Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 6

Suggested removal of Nobel Prize
I suggest we remove Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions" as inappropriate excess for that sub-list. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support removal of Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions"

 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ypnypn (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removal of Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions"

 * 1) Oppose. While the Nobel Prize cuts across multiple categories, it represents the single most important international recognition awarded to individuals.  On a list of 1,000 vital topics, we should be able to find room for it somewhere.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * @DL, is Nobel Prize a political or governmental institution? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * different question but still valid. If kept 'maybe' Nobel Prize should get moved to another area of the list. Or the present header it is under reworded better. Carlwev (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested removal of Genetic drift
I suggest we remove Genetic drift from the "Biology" sub-list as subsumptive with Evolution and Genetics. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support removal of Genetic drift from the "Biology" sub-list.

 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  p  b  p  01:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I think genetic drift is a fairly esoteric subtopic of evolution and genetics (already included) for a list of 1,000 vital topics.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Too detailed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Per 10-day old unanimous talk page discussion. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary limits
There is a discussion regarding the VA limits occuring here. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested removal of Nobel Prize
I suggest we remove Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions" as inappropriate excess for that sub-list. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support removal of Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions"

 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ypnypn (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removal of Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions"

 * 1) Oppose. While the Nobel Prize cuts across multiple categories, it represents the single most important international recognition awarded to individuals.  On a list of 1,000 vital topics, we should be able to find room for it somewhere.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * @DL, is Nobel Prize a political or governmental institution? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * different question but still valid. If kept 'maybe' Nobel Prize should get moved to another area of the list. Or the present header it is under reworded better. Carlwev (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested removal of Genetic drift
I suggest we remove Genetic drift from the "Biology" sub-list as subsumptive with Evolution and Genetics. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support removal of Genetic drift from the "Biology" sub-list.

 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  p  b  p  01:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I think genetic drift is a fairly esoteric subtopic of evolution and genetics (already included) for a list of 1,000 vital topics.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Too detailed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Per 10-day old unanimous talk page discussion. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary limits
There is a discussion regarding the VA limits occuring here. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested removal of Nobel Prize
I suggest we remove Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions" as inappropriate excess for that sub-list. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support removal of Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions"

 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ypnypn (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removal of Nobel Prize from "Specific political and governmental institutions"

 * 1) Oppose. While the Nobel Prize cuts across multiple categories, it represents the single most important international recognition awarded to individuals.  On a list of 1,000 vital topics, we should be able to find room for it somewhere.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * @DL, is Nobel Prize a political or governmental institution? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * different question but still valid. If kept 'maybe' Nobel Prize should get moved to another area of the list. Or the present header it is under reworded better. Carlwev (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested removal of Genetic drift
I suggest we remove Genetic drift from the "Biology" sub-list as subsumptive with Evolution and Genetics. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support removal of Genetic drift from the "Biology" sub-list.

 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  p  b  p  01:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I think genetic drift is a fairly esoteric subtopic of evolution and genetics (already included) for a list of 1,000 vital topics.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Too detailed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Per 10-day old unanimous talk page discussion. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary limits
There is a discussion regarding the VA limits occuring here. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition of Entertainment
I suggest adding Entertainment to the vital 1000. Entertainment, is already included in the vital 100 articles without any resistance I can see. As the vital 100 and 1000 are kind of different pages of the same project, it almost goes without saying all articles in the 100 have to be in the 1000. Again it looks more like entertainment has just slipped through and been forgotten about rather than people deliberately leaving it out. Entertainment again is important to all cultures all around the world through nearly all history and encompasses many many things already in the list, such as nearly all art and games and more. Carlwev (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Support addition of Entertainment

