Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10
No consensus to add, 3-1 Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominate Germ theory of disease

Obviously this relates heavily to the Health and Medicine topic (equally to both). The Germ theory of disease talk page lists it as a topic of (1) Microbiology (Top-importance), (2) Biology (Top-importance), (3) History of Science (Top-importance), (4) History (High-importance) and (5) European history (High-importance).

This topic is so engrained in our lives that we hardly would doubt the theory, yet it was a novel idea when developed in the nineteenth century. The concept is fundamental to medicine, and broaches subjects like sanitation, pandemic, virus, bacteria, antibiotics, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and infection, not to mention cholera, E. coli, smallpox, tuberculosis, AIDS, and pasteurization. It ties into quite a number of the vital articles and underlies the notion called Koch's postulates, a vital tenet of medical science. I doubt an average person could even name or articulate a competing theory to this topic. If you immediately said, miasma theory or had a bit of the vapors, well, congrats, you aren't an average person! I like to saw logs! (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Support
  1. I support adding this. It has har an enormous impact on public health. Neljack (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Also significant to understanding ideas like antiseptics, hygiene, and a lot of medicine. RJFJR (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose Just a little too specific. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Since there was support for keeping history of agriculture, I wonder how people feel about history of medicine? I personally would prefer adding that than such a specific article. Cobblet (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

History of medicine is not bad idea I suppose, I would prefer it a lot more than this. We had history of painting here earlier, history of medicine seems more significant than that. Carlwev (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Bone fracture

I think we're listing too many medical conditions at the expense of more important medical articles. We already list trauma (medicine), and I'm not sure why broken bones would be more important as an example of trauma than broken blood vessels or nerve injuries, for example.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  19:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support RJFJR (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 05:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Bkwillwm (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Bone isn't on the list yet we have bone fracture. It definitely must go. Gizza (t)(c) 05:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Gizza (t)(c) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Parkinson's disease, add Smallpox

Our list of diseases also seems to be skewed toward a 21st-century, first-world view of medicine. We already list Alzheimer's as the most notable example of a degenerative disease; I don't think we need a second one. Smallpox was a major disease throughout most of human history, and its impact on native Americans had a colossal impact on the history of the New World. Its eradication is perhaps the biggest accomplishment in the history of public health.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Its successful eradication is part of why it is vital in addition to the number of human deaths it has caused throughout history. Gizza (t)(c) 02:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support- nomination reasons seem sound. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd like to find room for poliomyelitis as well, but I'll wait to see how this goes over first. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an improvement, I'm not sure if it was in before, or been suggested before, sounds familiar. I would probably also remove autism too. I have autism in my immediate family, so I should perhaps be biased to keeping it, however I just don't think it's quite within the most vital 1000 articles we should have. Polio, maybe. Better than a handful of stuff still on here.  Carlwev  18:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, especially when we already have mental disorder, and if we had to list one specific example (we have two: autism and schizophrenia) I would've thought major depressive disorder would be the best choice. Cobblet (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Season

This is effects everyone at every place in the world, and at every point in history, every culture must have been effected by the seasons from prehistory to modern day. We list year, but I don't think that is enough to leave out season. We list climate, that is probably the only topic that covers it slightly. Climate is also in the 100, so it can be expanded here, and it has. We list several weather types or natural disaster, while important don't effect everyone on the whole planet like Tropical cyclone, tornado and flood, much of the world may never see them, but everyone will be effected by seasonal change every year, it must have a massive impact on agriculture too. We also list cloud which I'm not trying to remove I think is less vital than season.  Carlwev  17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dagko (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove X-ray, Add Medical imaging

The former is about the form of electromagnetic radiation rather than its medical application, and we don't include microwave, infrared or ultraviolet, for starters. The latter covers medical X-rays along with other forms of imaging (ultrasound, MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, etc.) that as a whole revolutionized the profession in the 20th century.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support - Ypnypn (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support - Athenean (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support - Gizza (t)(c) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Drama

Having Theatre and then a sub-listing for Drama is redundant.

Support
  1. As nominator. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support. Gizza (t)(c) 09:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  3. support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not swapped 3-3 Cobblet (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Gunpowder, Add Propellant

Gunpowder was historically significant as an explosive and as a propellant. It became functionally obsolete for both purposes during the 20th century, although the term is often inaccurately applied to smokeless powder propellants. The propellant article deserves to be recognized as an equivalently encompassing partner to the Explosive material article; and both contain appropriate references to the historical significance of gunpowder.

Support
  1. Support as nominator Thewellman (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support—propellant is the more common term in vernacular use in the 21st century. Moreover, propellant is a somewhat more general term for something that is very important to the advancement of human technology. While gunpowder was the early term in older forms of English, propellant also includes the substances that are used to enable all forms of space transportation to date. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gunpowder is the common term. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think gunpowder should be singled out over other types of propellants due to its historical significance. Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I see the reasoning for both, but think Cobblet is correct about the weight issue. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Gunpowder and propellant both overlap with explosive material. However, propellant has non-explosive uses too which makes me lean towards support. Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Add History of medicine

I feel the history of medicine is significant enough to merit its own entry on the list. There are many medical developments like germ theory (nominated above) and the consequent understanding of the need for sterilization, the role that dissection played in helping us understand our own anatomy, etc., that might not themselves be significant enough to deserve a stand-alone entry, but are obviously essential topics for which Wikipedia should prioritize coverage.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support almost if not just as vital as history of agriculture. Gizza (t)(c) 13:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom User:PointsofNoReturn
  4. Support per nominator. Note: Library of Congress categorizes the history of medicine in the medicine section, not the history section. Just saying. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Gizza (t)(c) 11:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Surgery

An ancient medical specialty that I think merits specific coverage.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, a kind of swap for bone fracture,  Carlwev  19:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Definitely more vital than bone fracture! Gizza (t)(c) 02:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support User:PointsofNoReturn
  5. Support RJFJR (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about bolding

I noticed that the second level of core articles use bolding to indicate which ones are first level. Any reason why this wasn't repeated for the other levels? Or was that an unapproved edit? Personally, I find it useful, & do it throughout these pages might help in limiting discussions about adding/removing articles from the various lists -- e.g., X can't be removed from the list of the vital 10,000 articles because a simple glance shows it is a vital 1000 article. -- llywrch (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Its an entirely unworkable idea that I oppose. There are already enough maintenance tasks involved here, and it won't work overall. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's useful, since I often want to be able to compare the lists at a glance. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Its way too much maintenance. I oppose it and I refuse to be bothered with its continuous upkeep. Has anyone checked that the correct 1,110 articles at L4 are boldened? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I did it originally for the level 3 list as well, but GabeMc reverted me. I don't know why he insists it's "entirely unworkable" and "way too much maintenance" - I would have been happy to continue maintaining it. I would even be willing to implement it on the level 4 list if there is demand for it, which there now appears to be. It only seems like common sense to have a way to compare lists directly. Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Lets have a proper discussion; two people agreeing is not demand for the system. Like I said above, are you going to watch the 1,110 bold entries at L4? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think there are three people in agreement. And I already answered your question. But of course, I won't maintain it if you complain that by doing so, I'm once again "putting myself in a position of management". Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, three people isn't a consensus, is it? Maybe start a proposal that pings the other frequent contributors, because if you are going to implement this you are going to make more work for others, and they should have some say in that. FTR, I will absolutely not upkeep it at all, but I suppose if you want to create more work for yourself that's fine, as long as you don't hound people who don't upkeep the system. Cobblet, can you please move-on from our conflict from last year? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It would easier for me to assume good faith on your part if you read my posts more carefully. User:Purplebackpack89, I think Gabe's referring to you here. Care to comment? Cobblet (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I'm staying out of this. Bolding might be nice, but it's not make-or-break. A person who wants to remove an article can just use the "What links here" function to see what VA lists it's on. pbp 21:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thoughts, User:Carlwev, User:Maunus, User:Neljack, User:DaGizza? Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I can quite understand Gabe not wanting to maintain it (I'm not really good as that sort of thing - I'm too forgetful and disorganise), but given that Cobblet is willing to maintain it I'm not sure what the objection is. Neljack (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to bother, but I guess if Cobblet wants to take care of it I won't oppose. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. - What about an entry that's on L4 and L3, but not L2 or L1. Would you bold it only at L4? Seems like you would have to check each and every addition to L4 to see if its at L1, L2, and L3, right? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes - in fact I already do that, and I suspect pbp and Carlwev have frequently compared the lists in the past, since they've suggested adding to L4 things that were already in L3. The lists are supposed to nest. Cobblet (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I agree that what is on L1 should be on L2 etcetera, but I think that you are missing my point. What if I proposed adidas shoe company at L4 and it passed. How would you know if it needs to be set in bold without first checking L3? It would require that someone check the list for each and every addition, right? If an entry gets added at L3, who is going to check L4? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If an article's on L3 but not L4, then we'll notice as soon as we start the process of bolding the appropriate entries on L4. We'd nominate that entry for inclusion on L4 (as pbp and Carlwev have done in the past) - it would probably pass quickly, and we'd add it in. After all that gets done, the only situation where the first problem you mentioned could arise is if something gets added to L3 that's not on L4 already (i.e. your second problem). When somebody closes a successful proposal to add something to L3, they should check if it's not already on L4, and nominate it for L4 if it isn't. I don't think this is asking too much of that person. Again, I'm willing to do it if nobody else wants to. We should be doing these things anyway, even if we don't decide to bold crosslisted entries. Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that as adding an unnecessary additional complication to an already alienating process. In the end, if you ask everyone, new and experienced, to take these additional steps before nominating articles for inclusion you will inevitably discourage participation in the long-term. Imagine: "Before noming an article at L3, you must check the 10,000 entry L4 to see if its already included there. Same for L4 props". That will intimidate most if not all newbies, and discourage them from getting involved here. Please don't make participating at VA any harder than it already is, especially not just for the sake of bold type. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Again you misread. I never suggested it would be the nominator's responsibility to check the lists; I suggested that the responsibility fall on the person who closes the discussion, who invariably is not a n00b. Why is everything I write so difficult for you to understand? Cobblet (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Cobs, I guess I'm just not as smart as you are, hey? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I tell you what cobbler, how about you get a consensus of at least 5 supports and 70% support, then we'll go back and forth about this, but until then its not happening. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
So when you don't like an idea, you insist on consensus. But when Dagko suggests changing the quotas on VA/E, you let him go ahead without consensus. And I'm the one who's controlling here. OK... Cobblet (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Can we please move-on and end the non-stop bickering? Cobblet, just so I understand you, is it your plan to have 10 entries set in bold at L2, 110 at L3, and 1,110 at L4? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 15:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
10, 100, and 1000. Cobblet (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, well I won't oppose as long as nobody nags me about not doing it; sound good? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Added 5-0 Gizza (t)(c) 11:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Linguistics

It's on level 2 but is missing from this list. I'm actually not sure whether it should be on level 2 (because of the overlap with language) but I think it's definitely worth including on this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support (both linguistics and language are level 2 vital so should be level 3 as well.) RJFJR (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. SupportAbstractIllusions (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Move History of science from science to history section

In view of the recent disputed edits to the Vital articles template on the History of science talk page, I suggest moving the History of science article from the Science to the History section of Vital articles. Looked at as a discipline, history of science is a historical discipline and this is where practitioners of the field tend to place it; on the other hand, considering its subject matter, history of science treats the development of the sciences.

