk, King Kong, Godzilla, and Harry Potter. Although we have Mario and Shigeru Miyamoto, I wouldn't be surprised to find Mario without Miyamoto. It's not an exact science, and Harry Potter is not an exception. Harry Potter probably is among the least vital of these though. The same rule follows for toys and games also we have Barbie and Cluedo but not their creators, in fact most people have probably never heard of those creators.
I have more issues with one work and its character's getting several article spaces in the list, myself. Like having Star Trek and Spock and Captain Kirk. Or Lord of the Rings Book, movie, gandalf, and Frodo. Or Star Wars, Luke Skywalker, and Darth Vader.
Just because I said most poets are more vital than most individual poems, I was trying to help you get Gibran added as I think he probably belongs. I don't appreciate people trying to use my own comments against me, to catch me out. I could say I know Potter appeared mid 1997 which is recent (16 years ago), but you had voted to include Leonardo DiCaprio, Shania Twain, and Eminem, all of whom didn't appear that much earlier (don't count from their DOB). Eminem only became big in 1999 before that he was unheard of. And your comment to keep him is "Perhaps the most influential hip-hop artist of the past 15 years", other comments were similar, although you changed your mind on many of them, which is OK. So why is a recent Hip-Hop artist that came to public eye in 1999 OK but not a recent book and film series/franchise/character that first appeared in 1997. I do not want to drag this out with long explanations, just pointing out it is impolite to use comments from different sections that were about different things to make it look like a user is contradicting them self. Lets leave it there. Carlwev (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Others and myself have bad habits like leaving looooong messages like this that poke at other users, I just want to say, I mean no real quarrel with anyone, sorry for long slightly derogatory passages, I don't know how else to make a point. I think we are moving forward though and I am grateful for everyone's help. Carlwev (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Small aside: of the fictional characters you mention, I am not sure all are worthy of inclusion on this list pbp 17:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Food and drink. Proposed Additions

This post wasn't started by me, but this is my view on it; I added and removed quite a bit from food and drink before the lock down, I'm quite interested in the section. From most of the few users active here, the effort seems to be largely centred on removals rather than adds at this time as we are approximately 300 over the supposed 10'000, so it may be hard to get people agreeing on adds; well I found it this way anyway. I always felt personally like, as long as many more removals than additions are happening it's OK, but others seem not to agree with me much, but discussion can still take place some ideas may get consensus, or get saved and re-looked at when we are below the limit 10'000 again. However if some of the cheeses are seen to be "direct swaps" with other food type articles it may get more users agreeing on them. I had several articles in mind as possible adds but because of the apparent removal only effort, and the fact I don't feel exceptionally strong about them I have not yet proposed them. Although their not perfect either, I looked at Top and High importance articles on the food and drink Wikiproject, I saw of a small number of "Cuisine by country", nations who's cuisine is most well known around the world. I thought it may be seen by some as "unfair" to who is included and who is not, but the "history of" section has some nations but not others, so it's no different. Italian cuisine for example, to me at least would at first glance, seem more vital than Rricotta. Another thing I thought of was religion/food articles, I felt less strongly of these but they still came into my mind articles like Halal. Although not yet proposals some of the articles I thought of were:

  1. Italian cuisine
  2. French cuisine
  3. Chinese cuisine
  4. Indian cuisine
  5. Confectionary - we have the similar term candy, do we need both? or only one? if one, which one?
  6. Halal
  7. Milkshake
  8. Cannibalism - Odd concept, loosely food related but probably belongs somewhere else; if anywhere.
  9. Chef
  10. Fish (food) - we have seafood, fish in itself is quite widely eaten

Carlwev (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's vote! --Igrek (talk)

Add Halal

# Proposed by Carlwev. Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Halal is already listed but within Religion under Islam "here". Although we could discus to move it to food I think it's OK in religion. Kashrut is not there however. Carlwev (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is Eucharist? Is that also under Religion? Eucharist, Halal and Kashrut all should probably be on the same page pbp 02:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_8&oldid=1137397501"