 * 1) Support as nominator Carlwev (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  03:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, I will support this addition, given that it is already on the list of 100, and provided we have room on the list of 1,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Comments moved from above, misleading/crowded.
 * 1)  Oppose . What article is to be removed to make room for this addition?  Please identify.  We need to balance broad subjects such as this one with those specific related subjects already included.  Broader topics are not always better.  I see adding "entertainment" as analogous to adding "politics" and deleting "democracy," "socialism," "fascism," "communism" and "economics."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Then please strike your oppose and add your support above, for clarity. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're under 1000, and a couple articles are destined for removal p  b  p  03:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we replace Euro with Entertainment? can we do this yet? they both have 4 support and 0 oppose, both been up for 2 weeks and had no more votes in the last week. Core contest is coming soon, and remember Entertainment is already in the vital 100 so kind of has to be in the vital 1000 anyway, doesn't it? Carlwev (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition of Horse
OK I will suggest Horse to be added to the list of 1000 vital articles. For thought, All things I mention and compare to the horse are in the 1000 list at present. It is probably the most used and relied on animal in human history, an enormous significance to war, transport and work, been used and relied on over large portions of the world from before 3000 BC up to the 1900s and in some parts of the world still today. Today there are still over 100 million horses used for work in the world. It is more than just another animal covered by "Animal husbandry" and/or "Domestication". When I was a kid I didn't even know what words meant but I still knew how important the horse was. We have Car, bike, road, bridge, rail transport, ship, canal, aviation, submarine. Horse is not less than these, what represents how we got about on land before the car and train? Car has been about for approximately 100 years and the train twice that, but the horse has over 5000 years use. Horses have been used in more wars than tanks and submarines which have been around for less than 100 years. Leaders such as Alexander and Genghis and more would not have made history and changed the world, the same way or perhaps at all if it were not for the horse. Carlwev (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Support addition of Horse

 * 1) Support as nominator Carlwev (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) As tempting as it might be to say Neeeiiiighhh, I must support, Wilbur! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  15:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose addition of Horse

 * 1) Far too specific for the 1,000 list; better off at 10,000. There are many, many animals that have helped shape human history, why add this one and exclude the others? Why not dog, cattle, camel, ox, bison, war elephant, pig, goat, chicken, and sheep? The pigeon was an early tool for long-distance communication and a food source. What about bees? "Seventy percent of the crop species eaten by humans depend wholly or partly on pollination". Without plankton, humans would not even be here to argue about this list.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Moved from above
 * Support as perhaps the most important animal in recorded human history, though I hope this doesn't lead to a list of all the important animals, of which there are many. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Trust me, Gabe, there will be no list of lions, tigers and bears. Oh, my!  Unless of course we want to include the broad category of stuffed animals.  (Every little girl had one, right?)  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * DL, I suggest you add comments like this one in a discussion section below, so as to avoid badgering or mocking !voters. This type of immature sarcasm might also reduce editor participation in these discussion, no? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a joke, Gabe. I can take one.  I hope you can, too.  Sorry that my humor left room for that interpretation.  I won't do it again.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Carl, I hope you don't mind the unsolicitied advice, but I think it would be helpful for context if you linked to the sub-list in which your proposed addition would be included in a similar way that I have done above with my removal suggestions. As I said before, you've proposed adding Christmas, yet no other holidays, religious or otherwise, are currently included at VAL3. Without the context, some !voters might not be as informed as they should be, and for that reason, their !votes might not be the ones we want. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I believe horse here would go best under Animal Husbandry.
 * 2) To say we shouldn't have horse because bees pollinate our crops is a very odd argument. There are many things that just "are" that are vital to the ecosystem but it doesn't mean we need them in the vital 1000; bees just are, we don't spend time going out to capture them breed them train them ride them, wage war on the backs of them, use them to pull carts, ploughs and chariots for 5000 years. Just because bees are vital to the ecosystem, so are worms and flies and ants I would think, they are not comparable to the horse. It is the most important animal in terms of animal husbandry, and we have a few things in the vital 1000 were we have the one most vital of a topic but exclude all others. We have mountain, then Mount Everest but exclude all other individual mountains, as mount Everest is deemed more vital than all others. We have vegetable then Potato but than exclude all other individual vegetables, as potato is deemed more vital than all other individual vegetables. We have Sexually transmitted disease then we have one of the HIV/AIDS and exclude all others as HIV is deemed more vital than all others. Following that pattern it should be OK to include horse under Animal Husbandry. Carlwev (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Core Contest
Casliber will soon be running the next in a series of The Core Contest. The event runs from April 15 to May 13 2013. Editors will be selecting a core or vital article for improvement over the course of the contest period. Needless to say it would be greatly appreciated if the list were stable during the contest period. -- Dianna (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition of Archaeology
I suggest adding Archaeology to the vital 1000. Users have included archaeology in the core topics list, a different project page with only 150 articles. Archaeology is known and practiced all over the world, has been around since the 1800s. If History of the world is in the vital 10 and Archaeology is the only means of getting knowledge about 99% of human history, it probably belongs in the vital 1000, and is much more vital than many articles in the list at the moment. If we have articles on stone age, Mesopotamia, Sumer, Neolithic Revolution, Ancient history, and prehistory I think Archaeology fits well into the vital 1000 Carlwev (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Support addition of Archaeology