This suggestion has broader implications for the organization of the Vital articles pages. History of science is similar to History of art, which is found in the section concerning Arts and culture; History of agriculture, which is found in the subsection on Agriculture under Business and economics; and History of technology, which is found in the section concerning Technology.

As a historian, I consider that the histories of the arts and sciences belong under history, along with the more traditional political, diplomatic, military, social, and economic histories. I'd like to see other opinions on the placement of these histories of the arts and sciences. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support all moves suggested by Steve, as well as moving History of mathematics. These are all listed under History on the Level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I think this makes sense, we'll need to move them on the 100 list too then.  Carlwev  12:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support similar to the 10,000, all "History of ..." should be moved to History. Gizza (t)(c) 13:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support It could go either way, but I am willing to go with the majority in this case. The article is a history article more so than a science article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Where are history of science books categorized by the Library of Congress? In 'Q', the science section. I fully understand and agree with the counter-arguments (it should be in History!). But if we are going to classify differently from the Library of Congress, we need some better reasons. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

If we are doing this for the 1000 and 10'000, shouldn't we do it in the 100 list as well, where history of science is under science; as well as history of mathematics under mathematics history of art under art and history of technology under technology. (Although I would prefer to remove them from the 100 and add ancient, medieval, and modern history, but that's just me.) You could say the history of science, although contains information about science, it is not a science but it is a history. We also have history of nation and regions and historic nations under history not geography, so it kind of makes better sense yes.  Carlwev  12:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Game theory

Game theory is not in the 60 most vital mathematics articles. It is an interesting field of study but is only one of many comparatively important branches of applied mathematics. Applied mathematics itself and pure mathematics should be in before game theory.

Game theory has useful applications predominantly in economics. A move to Business and Economics would be better than its current location. Yet it is not in the top 30 of most important economic topics. There are many equally significant mathematical models and approaches used in economics (see mathematical economics).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. Math is overrepresented at this level. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support RJFJR (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I've said on the expanded talk page that I believe Level 4 Mathematics should be expanded to 300 but it could do with some trimming at this level. The trend for mathematics is to expand less than tenfold. One out of 10, 6 out of 100, 60 out of 1,000 currently and a target of 300 out of 10,000. It could drop down to 55 here at least. It is not an urgent issue since we are currently well under the limit. Mathematical optimization is another article I have my eye on. It is notable and not quite vital for similar reasons to game theory IMO but overall has a stronger case. Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Optimization is one of the critical applications of calculus. It should definitely be on the level 3 list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Mathematical constant is just a list of "interesting numbers" and should've been removed a long time ago. Cobblet (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Remove Neutrino and Photon, Add Wave

Five subatomic particles in a list of 1000 is too many. The three most well known in electron, neutron and proton should be kept. Wave, which has its own subsection in the expanded list, is not covered at all here. Gizza (t)(c) 03:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I feel wave more important than both of these. I think photon has a slightly stronger case to be in than neutrino, but still less than wave though.  Carlwev  12:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose on both and Strong oppose on Photon. Basic concepts of particle physics. (Willing to separately discuss adding wave) RJFJR (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Wave was added per discussion below.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Wave

As mentioned in the above thread, there is a whole subsection in the expanded list on waves, but nothing on this list. Waves are a fundamental part of physics, vital to understanding motion and energy, and also are commonly encountered in everyday life.

Currently we're ten short of the goal of 1000 articles, so we can do a straight add.

Support
  1. Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support RJFJR (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Add: Speech

I am a bit underwhelmed that there are these listed: Internet, Mail, Mobile phone, Printing, Radio, Telecommunication, Telephone, Television, Video, World Wide Web... but neither speech, voice, nor oratory. We are far removed from the time of the Homer, or for that matter, Shakespeare, in which speech seems so blasé that we forget to think of it as being vital. I propose to put it within the "Society and social sciences" topic someplace if not under Language.

Ooops. What is this? The Talk page of Speech lists it as vital. Now that's confusing.

It is listed as Level-4 (10,000 article list) this is the Level-3 page. RJFJR (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support as nominator I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support there is some overlap with the general concepts of language and communication but I still believe it is just vital enough at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 13:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Writing and speech are the two most important forms of communication; both deserve to be on the list. Cobblet (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nominator. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom and Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

One of human voice, speech and rhetoric is probably worth listing, but I'm not sure which would be best. Cobblet (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Those are good choices, but I picked speech because speech is a form of communication along with telecommunication and printing. It predates telephony and video by millennia. And while voice is more fundamental to this form of communication, speech is the form of communication which tends to be important and vital. Voices can be rudimentary... conveying any and every type of communication, vital or otherwise. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Gnosticism and Mysticism, Add Esotericism

Looking at the expanded list, I noticed that there weren't any further articles on the topics of gnosticism and mysticism. These two articles don't feel that out of place in a list of 10,000 but here they do. Both articles deal with ancient religious and spiritual movements that have had an indirect but not direct influence on the main modern groups of belief. At the most, only the parent article esotericism should be in at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There is some overlap between esotericism and spirituality as well but not to the same extent. Gizza (t)(c) 04:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Islamism, Add Han Dynasty

I think the history section could do with a bit of balancing. There is no Chinese representative in ancient history and the Han Dynasty was the golden age of Ancient China. It will probably go into "Iron Age" which will make that subsection equal with "Bronze Age".

Islamism is not a period or event in history but an ideology. It doesn't belong in the history section and probably doesn't belong in the social issues section when you compare it to the articles already listed there. As it is, Islamist history is partially covered by Arab-Israeli Conflict. If we need more Islamist related history, there is War on Terror. Gizza (t)(c) 13:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support removal and addition of any dynasty or overarching article as determined through discussion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Currently 13 of the 64 history articles focus on the 20th century: too much, IMO. The Han and Tang Dynasties are the two golden ages of Chinese history and I'd support listing both. It's hardly undue weight for one of the world's oldest civilizations (compare Russia, which is represented by both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union; or the Romans, represented by Ancient Rome and the Byzantine Empire). Swapping the Cultural Revolution for the Tang Dynasty would make sense to me. Cobblet (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Would support moving Islamism to a different section of the list. I still think Islamism is vital, just not under the history section. Maybe as an ideology. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support An example of presentism. Neljack (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
I agree Islamism isn't an era and can be removed but I'm not sure if Han Dynasty is the thing to replace it with. Is there a wider era of ancient Chinese history we could us instead? RJFJR (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
When considering Ancient Chinese history, it's typically done by dynastic period so it's hard to go wider era unless we go all the way to History of China, which is possibly a bit too close to History of East Asia which is listed. OTOH, it is a bit odd for the history section not to have a Chinese representative. Han is a good choice, but arguably so could Tang dynasty. I'm not sure. -- KTC (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The longest dynasty in Chinese history is the Zhou dynasty lasting for around 800 years. It also won't be a bad choice. The Zhou Dynasty would fit into the Bronze Age which will make it 5 articles under Bronze Age and 3 under Iron. Balancing the Bronze and Iron Ages was one thing I took into account when I chose Han. But Zhou, Han and Tang are all better choices than Islamism. Gizza (t)(c) 23:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Capital punishment

There are currently 6 subtopics under "Law". Capital punishment is not among the six most important legal topics. Constitution, crime and justice definitely are. Police is borderline vital. Property is vital when you consider the topic from both an economic and legal perspective. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support- Discussion below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Not even used in most countries these days. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Capital punishment has a whole secondary trial associated with it. It is one of the most important legal issues today. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I thought about a swap and looked at the expanded list for possible options. Rights stood out as something which is vital but we already have human rights elsewhere on the 1,000 list. No other article really stood out as vital except court to a small extent which is why I framed this as a straight removal. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Under the "social issues" umbrella, I think a notable omission is social class. Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy if the subcategories under law were distributed elsewhere entirely. They seem to be oddly chosen. Justice should either be the higher category with law under it or a separate point under "Social Issues". It is odd to include "property" but not "contract" under law, contracts being the primary focus of most law in the world today. This becomes less odd if property is under economics or somewhere else. Constitution, I'm not sure I see its vitality at this level, but could certainly fit better under 'Government'. And, as noted, emphasizing one part of the legal system, the "police", but not "courts" or "lawyers" or "politicians" is odd. And yes, the lack of "class" under either economics or social issues is a significant problem. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that moving many of the articles to another section will make them fit better. I will probably support adding contract and class. I don't see how capital punishment can be vital even if it is moved when articles that have a stronger case like prison and violence are not included. Gizza (t)(c) 00:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not removed 1-4 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Arch

Arch is just one architectural element. It isn't anymore more vital than column, door, roof, stairs, etc. Some possible replacements include building, tunnel and masonry. I would like to get feedback first so I'm not proposing a swap right now.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Couldn't disagree more – this is a fundamental element in civil engineering and architecture, while the other things you listed are not. Cobblet (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I tend to agree with Cobblet that this is pretty fundamental. Neljack (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, agree with Cobblet. -Melody Lavender (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Bkwillwm, RJFJR, Reify-tech, Carl, Cobblet, Ypnypn and Prototime. Sorry for the spam guys. This talk page has been in a bit of a lull so I'm notifying all recent contributors that there have been some new proposals posted. Thanks. Gizza (t)(c) 00:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

My absence can be explained by the Passover holiday which just finished; I may not have a chance to fully comment here until next week. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem Ypnypn. Thanks for replying. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hard to have an opinion on this: on one hand it doesn't seem vital, on the other it's at least the same significance as some of the other articles in the section. RJFJR (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swapped 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Cultural Revolution, Add Tang Dynasty

Per Cobblet's suggestion above. The Cultural Revolution was just one major event out of many in the Cold War, which is already listed. I feel that history articles at this level whenever possible should cover an era instead of a historically short event. Many of the reforms under the Cultural Revolution only lasted for 10 years as they were soon reverted by Deng Xiao Ping. The Tang Dynasty, as discussed above, is along with the Han, the most significant of Chinese dynasties in history. Gizza (t)(c) 04:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support The Cultural Revolution simply isn't the most significant event in China's modern history. Events like the Taiping Rebellion and the Great Leap Forward/Great Chinese Famine are comparably vital and the Xinhai Revolution, Second Sino-Japanese war and the Chinese Civil War all rank higher. If events like the American Revolution, Russian Revolution and Indian independence movement aren't directly represented on this list, it's hard to see why any event in 20th-century China should be. In contrast, the Tang Dynasty marks an apex of Eastern civilization and is a vastly more vital topic in the context of world history. Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  13:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

While we're discussing Chinese history, I'd swap Mao Zedong for Sun Yat-sen. The termination of imperial rule in China is one of the most significant moments in that country's history and the man who was responsible for it deserves a place on the list. Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd keep Mao Zedong as having had great impact on modern China (not necessarily a positive impact, but an impact). RJFJR (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Mao Zedong is the founder of Chinese communism, and therefore deserves to be on the list. Not to mention that his brutality is comparable to Joseph Stalin's brutality. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't follow: we even removed Lenin recently. And China's history is full of brutal emperors. These things can't be measured quantitatively, but I rate Sun Yat-Sen's impact on history as larger than Mao's. China might've fragmented or even succumbed completely under foreign pressure in the 20th century if it had continued to stagnate under the Qing Dynasty. Cobblet (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
But Mao Zedong was the main modern leader of China that everyone remembers. He was the founder of Chinese communism, and was the most major modern ruler in China. He is more important than Lenin and is equal in status to Stalin. I have no problem removing the Cultural Revolution, but Mao needs to be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Molecular biology

User:AfadsBad proposed a Molecular biology-blood swap a while ago (see here). It failed due to many editors believing that blood is vital and therefore should stay. Molecular biology however, is vital. It is the most important branch of biology. Nobody objected to adding molecular biology during the proposed swap. I am proposing this as a straight addition since we're under the limit.

Support
  1. Gizza (t)(c) 13:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
  2. Support Obvious omission. Cobblet (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Yep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. 'Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

In case space needs to be made in the future, one of the individual domesticated animal species can go. This is more important than dog and horse. Gizza (t)(c) 13:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that either horse or dog should be removed. Dogs are the most important pet and are also used as hunting dogs. Horses are used in horse racing and as beast of burden historically. I think that the species listed on the list are fine. I would removed some species from the level four list though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Mathematical constant

Per Cobblet's suggestion above. It is just a list of "interesting" numbers, the most significant of which are already listed where they can be written about in more detail. Gizza (t)(c) 00:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support I would go so far as to say the golden ratio should not be on this list. Interesting, yes, but not one of the 1000 most vital articles. Cobblet (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Agree with Cobblet re golden ratio too. Neljack (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I too would remove Golden ratio, we don't have Pythagorean theorem (although we have the man himself) which is roughly the same importance, I think Conic section is fairly weak too.  Carlwev  12:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Goddess

We have Deity, God, and Goddess. I think it may be perceived by some as somehow sexist if we don't have Goddess, but I think this POV is a bit misguided. Deity and God should and do cover the supernatural or supreme being topic from a non gender specific point of view. To have goddess, an article specifically about female deity types, in addition to god and deity in a list as short as 1000 entries seems not necessary, redundant, and a waste of a slot to me. There's nothing the article could contain that cannot be included or summarized in the other two.  Carlwev  12:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  12:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. The complement of Goddess is God (male deity), not Deity or God. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 12:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nominator and Curly Turkey. --Philpill691 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Malerisch (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Fortification

General topic that covers walls, castles and similar things. For war and combat topics we have weapon and 8 types, submarine, tank, knife sword, bow, nuclear weapon, firearm, artillery, things that attack, but nothing on things that protect or defend. We have 8 examples individual works of architecture, including Great Wall of China, which is a fortification, all or at least most of these works of architecture (listed above in another thread) seem less vital than fortification. different kinds of fortifications have built and used in some form pretty much since Neolithic times through history to modern day and are virtually universal to almost every culture of the world, and used in majority of wars. The only things I can see that would cover the topic slightly, are: war, architecture, construction, Great Wall of China, and these are very different topics that would not make fortification redundant, not be expected to cover it in detail, and are not a reason to exclude it.  Carlwev  12:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  12:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 15:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I agree that the defensive side of war and combat needs coverage. Not so sure if I agree that the Great Wall of China, the most famous example of fortification, is less vital than the general article. The iconic works of architecture are usually more important than the type of building or work they represent. They are among the pinnacles of human achievement and they are vital because of that. For example, the Colosseum and Taj Mahal are listed at this level while amphitheatre and mausoleum aren't even listed on the expanded list. Similarly we have examples of epic poetry but not the article itself (we have the general poetry and literature articles though). Gizza (t)(c) 15:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankly we have too many works of architecture when compared to other forms of artwork. When I suggested removing some a while ago there were people who protested that that would leave architecture underrepresented; that's debatable (listing arch, bridge, house, tower, masonry and now possibly fortification doesn't count?), but surely listing individual works cannot possibly the best way to cover architecture. Maybe a better way is to list history of architecture as a way to cover the range of architectural styles throughout history, or to divide the topic by genres like this one or sacred architecture or landscape architecture. In the past there was also some talk of adding an architect but no consensus was reached; but IIRC nobody suggested Imhotep at the time. Cobblet (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Island

Island looks like a missing vital geography topic, and looking through the 1000 and 10,000 and how many geographical features are in both, the numbers support my thoughts. In the 1000 we have river and 4 examples, lake and 4 examples, desert and one example and mountain and on example, seems odd to have 4 individual lakes but not mention island. Comparing numbers of these in the 10,000 we have 10 deserts, 17 mountains, 38 lakes and 69 rivers. Islands we have 62 which is more than all the others I said other than rivers. I know it's not an exact science but if we have 4 examples of lakes here and 62 islands in level 4 shouldn't we at least have island itself at this level? I would have thought so.  Carlwev  17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support A sufficiently basic and vital geographical feature, IMO. Neljack (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm not convinced that this is such an important topic compared to the other geographical features we list. Just because we list seven international organizations doesn't mean that that necessarily has to be a vital article either. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

OK that's fine, the number count argument was a little flimsy, I still think it vital though. I just thought it's odd, to have 4 individual lakes, but miss off the general article island. I also think if land, which I think a little weak, can make the 100 list, island can make the 1000. Both land and island are week articles, but the point of the lists is to so they need improving. I thought the concept of island and how being on one effects the people living on it is just as important as mountain, lake, forest. I thought the wide topic of island is certainly more important than listing Lake Victoria, for example. But that's just me, thanks all the same.  Carlwev  18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I read both our entry and the Britannica entry on island, and none of what I read struck me as being particularly vital information. It seems to me there are more interesting things to say about coast, for example. But I agree that it's not so clear we need individual lakes on this list either. Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, and you make good points. I'd like to point out that Land which we recently added to the shorter 100 list, (which I think was your idea but don't quote me on that) seems to not even have an article at all in the Britannica site you linked, as far as I could tell. So although a valid point yes, not a consistent point. But it's still worth taking into account what you bring up though, thank you.  Carlwev  20:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying we can't do a better job than Britannica, of course. My idea was that if a coherent article can be written about the World's oceans in general, it seems plausible we should be able to write one about Earth's landmasses as well. For example, one could describe in a general sense how different terrestrial features (rivers, lakes, coasts, mountains, deserts, forests, etc.) arise and the roles they play in natural and human history. You may be right to insist that there are just as many interesting things to be said about islands. I didn't find much evidence of that and I don't really see it myself, but I could be wrong nonetheless. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cooking vs. Cuisine on Levels 2 and 3

Ninety-nine of the articles on the Level 2 list are on the level 3 list: the only one that's missing is cuisine. The closest topic on the level 3 list is cooking, which isn't on the level 2 list. What should we do about this? My personal preference is to have only cooking on both lists. Cobblet (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Make this a formal proposal to swap out cuisine and swap in cooking? RJFJR (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
My preference is for both to be on the 1000 list. I'm not sure on the 100 list, we have food, that should definitely stay, I think cooking is perhaps more important, but I don't know if we need cooking or cuisine at the 100 level if we have food, but if we do have one, I would prefer cooking to cuisine now I've thought about it. I may suggest removing it and adding something completely different in another section that is vital but missing, like Solar System or Evolution?? or river or anatomy. I sometimes look at this page for ideas Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Core_topics  Carlwev  10:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It's true there's some overlap between food and cooking. At the risk of opening up a can of worms (an impossible debate: what's the one missing thing we need most on level 2?), my preference for "something completely different" would be sport. Cobblet (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes I've had sport on my mind for a long time; either that or game. There's a few more I'm unsure of like history of math, ..sci, and ..tech, and book as redundant to literature and writing.  Carlwev  18:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Recreation? -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That's definitely a possibility, although given we already have personal life as an umbrella topic, I was thinking maybe adding something more specific would be better than adding a slightly narrower umbrella topic. Re book, I think it's reasonable to include something related to printing technology on the 100. Meanwhile I don't really know what to think about the histories of specific subjects anymore. On Level 3, there was a lot of resistance to removing history of agriculture but nobody seems to like history of medicine, and I don't understand why. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Recreation. Not a bad choice, we have entertainment there already, slight overlap, but entertainment can be passive like music and film and more, recreation is more taking part.  Carlwev  20:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, so perhaps we don't want to list either cooking or cuisine on Level 2 since they're too close to food, and maybe recreation is too close to entertainment while sport is too specific. I see we have eight media-related articles on Level 3 but nothing on Level 2. How about adding mass media? It and advertising are the only media-related articles on WP:CORE and I'd say mass media is more vital. Thoughts, User:Carlwev, User:Ypnypn? Cobblet (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Icon Key/Legend/Secret Decoder Ring

The Vital Article listings make ample use of symbolic icons to indicate Featured Article, Start Class, Stub Class, etc. But there is no clue for the uninitiated reader to decode these arcane glyphs. After some searching around I found this page, which explains many of them. But at least one icon (that looks somewhat like a slotted screw head, or a No Entry traffic sign) remains completely mysterious.