 * 1) Support as nominator Carlwev (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. What comes off the list to make room for this addition?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Doh. Vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  p  b  p  15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support It does seem to be an interesting omission, especially given the large number of "popular" books published each year on archaeology. --Bejnar (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Ypnypn (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) Q "What needs to come of the list to make way for Archaeology?" A "Deletions already suggested above, plus article count currently at 999" Carlwev (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Can we add archaeology yet, 6 support and 0 oppose, been up for 2 weeks, and no more comments in last 7 days. We are at 999 room for one more, and we are also discussing more removals also. Carlwev (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I know I proposed this but I'm not an expert. Where would we put archaeology? in History? or probably in Social sciences with anthropology?  Carlwev (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition of Communication
I suggest adding Communication to the vital 1000. Users have included Communication in the core topics list, a different project page with only 150 articles. Communication is used by everyone in many forms, covers many things all over the world all through out history. It can over encompass many language and technology things already in the vital 1000, telecommunications, writing, book, language, individual languages, broadcasting, telephone, radio, internet, and more. It looks like it just may have been forgotten about rather than people not wanting it in. Carlwev (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Support addition of Communication

 * 1) Support as nominator Carlwev (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Doh. Vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose addition of Communication

 * 1) Oppose. What article is to be removed to make room for this addition?  Please identify.  We need to balance broad subjects such as this one with those specific related subjects already included.  Many, if not all, of the listed specific topics are already included.  Broader topics are not always better.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Q "What needs to come of the list to make way for Communication?" A "Deletions already suggested above, plus article count currently below 1000 at about 984" Carlwev (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Count is at 999
I was asked to count the list, I counted it at 999 and found all the sub list totals to be correct as well. In agreement with Gabes count. Carlwev (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment
I was thinking that one way to identify how important an article is could be how many sub-articles it has. For example, tens of thousands of articles relate to United States, and Barack Obama has dozens. By contrast, iguana has only a few articles discussing it, so clearly it's less important. Obviously, this is a very rough guide, and often "related to" is hard to define precisely, but it could still be useful. Thoughts? - Ypnypn (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition of Entertainment
I suggest adding Entertainment to the vital 1000. Entertainment, is already included in the vital 100 articles without any resistance I can see. As the vital 100 and 1000 are kind of different pages of the same project, it almost goes without saying all articles in the 100 have to be in the 1000. Again it looks more like entertainment has just slipped through and been forgotten about rather than people deliberately leaving it out. Entertainment again is important to all cultures all around the world through nearly all history and encompasses many many things already in the list, such as nearly all art and games and more. Carlwev (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Carlwev (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Support addition of Entertainment