As an aid to readers, could a key or legend be added to these Vital Article lists? Perhaps a Template could be set up, to make things more efficient for updating, and keeping things in sync. Reify-tech (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a key right at the top of the article. RJFJR (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
it says:

Articles are labelled as:

(Was it something other than this you were asking for?) RJFJR (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove Personal name, Add Name

Names are not just given to persons but to places, groups and things. I can understand that a personal name is the most important type of name but the concept of naming itself is more vital than personal names.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 11:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think I prefer personal name, Both are universal but Personal name, has a well defined scope, name could be just another term for noun.  Carlwev  11:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

To me it's interesting that in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the right to a name is preceded only by the rights to life and growth. Make of that what you will, I guess. Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Ideology

We list many ideologies and political beliefs (more than 15 in fact) but not the overarching concept. Considering that we're 12 under 1000, I think this topic is vital enough for a straight add.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support A very important concept. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  13:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support. Ideology is even more interesting than the individual ideologies, especially from a psychological and sociological perspective. I think this article has huge potential and is vital enough for the top 1000. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Seems like a pretty big umbrella topic. In this case, specific ideologies are important but not the overarching concept. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

If we have to remove something, colonialism is a strong candidate as it is just a form of imperialism. The important events relating to colonialism are included in the history section anyway. Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Both colonialism and imperialism are vital. Having an umbrella topic doesn't necessarily make the components less vital. Colonialism is pretty vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ideology covers ways of thinking, living, organizing, politics etc that are not necessarily religious in origin, I think the overview article for this is important at the 1000 level, the fact we have over 15 suggests their importance. There are lots of unlisted ideologies especially recently that are not religions that would not be covered unless we list this. I think it's important more recently covering things like the policies of the USSR and Nazi Germany, which had questionable ways of operating influenced by ideologies. Could cover covers basic things like Capitalism, Communism, and more, the overarching topic is useful as there are many more ideologies that we aren't listing that could be covered by this.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about a vital article category

I've raised this at WT:CAT#Why is Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People with 297 entries? where I asked why it is a red link although it has almost 300 articles in it? I'm not even clear who determines this. Wikipedia:Vital articles shows only 136 articles for people, reasonable as there are only 1000 covered. How does the category relate to this Wikiproject? Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been created, but there is still a mystery to me why we have so many in the category. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, expanded vital articles, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry not replying earlier. Your question is still valid Doug. Category:Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People as with the other vital articles categories don't make clear that they refer to the expanded list of 10,000 (Level 4). The "default" vital articles list is the list of 1,000 or Level 3. Perhaps a renaming is in order. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we rename Category:Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People?

Starting a new section after the very helpful response above by User:DaGizza. Obviously any formal attempt to rename the category can't take place here, but some sort of decision should be made here before attempting a formal discussion. I've got no ideas right now I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the word "expanded" has to be included in the category name somewhere in order to avoid ambiguity. The only other ways one can describe that bigger list is the list of 10,000 or "Level 4", both of which are confusing to those unfamiliar with VA. This will have to be done for all of them.
I posted a notice about this informal discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded too since a slightly different bunch of editors visit that talk page. The VA WikiProject is still experiencing a post-holiday lull but hopefully it will return to being active soon. Gizza (t)(c) 11:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

These are categories created by Template:Vital article, which has got several problems with it: for instance, the categories it accepts no longer reflect the way WP:VA/E is divided or how they're named. A comprehensive overhaul is needed. Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Icons

The lists of vital articles use icons which violate both WP:MOSICON and WP:ACCESS. Not meeting WP:ACCESS clearly is a major issue and as a bare minimum alternate text should be added . WP:MOSICON states words are clearer and this is very much the case here. Instead of having too learn 9 icons ,why not just have FA, Former FA, A,B,C, GA, Former GA ... etc Gnevin (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gnevin, sorry for the late reply. Changing the icons into words could definitely make the list easier to read. I'm not sure if WP:MOSICON applies to Wikipedia space but if it improves readability, why not change it? The only minor concern I have is that if the class of the articles are spelt out fully such as Former Featured Article and Former Good Article, they will take up too much space and shift the emphasis away from the names of the vital articles. I think abbreviating the classes to FA, FFA, A, etc. while still keeping the key at the top will be the simplest and most effective solution. Gizza (t)(c) 05:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Is having both drug and pharmaceutical drug redundant?

Do we need both? Though it's odd that pharmaceutical drug is both more specific than and longer/more detailed than drug. RJFJR (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I think that its not redundant since drugs can be both illegal and legal. pharmaceutical drug is about a vital type of drug while drug is about the over-arching concept. I think that it is pretty important to have both. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think a better topic in place of drug might be substance abuse. Cobblet (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
FAILED
Not swapped 2-3 after 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Remove House, Add Building

To me a house is just a building you live in. Building seems more general and the construction of buildings seems important. (I'll understand if others see special significance to houses.) RJFJR (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. (as nom) RJFJR (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Frankly, I'm not sure what one would write about buildings that wouldn't also be contained in articles on architecture and construction. Cobblet (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. IMO, house is an exception to the unwritten rule that general is usually better than specific. Information on the types of houses, their history, structure, construction and design is all very valuable. House also carries with it the notion of home and related psychological/social concepts. Gizza (t)(c) 05:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Building may still be worth it at the 1000 level maybe as well as house, but just to point out that house is in the vital 100 too. Building isn't in the vital 100 but construction and architecture is and kind of covers building, at least for a 100 list. For the 1000 list building seems OKish though, not sure if I would take out house, pretty universal term/structure for home building. We have things like Angkor Watt, Taj Mahal, Stone Henge, individual buildings, but others say they have cultural merit which is true to a point.  Carlwev  05:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Exoplanet?

What is opinion on whether exoplanet should be proposed as vital? RJFJR (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Unless we actually discover signs of life on them, I don't see why they should be considered vital. Cobblet (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We already have planet, that covers Solar system planets and exoplanets. Astronomy has quite a few articles, if we were to add more I'm not sure this would be next in line.  Carlwev  13:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your point about planet covering exoplanets. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Level 3 Architecture

I am trying to rationalise the arrangement of the architecture Vital articles which is inconsistent to the point of being a joke. Rather than simply accepting articles as they are nominated and score 5 points, there needs to be a consistent tree.

Subsection 1. Architectural practice

Subsection 2. Architecture by type:

  • Castle This is a highly developed article of broad coverage
Subsection 3. Architectural style

Level 4 architecture

  • At Level 4 Individual works of outstanding importance, including those buildings that currently occupy the Level 3 space where architectural styles ought to be. The [[[Parthenon]] should be at a lower level than Ancient Greek architecture. Great wall of China should be at a lower level than Fortification.

Section: Architectural works

Remove from Level 3 These are also on Level 4, where they should be.

Current list:

Note: My proposals for additions to Level 4 architecture have been made at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded Amandajm (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the way architecture is represented on the Level 3 and 4 lists is unsatisfactory, and your attempt to organize things better is most welcome. But if I'm reading you correctly, you are suggesting we add nearly 30 articles on architecture to the level 3 list: that's clearly unreasonable when we only have 56 articles on the arts in general. While I agree that it makes no sense to represent architecture with specific works instead of general topics, I think one or two works of extraordinary significance deserve to remain, just as we have a handful of works of literature, and a rather larger selection of specific people and places. I'd suggest retaining the Pyramids and the Great Wall, and removing the other architectural works in favour of topics like Architectural drawing and History of architecture. Particularly notable types of architecture (sacred architecture, fortification/castle, skyscraper) could also be added. Cobblet (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no "one or two" most famous works of architecture. You can't leave the Pyramids and the Great Wall, and not leave the Taj Mahal, the Parthenon, St Peter's Basilica (which somehow missed the list). The buildings need to go together.
And regarding the arts, they need fixing as well. As you'll notice, my level 3 suggestions have some optional subsections Amandajm (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
IMO the Pyramids and the Great Wall are the single most vital examples of civil and military engineering respectively, these being the traditional (i.e. pre-Industrial Revolution) subdivisions of engineering. Cobblet (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I would be a little suspicious of people in most situations who thought that "fortification" was vital. "Home security" or similar, fine! The things people need to survive include food, clothing and shelter - so architecture gets right up towards top billing. As far as specifics are concerned, there are already articles mentioned like Ancient Egypt. Gregkaye (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Tourism

Major part of the modern world growing since Victorian times, I believe this is a topic that would be covered before listing around 15 artists and musicians and writers, several filmmakers, several works of literature and architecture. It's a global multibillion dollar industry, very large percentage of the western world travel or go on holiday/vacation. According to the article China alone spent over 100 billion US dollars in one year on tourism, and article says that services needed by tourists accounts for 30% of worlds services and 6% of world goods and services in general. To not have it in a 1000 list seems odd (I would probably have it personally if the list was only 500 entries). The only things that cover it at all now are, transport, trade, and industry which are way too broad and definitely don't make it redundant. A swap was previously opened for History of Agriculture, 4 people stated they would add tourism and some of the opposes seemed more opposed to the removal of history agriculture in particular.  Carlwev  16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support (I didn't realize the size of the economic impact of tourism previously) RJFJR (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
Which section would this be put it? '7.3 Recreation and entertainment'? RJFJR (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably the same place it is at Level 4 pbp 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I would presume business and economics under industry, mirroring the placement in the 10,000 list. I'ts an industry like the others, but not a tech or art like film, or engineering or electronics (which could be industries) so would be in industry I think.  Carlwev  12:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 6-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove World Wide Web

I don't think an encyclopedia limited to 1000 entries would have both the internet and the World Wide Web. I know they not the same but there is there is a lot of overlap, the main importance of the WWW is that it is one of the main things of the internet Computer topics have a lot of space, we have artificial intelligence which I don't mind, and computing, not sure we need this either (how about removing this also). We also have mobile phone plus telephone, but these I don't think are as bad, and slightly less overlap. Internet is by far the most used term that people will look for out of the two.  Carlwev  16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support (The Internet article discusses the WWW as one use of the Internet.) RJFJR (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Malerisch (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Computer science

Computer science is a major scientific field and should be included on this list. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support RJFJR (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Lithistman (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 7-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Golden ratio

This proposal was also mentioned above. The golden ratio has far fewer applications in mathematics than 0, pi, or e. It ranks lower than 1 or i in importance. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Other than it's aesthetic appeal it isn't very significant or used. RJFJR (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support At this level there's no way this is one of the most important articles related to math or art to have. (Linear algebra? Prehistoric art?) Cobblet (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Not in the same league as the other mathematical constants. Gizza (t)(c) 01:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per Gizza and Cobblet. Yaris678 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support I will also note that of the first 40 hits in Google Scholar since 2010 that use "golden ratio", only three are about art or architecture. If this isn't vital as a mathematics term, it should be removed. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal instead move to Art section. The topic is meaningful for architecture and painting, but it's not a relevant math topic. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I'm not sure it's a top art article we don't even have animation or puppetry, and comics was removed too.  Carlwev  08:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Add Magnetism, Remove Magnet

I would prefer including the general phenomenon over the object, but this can be debated. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support It's the force itself that is the more vital concept. Cobblet (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. 56% Support. My hesitance is largely with the application of this generally, but magnetism seems to be a more vital page than magnet at this level. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  21:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
When magnet was added (see here) there was a slight discussion of magnet or magnetism as the article to add. RJFJR (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Ear

We have eye, normally any encyclopedia that covers eye normally covers ear too. We have sound, but then we have light and color and they are physics topics anyway not biology. Nothing really covers this except sound and anatomy. Might be an unfair comparison, but I'm sure I've come across articles about the ear in science book before say liver which we have.  Carlwev  16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Ear seems just as vital as eye. Obviously crucial for communication and language. Neljack (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support IMO the eye is more vital than the ear, but both are vital enough for this list. Malerisch (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support although I don't think I'd support adding any more anatomy articles – in fact I'd still support removing blood as has been proposed in the past (subsumed by circulatory system at this level, just like bone ought to be subsumed by skeleton). Cobblet (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support for reasons already stated by others. Just want to add a fifth vote to aid with process. Comments in "Discussion" below are also poignant and should get their own sections. Muffinator (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'd remove some of the medicine based biology first. We have hypertension, or high blood pressure, I haven't given it extensive thought but I'm sure I'd have blood before high blood pressure. I dislike burn why it's more important than bone fracture or wound I don't know.  Carlwev  09:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Cobblet (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cobblet: If we are preferring the general organ system articles over specific parts, should lung be replaced with respiratory system, skin with integumentary system (which would cover hair, feathers, and scales), and muscle with muscular system? Also, is the liver (part of the digestive system) important enough to have its own spot? (I also agree that human gastrointestinal tract should be replaced with digestion.) And should the endocrine system and the reproductive system be included? Malerisch (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

On systems vs. specific organs: maybe, I'm honestly not sure. It's a question of how many anatomy articles we want and how we want to balance out the coverage: for example, arguments could be made to include both blood and endocrine system, one or the other, or neither. The liver is definitely that important though, yes. I've always thought female and male are poor choices and sexual reproduction and reproductive system in place of them would be better. Cobblet (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Bahá'í Faith

  • For religion and philosophy, an article that stands out to me as less vital is Bahá'í Faith, I was unfamiliar with this before taking part in vital articles, despite doing religious studies in college, (although I wasn't that great at it). I was only going to ask an open question but I may as open a thread for removal. The article says it's first humble incarnations were in 1844 and it started small and grew larger later. It's never been a majority religion in any territory of the world. Different counts from 1986 to today place number of followers at just under 5 million to just over 7 million, considerably smaller than other religions listed. If we listed all religions with such a short history and/or small following, the list of religions would be massive. I'm not looking for examples but I'm certain there must be numerous examples of religions we are missing from the 1000 that have more followers and history than this. We include religions with fairly small numbers but they have higher numbers and importance historically like Judaism (although that's still bigger than Bahá'í anyway). Is there a reason this religion is more vital than other small religions that I'm missing?  Carlwev  13:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  13:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Maybe a case could be made for adding new religious movement but a specific example is almost certainly not necessary. Jainism's significance in South Asian history and culture is big enough that I think it might deserve to be on the list even if it went extinct entirely. Cobblet (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support I would support keeping Jainism and Zoroastrianism due to their history and influence on other religions and beliefs of today. The Baha'i faith neither has much history nor a significant number of followers to be at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 00:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I have noticed we list Jainism a religion of approx 5 million also, but this has a history going back to the 5th century BC and was bigger in the past than today.  Carlwev  13:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not removed 4-3/2 after 60+ days. Malerisch (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Caspian Sea, Great Lakes, Lake Baikal, and Lake Victoria

I tend to agree with the idea originally brought up in the Island discussion above that it's unnecessary to list these lakes. Removing these lakes would allow more room for cities, countries, or even rivers. I doubt that anyone would consider Shanghai, Seoul, South Korea, Los Angeles, Chicago, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Poland, Dubai, Frankfurt, or Berlin to be less important than these lakes. Even if some of these cities may be less important, most countries are still more vital (e.g. Vietnam, Ethiopia, Thailand, or South Korea). The lakes seem to be much less important than the oceans or the rivers. They should not be included simply because they are large. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support RJFJR (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Lake Baikal is the only one I'd be OK with removing at this point. Perhaps we need to add or swap in more notable rivers to improve or balance out our coverage of smaller bodies of water (say Tigris/Euphrates for the Caspian or Huang He or Indus or Ganges for Lake Baikal) but deleting these en masse without asking the question of what constitutes a level-3 vital article on hydrology doesn't make sense to me. (All the rivers I mentioned are significant because they're cradles of civilization; but if we list the cradle of civilization is it still necessary to list the river separately at this level?) I'd certainly consider all of these lakes more significant than Dubai or Frankfurt or any city that's only become notable in the 20th century. I think the Great Lakes are more vital than any city on their shores (Chicago included), just like the Mississippi's significance transcends that of New Orleans or St. Louis. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per Cobblet. Lithistman (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Caspian Sea. Neutral on the others. Gizza (t)(c) 01:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

This seems sensible. We removed Caribbean Sea a while back, I never supported or opposed, but I thought it odd to leave these lakes here and remove the Caribbean, that is larger and contains several island nations, plus mainland coasts, and kind has it's own unique interlinked culture, almost seems like we could put it back?. I have previously thought of some of the places you said too, as probably should be in, my own mental list of nation/region possibilities were South Korea/Korea, Ethiopia, Morocco, Argentina, Vietnam, Thailand, Poland, Scandinavia. Others seem to really dislike nations, not sure why, especially when we have 136 people, most nations are more important than most people, sure Einstein is more important than Trinidad and Tobago, but I doubt Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Frida Kahlo, Sergei Eisenstein etc are more important than any of those listed nations. Many of these nations were previously listed here in the 1000 and for a long time too, but removed without much/any discussion or any voting at all ages ago, I don't see why why we can't have some of them back. The contents of the list at the exact time we went into voted changes only was coincidence only, it could have locked down with them in but didn't, luck of the draw to those that made the ark.  Carlwev  13:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I will probably support most of these removals. I'm fairly neutral with Caspian Sea at the moment. But on the subject of natural features, I would suggest adding the Amazon Rainforest. If hypothetically some of the geographical features currently listed such as Mount Everest were to disappear, it would not cause many issues for human society. OTOH, the environmental consequences of the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest are far greater. It is fundamental to our survival. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggested by that comment I looked and we hace forest but not rainforest as a vital article. Is rainforest distinct enough from forest that it should be added? RJFJR (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Tough questions to answer. I'd argue that the Great Lakes are as vital to North American history and geography as the Mississippi River, so I don't understand why you'd remove the former without also removing the latter. Also compare the Caspian to the Black Sea: is the former really more vital than the latter just because it's not connected to the other oceans? (Even the Volga seems more vital to me than the body of water it drains into.) Is Lake Baikal really more vital than the Ganges or Huang He?

I don't think it's necessary to list both the Amazon and the Amazon rainforest, but I find listing both forest and rainforest more acceptable. I think Gizza's right about Mt. Everest not being that vital, the quest to climb it being comparable to events like the race to the South Pole; so why include one but not the other? Maybe exploration as a general topic could be worth listing, particularly if major explorations after the Age of Discovery was merged into it.

I think Carlwev is simply right about most nations being more vital than most individual people. If there's any logic to prefer keeping Frida Kahlo as an article to represent Latin American culture over Colombia or Argentina, could the same logic not be used to support removing Bangladesh in order to add Rabindranath Tagore? Is there anyone who would actually support that swap? We currently list 136 people and 24 countries: personally, I think changing this ratio to 120 people and 40 countries, or even 100 people and 60 countries, would significantly improve the list. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm wary about the "absolute importance=vitality" metric that seems to be used in some of this discussion (examples: "most nations are more important than most people", "I doubt that anyone would consider Shanghai...to be less important than these lakes"). I think a more fruitful way to assess vitality is "exemplary instance=vitality". In this system, we think about topics and what examples would we need to have a full-ish view of that topic. If someone were to take a course in a topic, what examples would be must-discuss. This allows us to work against biases towards certain topics (because our assessment of importance is definitely culturally shaped), avoids some of the very hard discussions about which composer is more important, and provides a richer, fuller list of vital articles. Having said that, a lake or body of water may be very relevant for a "exemplary instance=vitality" list. Certainly a list of the 1000 most vital topics which lacked any bodies of water would be quite suspect in terms of its coverage. Having said all that, I think the decision should be region-historical based: Has this body of water provided pivotal shaping influence on the culture of the region, more so than other geologic and natural forces? By this test, Mediterranean passes. Lake Baikal and Caspian Sea--probably not. Lake Victoria and Great Lakes...maybe. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I was speaking more to issues of balance: IMO the list has too many people and not enough countries. What do you actually mean by "pivotal shaping influence" though, and why does it not apply in the case of the Caspian? Because your other "exemplary instance" criterion would suggest that we should definitely include it as the world's largest lake/inland ocean. I imagine it would come up in a class as basic as middle school geography. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I think I'd probably cut differently on the people versus places distinction for more people, but yeah I think that might be more for a larger discussion. On this topic, there is a distinct difference between bodies of water which have developed some identity in the region and those which have not. The Mediterranean should be the ruler here. The Caspian is a big body of water, but its importance as the center of civilizational development, trade, etc. is limited to brief periods when compared with other seas: Black Sea, Red Sea, Caribbean Sea, Sea of Japan (sic), Bay of Bengal, Persian Gulf, Great Lakes, Dead sea, Lake Victoria and Baltic Sea are all probably closer to the Mediterranean than is the Caspian Sea in terms of maintaining a regional identity through history. Maybe, we say: OK, we need an inland sea for balance reasons. I'm fine with that. I suspect there is general agreement on Lake Baikal, and then we all will draw the line differently based upon various other issues. I'd support the inclusion of Great Lakes and Lake Victoria on a list (depending on space trade-offs), would neither support nor oppose Caspian Sea, and would probably oppose Baikal.AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I see. It's interesting that the fact the Caspian Sea isn't connected to other oceans diminishes its importance from a historic perspective (which I understand; I think even the Volga is more significant when viewed from that angle), but increases its uniqueness from a geographic perspective. Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes- I'm revising my conclusion (based on discussions and rereading some of the posts). Same logic as above (so not absolute vitality [x is greater than y], but exemplary vitality [x is a vital example of y]), but I think the category 'Lake' suffices for a list of this size. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@AbstractIllusions:, I agree with you that exemplary instance is another way to determine vitality, not just "absolute importance". There are diseases not even listed on the expanded list which are in the scheme of things more important than distant planets we list here such as Neptune. But the vital list should reflect Wikipedia's goal of giving everyone access to the sum of all human knowledge and therefore cover a breadth of topics. The vitality criteria for cities and the criteria for lakes will inevitably be different. It is difficult to compare them with each other. Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been clear and this is my own fault as I thought and rethought about the topic. Here's the two systems clearly suggested: A. Vitality is importance. When we have two different topics, go with the one that most people would know about. So, Seoul>Lake Baikal (from the original nomination). B. Vitality is exemplary. When we have two different topics, go with the one which fills a topical niche that should be filled on a list of 1000 vital articles. So, do we have an example of an Asian mega-city? Yes so we don't need Seoul. Approach B aims exactly for breadth of topics. (In full application, rather than having multiple classical composers because each one is quite famous and important, we would have one or two and then have other niches to fill for other types of musicians). When I apply this to the specific question here. Approach A seems clearly to support removal of all four lakes and creating space for other additions. Approach B seems to allow them to be included if we decide that the category of 'Lake' itself is so important as to require sub-examples. Then we pick which lakes fill different niches (in this case, something like Big Freshwater, Big Saltwater, Artificial--maybe glacial also). However, while I would 100% support Cobblet's call for a meta-discussion on hydrological features, I think the breadth of the topic is achieved with the 'Lake' article and am not sure other examples are necessary. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not removed 3-2 after 60+ days. Malerisch (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Bhagavad Gita

The Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, a work that is already on this list. There is no need to list both. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nominator's reasoning in the discussion regarding the OT and NT, as well as the Torah. Lithistman (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If we should remove something, it should be the Mahabharata. The Bhagavad Gita is included because it is one of the three most vital articles about Hinduism (not including the main article). Christianity and Islam have four subarticles each while Buddhism and Hinduism have three each, which I think is reasonable considering each religion's history, current number of followers and general influence across society. At this level, the Mahabharata is vital only as a work of literature, not for any religious reason. It is more in line with the Iliad, Odyssey and the works actually listed alongside it (Don Quixote, Shahnameh, Epic of Gilgamesh). To avoid the overlap, the Mahabharata can be replaced with Ramayana or with a literary work from another region of the world. Gizza (t)(c) 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The Gita is primarily a philosophical work; while Mahabharata is primarily a mythological work. The Bhagavad Gita is the core of Hindu philosophy and has many commentaries on this regarding it as an independent work. The Mahabharata is VA in literature as it is the longest poem (or at least epic poem) in the world. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
note: The Bhagavad Gita is under Specific religions (Hinduism) while Mahabharata is under literature (works).
The article Mahabharata doesn't seem to go into detail on the Bhagavad Gita. Is the Bhagavad Gita a particularly important portion of the Mahabharata? RJFJR (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't consider myself particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but Torah, a section of the Tanakh, is not on the list, and neither are the Old Testament or the New Testament, parts of the Bible. I don't think that the placement of the Mahabharata in literature rather than religion changes that much. Malerisch (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
content is vital, I would list it as: "Bhagavad Gita, (either as independent article or as subsection of Mahabharata(see literature))". In the first case, Bhagavad Gita (the holy bit of the literature) would have its own article and in the second case it could have a redirect from the name space "Bhagavad Gita"Gregkaye (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think this overlap is appropriate when only 4 works of literature are listed—we don't even list the Iliad or any of Shakespeare's works! I'd be okay with removing the Mahabharata instead although. Could a possible replacement be Romance of the Three Kingdoms instead of the Ramayana? From what I've read, the Mahabharata is regarded as more vital than the Ramayana, but it isn't really compared with Romance. To quote from the article, "The novel is among the most beloved works of literature in East Asia, and its literary influence in the region has been compared to that of the works of Shakespeare on English literature. It is arguably the most widely read historical novel in late imperial and modern China." Malerisch (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding Romance of the Three Kingdoms instead of The Analects is like listing Don Quixote at the expense of the Bible. It doesn't matter whether Jesus or Moses or Confucius are also listed; it simply doesn't make sense. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but I thought the Iliad removed because of possible overlap with Homer, and Hamlet might not have been added because William Shakespeare was already included. There's a significant overlap between Confucius and the Analects in that it's a collection of his sayings, so I'm not sure if Analects could be added in light of the two previous suggestions. But that would also mean not adding Romance either since it's less important. I suppose I'm not really sure how to solve the problem then—are there any other literary works of comparable importance that haven't already been mentioned? [Edit: Divine Comedy?] Or is this overlap not really a problem at all? Malerisch (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Although I just noticed that we list both Don Quixote and Miguel de Cervantes, so maybe listing both authors and their books isn't necessarily a problem. Malerisch (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The Analects and the Bible are more than just works of literature: they are documents upon which entire civilizations base their philosophy and way of life. That isn't true of Hamlet or Don Quixote; it was true of the Iliad for the ancient Greeks, but they're not around anymore. Cobblet (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right; Analects is a good add. Do you think swapping it with Mahabharata is a good idea? I still don't know what your opinion is on the overlap between it and Bhagavad Gita. Also, is there any reason that only 4 works of literature are listed? There's 6 genres of music, but I'm pretty sure that literature is more vital than music. Malerisch (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the opinions of people who've actually experienced Indian culture firsthand would be infinitely more valuable than anything I could say on the matter. A swap of Don Quixote for the Analects would make a lot of sense from my perspective, unpopular as that may be. Not sure why you'd compare literary works to music genres. Cobblet (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not added 3-1 after 60+ days. Malerisch (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Economy

Economy is a pretty essential article that is missing from both this and the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

#Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC) --> didn't check before I signed: we have Economics, that's enough at this level --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. Support It seems to me that economy is more fundamental than economics, which is the study of the economy. It would be like including zoology but not animal. Neljack (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Just vital IMO. There is some difference between economy and economics to warrant both of their inclusions. For example, the types of economies (Market/Planned) and types of economics (Micro/Macro) deal with different topics and issues. I think economics is more vital. Economics is the study of the production and transfer of wealth and resources, not the study of economy. An economy is the total wealth and resources of a geographic entity. In reference to the zoology/animal analogy above, I believe economy is more like ecosystem than animal (but ecosystem is listed at this level too). Macroeconomics is the one branch of economics which studies the "economy". Microeconomics looks at the individual markets and individual buyers and sellers (i.e. the animals and plants). Gizza (t)(c) 03:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose already covered as the subject of the vital article Economics RJFJR (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

It's worth pointing out that both Language and Linguistics, the study of language, are included, as are Politics and Political science, Society and Sociology, Land and Geography, and Mind and Psychology. I don't see why Economy and Economics should be different. I mentioned this on Level 2 as well. Malerisch (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the rationale behind these comparisons is faulty. The relationship between Economy and Economics is much closer than with any of the ones you listed. Especially Society and Sociology or Mind and Pschychology. Or Politics and Political science. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Empathy

A human quality that is so essential and meaningful to many areas, psychiatry, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and so on. It is one of the hallmarks of the human species. Now that we are discussing if Human should be in the vital ten, we should also have some of the essentials of humanity on a higher level. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, an essential, meaningful quality/ability, possessed by many humans, a number of primates and perhaps a few dogs. For many, the most important thing in life is to be understood. Gregkaye (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per AbstractIllusions. I don't think any complex emotions (despite many being essential to humanity) are vital at this level. The current basic four of happiness, love, anger and fear suffice. Gizza (t)(c) 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
  • I thought about it, read some great stuff on the topic, but at this point 'empathy' is not a vital article. It is something a lot of folks have thought about and tried to articulate, but it hasn't cohered into something that for me passes the test of 'vitality'. Even if I agree personally that it is the "essentials of humanity"--the justification for such is not well-supported in literature and is undermined by the many examples of humans acting without empathy. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@AbstractIllusions: It's been an essential concept for thousands of years in many religions, and was articulated in the relevant literature. For example it's a core topic in the bible. Also, its obvious meaning to ubiquitous aggression is documented in criminologic literature: the article on Psychopathy lists a psychiatric disease as one main reason for criminal behavior, Borderline personality disorder, one of the most important symptoms is the lack of empathy. I could go on about the meaning in Neuroscience: scientists were able to show empathy on an MRI scan, but I agree it's recentist. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza: The rationale you're giving shows a recentist bias, because these four emotions are psychological (individualistic) rather than group psychological (or group-sociological). Psychology is only about a hundred years old. What could be considered group-sociology's predecessor, religion, is much older. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Melody Lavender:, there are religious views on the listed emotions as well. See Religion and happiness and Religious views on love. I just can't see what makes empathy different from pride, envy, remorse, embarrassment and curiosity. There are so many emotions that define human nature. Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't voted on this at all yet, however one emotion type of article I've had on my mind for ages is Humour, that's also included in the core 150 articles.  Carlwev  12:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes in 30+ days. Malerisch (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Human Brain

I think the lack of a human anatomy section is an obvious giant gaping hole in this project. The anatomical articles we do list in the biology section are on animal anatomy and I am not convinced that we need a lot of veterinary information on this level. We do list brain in that section. Human brain I think is at least as vital or even more vital. I know there are many vital organs in the anatomical sense of the word, but the most vital for the VA project is Human brain, because it is the distinguishing feature that sets humans apart from animals.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose At this level I don't think anything on human anatomy apart from human body is needed. I see we list human gastrointestinal tract which I'd be comfortable replacing with digestion. Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

This isn't at the 10'000 level yet, presumably it would have higher chance there instead, or at least first?  Carlwev  12:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should perhaps have a general discussion on general (animal) anatomical articles vs human anatomy. I definitely won't support both brain and human brain at this level (I doubt many others will too). Even at the 10K level, I will probably only support around 10 duplicated body parts at most. I think it will be ridiculous to have 50 articles on human anatomy and the same 50 articles in a general sense. Gizza (t)(c) 01:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There're a number of forms of nervous systems that might be highlighted from a basic sensory perception leading to a basic reaction, to animals that can migrate with great precision, to animals with rapid physical responses, to animals with advanced echo location abilities to Wikipedians like you and me. Gregkaye (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative to human brain, how about intelligence instead? They cover similar ground, and I think it's strange that we list artificial intelligence but not the overarching concept. Malerisch (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence is a good idea. Better than artificial intelligence. Gizza (t)(c) 04:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zoroaster or Zoroastrianism?

Whilst talking about religion, we list Zoroaster in people, religious figures, but not Zoroastrianism in religion. Is this the right way? We have Abraham and Moses but I doubt we would list them before Judaism. Compare to this, we list Sikhism, and it's never come up for removal, but we removed the founder of that religion Guru Nanak Dev,(See here) with 6-0 support, he we preferred the religion to the founder. Also comparing the religion to the man, the religion Zoroastrianism is in slightly more languages and is a slightly longer article than it's founder. Also we know so much about the religion and it's following in ancient Persia, but we seem to be slightly more patchy on the man himself, a bit like Moses we are not even completely sure what century he lived in. Should we list the religion or the founder, or both?  Carlwev  13:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd support swapping the founder for the religion. Cobblet (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Policy change: Articles in Level 3 but not in Level 4 are to be discussed on Level 4

The following 15 articles are currently in the Level 3 list but not in the Expanded list:

  1. Arab–Israeli conflict
  2. Modernism
  3. Postmodernism
  4. Golden Rule
  5. Job
  6. Personal life
  7. Brahmic scripts
  8. Fishing industry
  9. Autoimmune disease
  10. Gastroenteritis
  11. Imperial and US customary measurement systems
  12. Solar energy
  13. Semiconductor device
  14. nth root
  15. Shape

Should these be nominated individually or as a group to Level 4? Malerisch (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out (and all your other recent contributions as well – the amount of effort you've put in is astounding). As tedious as it is, I think nominating them individually is a better idea, mainly because I think they're likely to spark discussions that are best kept separate from one another: should we include both fishing and fishing industry or both modernism and modern art on Level 4, should we be removing some of these articles from Level 3 (nth root still bugs me), etc. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not see this discussion here and reverted all nominations on the level 4 talk page. The VA list is per definition nested. Everything that is on a higher level is automatically on a lower level. Or at least should be. If it's not it's an oversight that can be fixed without discussion. If we go about the problem the way you are suggesting, we'll end up in total chaos. I started correcting the mistake, adding articles that are missing on the lower level list. If there are any doubles to be removed, they should be listed individually and discussed as usual, on the highest applicable level. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I received the following response from Cobblet on my talk page:
Sorry, are you planning to add all the articles Malerisch has pointed out are in level 3 but not level 4? I reverted your discussion closes because we've usually been discussing them before we add them, just to let everyone else know what's going on; but that was before I noticed you were adding them in yourself. Personally I have no problem with it, but that doesn't seem to be how we've been doing things recently. Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that the link underneath 'recently' doesn't constitute a precedent for Cobblet's position at all. This and other links to socalled precedents show that Cobblet has done this several times before and was usually softly criticized for it by other users. I am unware that anybody else would ever have posted a proposal to remove something from level 3 on the talk page of level 4. (Or lured a newbie into doing that)
Cobblet, you have singlehandedly installed a policy change without giving us a rationale. This posting is to let everyone know that this has happened. It's necessary to tell people that because it's hard to guess and not written down anywhere, after all, so we should let people know. You should have initiated a discussion on this policy change first. But first off, I'd like to know why on earth would you want that? If you think postmodernist philosophy isn't vital, you can list it at any time on level 3 anyway. So why? --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Melody Lavender provides a cogent argument to add the articles automatically. Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal considering that it should happen infrequently from now on. (I think a better example that Cobblet could have given is this.) Malerisch (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The nominator in that link is also Cobblet. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Melody Lavender, there's no official policy written down because there's no official policy to begin with: how can I "install a policy change" when none exists? True, the example I gave you was not the best, but it was merely one of the latest in a series of similar proposals dating back to last August, when pbp posed the exact same question here without a receiving a response; people just !voted the usual way. I followed that precedent here and the proposal immediately following it, as well as here; nobody seemed to mind. Hence the opinion in the original link I gave you. I agree it's strange not to add them automatically (if I didn't explicitly comment to that effect somewhere in the archives, I know I was at least thinking it at the time of the Leeuwenhoek proposal), but what's the harm in having a little more discussion?
I'm also not sure if I'm being misunderstood here: if something needs to be removed from the level 3 list I agree it should obviously be !voted on this forum. That hasn't always been the case either: there's this proposal which happened on the other board. So yes, the situation you are unaware of having happened has happened before, and it wasn't at my initiative either. I know few people contribute to these forums so frequently that they're aware of everything that's transpired (even I don't), but next time, please don't immediately try to publicly shame people without first trying to understand the situation more fully. I'm sorry I didn't give you a better opportunity to do so in my original message to you, but you could've asked nicely for more precedents rather than announcing to the world how grievously I've wronged you. Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding me or something? The link to pbp's proposal shows that the question whether we should add something automatically or not has already been voted on and it was supported. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


  • I was trying to combine the ideas (auto add all 15 and then we collectively figure out where overlaps/redundancies might be), but I think that may be too complex. Individual proposal for each one I think is the best way to add them in a coherent fashion that prevents future cleaning issues (the fishing/fishing industry issue). Blanket automatic add will, I think, introduce more problems than it is worth in the long run. (Let me say finally, that I am unsure about the "necessity of nesting" argument that started this discussion. While some nesting is generally desirable, it is completely fine if there are spaces where nesting does not occur, where the specifics of a topic become more vital at higher levels of disaggregation than the umbrella term. The key is to make sure that such decisions are done consciously and not the result of gaps in coherence like these appear to be). Added: I am striking that parenthetical note. In no way did I want to open a larger discussion about the logic of nesting nor establish loose-nesting as a guideline here. I simply wanted to lay bare the basis of my own logic. Please ignore. AGF all. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

nth root

About nth root: It's a basic arithmetic operation. It covers both square root and cube root and all the other roots (if we didn't have it we'd need to add square root as vital and then discuss cube root). And, it and logarithm are the inverse functions for exponentiation. RJFJR (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note: We should add Inverse function. Function and also logarithm are on level 3, inverse function is not on even on level 4. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)]

Energy Section

The energy section is strongly slanted towards renewable sources. Three renewables are listed (Hydro, Solar, Wind) while only one fossil fuel is listed (petroleum). Coal and natural gas on their own are more widely supplied and consumed than all renewable sources combined. Whether the environmental effects are adverse or not isn't really relevant. Both good and evil things can be listed as long as they are vital (for example, the Holocaust and Movement for Civil Rights). Among renewables, biomass/biofuel is the most widely used source right now (followed by hydro) and it isn't even on Level 4. In 2035, renewable energy is still only estimated to make up one third of world energy usage. I believe the main criterion for determining vitality in energy is whether human society was/is reliant on that energy source historically and currently (or at most in the near future). The major fossil fuels fit that criterion. I suggest adding coal and natural gas at the very least. (Source) Gizza (t)(c) 05:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • there is a section on fossil fuels for chemical energy dug out of the ground. I'm not sure if everyone has coal and gas. Arguably hydro and wind power could be grouped together but they generally work in different spheres.
  • I rank coal and natural gas higher in vitality than any form of renewable energy—they are, after all, the main sources of energy (along with petroleum) for the world. However, I wouldn't associate "evil" with them: although they've certainly had deleterious effects on the environment, their benefits outweigh their drawbacks (e.g. Industrial Revolution). Malerisch (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @Malerisch:, I agree with you. They are not "evil". I was just anticipating what a possible oppose vote might say to the additions of coal and natural gas. I still haven't proposed them formally yet because I'm not sure if coal and natural should be added and/or if some renewables forms of energy should be removed. Gizza (t)(c) 04:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've long considered suggesting a swap of fossil fuel for coal and natural gas. In this case I think the specific fuels are more vital than the umbrella topic. Cobblet (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
My thoughts....We previously had petroleum, I suggested coal as an add over a year ago, someone morphed it into swapping petroleum out for fossil fuels in. I think oil gas and coal could all be in, like you said if we have hydro, solar and wind which are all renewables, and could feasibly just be covered by that there's no reason why we can't have all 3 fossil fuels. They are, as I think already pointed out, more vital than the 3 types of renewable historically and economically etc...Also we don't have just plain "Fuel" is that worth any thought? Fuel's included at the alternative core 150 articles here which I always used to look at, I would support fuel myself.  Carlwev  10:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I would support fuel as well. How about a swap with gasoline, which is a type of fuel and is also covered by petroleum? Malerisch (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that fuel as a concept in itself is a bit redundant with fire and energy. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
PASSED
Added 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Coal and Natural gas

Per the discussion above. Gizza (t)(c) 14:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support Malerisch (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, fossil fuel is enough, and I can't imagine removing that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I would also support removing fossil fuel. Malerisch (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If fossil fuel is enough, then isn't renewable energy enough? That would mean removing petroleum, hydropower, solar energy and wind power, leaving us with fossil fuel, nuclear power and renewable energy. It would also leave us with gasoline a petroleum-derived fuel. Gizza (t)(c) 12:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Human overpopulation (possibly as subcategory of "Overpopulation" as is done in most Wikipedias)

In:
Society and social sciences;
>Social issues
>>Environmentalism
can we add:
>>>"Human overpopulation (possibly as sub category of Overpopulation)"; "Human overpopulation" or "Overpopulation".

According to I = PAT, Human environmental IMPACT = POPULATION × AFFLUENCE × TECHNOLOGY. the basic idea being total impact is number of people times their average impact.

  • There are listings about business, economics, money, and industry,
  • There is a listing for cooking and 21 listings for food and drink.
  • there are many articles relating to human health including one on Birth Control.
  • In science there are 11 listings under climate.
  • In technology there's loads of stuff on energy and types of equipment that use it.

There needs to be something to quantify the people that are involved with all these things.

To quote a couple of vital individuals:

Albert Einstein “Overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.”

Nelson Mandela “Solving overpopulation is NOT a technical challenge. It is a political one. We must summon the courage to reject the common, entrenched mindset of the nay-sayers and embrace a shared vision of a future world with 2-3 billion healthy, prosperous people. Overpopulation is SOLVABLE. It always seems impossible until it is done.”

and a less vital individual:
Peter Scott, founder of World Wildlife Fund, commented:
“If the human population of the world continues to increase at its current rate, there will soon be no room for either wild life or wild places…But I believe that sooner or later man will learn to limit his overpopulation. Then he will be much more concerned with optimum rather than maximum, quality rather than quantity, and will recover the need within himself for contact with wilderness and wild nature.”

English Wikipedia has Human overpopulation which runs parallel to Overpopulation in other Wikipedias so maybe a listing could cover Overpopulation/Human overpopulation.

to make sense of following comments my originally formed proposal (here) had also made prominent mention of biodiversity, extinction and Human impact on the environment with that last article suggestion now being proposed under its own heading below.

Biodiversity is already listed on level 4 (on the science subpage), and Extinction is already on level 3. I would support the addition of biodiversity to level 3, and I would also consider supporting the addition of Human impact on the environment to level 3. The list is not about popularity by the way, it's about vitality. We try to determine if an article is vital for an encycopedia. Those can be but aren't necessarily popular articles. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye:Oh, and the voting process is explained at the top of the page. There have to be five support votes before the article can be added! --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
PASSED
6-0 Removed Gizza (t)(c) 12:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Korean War

Based on the discussion on the history section above, consensus seems to be forming for the removal of the Korean War. It is part of the already listed Cold War. No more vital than the Vietnam War. No more vital than wars within other major wars such as Pacific War or Eastern Front (World War II). There are varying opinions on the emphasis of wars and 20th century events but there are other modern conflicts which are not covered by anything at all currently such as Gulf War and War on Terror unlike Korea (not that I suggest adding them). Gizza (t)(c) 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Too many wars, too much stuff from the 20th century, too many topics that cover this anyway, take your pick. pbp 16:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per pbp etal RJFJR (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support per already covered as part of Cold War. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Napoleonic Wars

There doesn't seem to be any opposition to removing these, so I'm starting some formal removal threads. We already list French Revolution, and there are more important wars in history. (See above discussion for details.) Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support covered by French Revolution and Napoleon. Keeping this is like having Wars of Alexander the Great along with Alexander the Great. Gizza (t)(c) 05:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support part of the French Revolution, not necessary at this level. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Arab–Israeli conflict

Not that vital (see above). It's a localized conflict that didn't even make it onto the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per nomination. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per Malerisch. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose this armed conflict has been going on for 70 or so years. Due to the length alone I think it's vital. The list is still tilted towards an American POV. This article could add a hint of balance. Another long term conflict that is missing are the Ottoman wars in Europe which famously include the Crimean War.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

Length alone does not make a war vital: based on that reasoning, Hundred Years' War, Roman–Persian Wars, Punic Wars, and American Indian Wars should all be on the list. I don't see how this conflict can stay when Mongol invasions and conquests and Muslim conquests aren't on the list, which were both much longer and more consequential. As I mentioned in my justification above, how is this more vital than Arab–Byzantine wars (part of the Muslim conquests), which was longer as well, or the Manchu conquest of China, or the Taiping Rebellion? None of these additions would add American POV to the list, either. Malerisch (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

At this level, we should probably avoid having the empire and their wars listed. Ottoman wars in Europe and Mongol invasions and conquests are too similar to Ottoman Empire and Mongol Empire respectively. It is like listing Third Reich and Japanese Empire alongside World War 2. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I don't think they should be listed either. I was just using the Mongol invasions and conquests to justify why the Arab–Israeli conflict shouldn't be included. Malerisch (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-1 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Revolutions of 1989

Should be covered in Soviet Union, Communism, and Cold War. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support as covered by larger articles. RJFJR (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support We don't need to list both the Cold War and the end of the Cold War. Cobblet (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support 3 articles on the one topic in history (Soviet Union, Cold War and this) is excessive. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, is vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-2 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Movements for civil rights

Even if we agree that the civil rights movement should be included, this is the wrong article to include to refer to that movement. There was no global movement for civil rights (any google scholar or google books search will reveal no real sources). 90% of references in RSs are to the U.S. Civil Rights movement, with most of the rest referring to the Northern Ireland movements. But the OR article Movements for civil rights includes examples like Communist movements in Germany and anti-Communist movements in Prague together with no clear reason. Alternatives could be to either: A) include something about the international human rights movement (an international movement with actual literature about it as opposed to the movement for civil rights), B) The U.S. Civil Rights movement, which appears to be the usage in every encyclopedia, or C) Point to other global movements in the post-World War II era (Decolonization is probably the most important of these). Regardless, the Movements for civil rights article should not be on the vital articles list. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as Nominator. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support per nomination. Gizza (t)(c) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Agree that the article is an uneasy synthesis of tenuously related topics. Would support removing abolitionism and swapping women's suffrage for suffrage. Cobblet (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, in this case I think the more general article is important. There can be additional examples, but the basic overview article should be there. The rationale given (article is not developed and is lacking sources) is not something that decides vitality. It will have sources some day, and there is no doubt literature about these important issues. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not an issue of waiting for sources someday to justify the general article, this is an article that didn't occur. There was never a "worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s." This didn't occur. There won't ever be sources for things that didn't happen. The general thing didn't happen in this case. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, but if this article really does not meet WP:RS, shouldn't it be nominated at WP:AFD, let alone removed from VA? Malerisch (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It will be sent to AFD once I get a book from interlibrary loan just to confirm that there are no reliable sources for the topic. But I'd rather not nominate it for deletion (really not deletion--but turning it into a disambiguation page) until it is completely clear. Regardless, that discussion is exclusive of this one. Even if the page is voted notable, that doesn't make it a vital article. Look at any encyclopedia for an article that is similar in scope to this one and tell me when you find one (I looked in 11 and found no "global civil rights movements" articles at all). We should not list an article in the Vital Articles that is not in any encyclopedia at all. That should be a basic first condition: Is the article listed in any other encyclopedia? If not, then it can't possibly be vital. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Melody. Neljack (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

I support removing Women's suffrage too. Not because it is an unimportant topic but I don't think human rights articles are suitable for the history section. At the moment the article on women's suffrage is mostly structured like a list and just mentions when various countries gave women the right to vote. It can be improved but I don't think the intention of the article is to talk about the history of women's suffrage. There are better ways to cover particular human rights. Women's rights is an option but there is a strong overlap with feminism and sexism. Articles like gender, abortion and birth control are somewhat related too.

Then again, we shouldn't go too far in covering civil rights and women's rights when there are so many human rights issues and forms of discrimination. We've got plenty of general human rights articles (human rights, civil liberties, discrimination, political freedom, justice) while articles such as sexualism/homophobia, ableism (discrimination against people with disabilities), sizeism and anti-left handedness are not even on the list. Honestly, I think our coverage of rights is already adequate. If there is scope for addition, maybe suffrage itself or universal suffrage is a good idea. Gizza (t)(c) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I will support Decolonization too although that might make colonialism redundant as the biggest colonial empires and events are already listed separately. Gizza (t)(c) 06:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If the article is OR, should it be removed from level 4 as well? Malerisch (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It can be replaced with African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) is already listed at Level 4. The non-US aspects of the Civil Rights Movement as mentioned above is OR. Gizza (t)(c) 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it appears not to be clear, this article is not vital. Clarity:

  • "In contemporary political thought, the term ‘civil rights’ is indissolubly linked to the struggle for equality of American blacks during the 1950s and 60s" -Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Only listed of American Civil Rights Movement -Encyclopedia Britannica
  • Definition of civil rights movement for Merriam Webster: "Movement for racial equality in the U.S. that, through nonviolent protest, broke the pattern of racial segregation in the South and achieved equal rights legislation for blacks." Merriam Webster
  • Sociology: A Global Perspective provides the standard description. This is a text with an explicitly global perspective and which deals with other racial and rights movements in their own terms. The Civil Rights movement is reserved for the U.S. context.
  • VIAF shows no library headings at any of the top libraries in the world for "Civil Rights movements".

Now, yes there were some other movements for "civil rights" in Northern Ireland (with some texts comparing it with the U.S. experience) and some movements in Canada, and the civil rights banner has been taken up by other movements in the U.S. and Canada. But-"Movements for civil rights" never existed and is not listed in other resources. This is not a case of a page being underdeveloped, the page is actually over-developed and includes too much stuff, but a case of listing an article that goes against near-universal usage and the context in 99% of RSs. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Add Disability

Per the discussion above.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support for the same reasons I nominated ableism for: Disabled people are one of the largest minorities at approximately 10% of the world population, and it's a diverse set of topics since disability includes everything from injuries and illnesses to the various neurotypes. Muffinator (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  07:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Based on Level 4, this will go into the Medicine section. Space doesn't really need to be made for it although burn can be removed as there are too many types of injury to list at this level (we removed bone fracture recently too). Gizza (t)(c) 03:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree; burn should be removed. Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to close this, but I'm not sure if I should put this under Social issues or Health and medicine, considering the move discussion on the Expanded page. There isn't consensus to move Disability yet, so where should this be added? Malerisch (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus there definitely leans toward listing it under Society (I see no reason to enforce the use of !votes on every single decision we take besides adding and removing articles, since this is generally not how Wikipedia operates) and the arguments are equally valid here. Cobblet (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Burn

Burns aren't more important than other types of injuries such as frostbite, wounds, or bone fractures (removed here). Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - Fire is a big enough topic for level 3 but an article about fire-related injuries should be at level 4. Muffinator (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support per Malerisch and Muffinator. Gizza (t)(c) 04:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  17:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped 5-0 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Swap: Add Digestion, Remove Human gastrointestinal tract

This swap has been mentioned a few times now, so I think it may be time for a formal proposal. We don't currently list any other articles that are specific to human anatomy besides this one (e.g. human skeleton, human heart, human eye, and human liver aren't listed), and I can't see why this article would be special. Besides, human gastrointestinal tract is the wrong article to include, even for human anatomy; human digestive system is the right one. Malerisch (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support, more general article. RJFJR (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support - parent category is more vital on top of having the more recognized name. Muffinator (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Cobblet (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 01:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-2 after 15+ days. Malerisch (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Remove Imperial and US customary measurement systems

This nomination also failed on VA/E, so it should be removed from here as well. I haven't made up my mind on this nomination, so I won't vote just yet.

I believe that this nomination could be troublesome: it failed 3-3 on level 4, but 3-3 isn't enough to remove it from level 3 either. Malerisch (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support User:Rwessel's arguments in that thread are persuasive. Cobblet (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support I would rather have International System of Units on the list. Malerisch (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the article is even more vital than the individual articles because it includes the conversion. Maybe replace by Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems. Also note that 3-3 is not enough to remove an article; there would have to be at least 5 support votes according to the current rules. It was nominated for informational purposes only, not because we're seriously un-nesting. Yet (?). --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose significant to understanding historical and current measurements. And I do not accept the idea that a vote on a different list is binding on this one. RJFJR (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion

We don't have Imperial units or SI units, I don't think this is more vital. We do have, metric system.  Carlwev  18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_7&oldid=1137398034"