 * 1) Support as nominator Carlwev (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  03:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, I will support this addition, given that it is already on the list of 100, and provided we have room on the list of 1,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Comments moved from above, misleading/crowded.
 * 1)  Oppose . What article is to be removed to make room for this addition?  Please identify.  We need to balance broad subjects such as this one with those specific related subjects already included.  Broader topics are not always better.  I see adding "entertainment" as analogous to adding "politics" and deleting "democracy," "socialism," "fascism," "communism" and "economics."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Then please strike your oppose and add your support above, for clarity. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're under 1000, and a couple articles are destined for removal p  b  p  03:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we replace Euro with Entertainment? can we do this yet? they both have 4 support and 0 oppose, both been up for 2 weeks and had no more votes in the last week. Core contest is coming soon, and remember Entertainment is already in the vital 100 so kind of has to be in the vital 1000 anyway, doesn't it? Carlwev (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Four self-evident edits made
In: Flute [Musical Instrument]. Kim Il-Sung. Social relation. Mesomedes. Out: Gyroscope. International Monetary Fund. Privacy. Jimi Hendrix. Undo if it's not self-evident.

Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kim Il-Sung > IMF
 * Social relation > Privacy
 * Mesomedes > Jimi Hendrix
 * Flute > Gyroscope


 * I'm no expert, but it'll be interesting to see if these are accepted... In your opinion, how seminal a figure was Mesomedes, as name doesn't immediately ring a bell. Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have said enough already. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Added archaeology, 1000 total
With a discussion started over 2 months ago, with seven users in agreement and none in opposition, for the addition of Archaeology, I have now added it. It could go in science or history, I put it within history section, as that where it is in the 10,000 list, and I am following suit. Grand total is now 1000 like it should be. Carlwev (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles/Expanded: The Ten Thousand
Is there ever going to be a concerted effort to make the Level-4 list a strict list. It might be closer to 11K than 10K now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Tony, the effort to pare the Vital Articles/Expanded list of 10,000 most vital articles is well under way. It is currently 400 articles over the 10,000-topic limit, and over 60 individual subjects are presently under discussion.  Approximately 30 have been deleted in the past three weeks.  You are welcome to join the discussion on the VA/E main talk page.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oceana writers
There are 237 writers at Vital_articles/Expanded/People. Why are there none from Oceania?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's silly to include people just because of their continent. If you know of any significant writers from Oceania, feel free to nominate them. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe because only 1 of about 200 people come from Oceania. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested removal of Euro and United States dollar
I suggest we remove Euro and United States dollar from "Business and economics" as overly specific for that sub-list, which already contains Money. Also its US/Euro-centric to include only these two currencies while excluding all others. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support removal of Euro and United States dollar from "Business and economics"

 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support 1000 is too small to add individual currencies Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Tough call, but I will support provided "money" and/or "currency" are included.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support for euro only. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose removal of Euro and United States dollar from "Business and economics"

 * 1) Oppose for dollar. Symbol recognized everywhere in the world is major. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Can we delete Euro soon then? It's been a while no one has opposed. Make way for another article already discussed. Will I told off if I do it myself? Carlwev (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the proposal was to avoid singling-out any specific currencies. So removing the Euro while leaving the US dollar would only make that situation worse. I think we should wait to see what Jusdafax, DL1, and pbp have to say before acting on this one. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

999, Room for one more, Entertainment? Communication or something else?
Total is now 999, we should add one to make it 1000 again. Communication and Entertainment were the previous good looking candidates. I have resurrected the archived discussions, because they weren't truly over in my opinion and they had a lot of support too. Communication had 5-1 support. Entertainment had 4-0 support. Entertainment is also already in the vital 100 articles so logically should also be here, my instincts say we should add Entertainment for this reason, but I will ask first. Which one of these should fill the space at this time?Entertainment? Communication or something else? Give comments or vote if you haven't already. Also, I've pasted the whole discussion as it was before, but any comments about needing to remove something to add something, are still relevant in the long run but we do have room for one more at present, so we can have one add with no removals at this time. Carlwev (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition of Communication
I suggest adding Communication to the vital 1000. Users have included Communication in the core topics list, a different project page with only 150 articles. Communication is used by everyone in many forms, covers many things all over the world all through out history. It can over encompass many language and technology things already in the vital 1000, telecommunications, writing, book, language, individual languages, broadcasting, telephone, radio, internet, and more. It looks like it just may have been forgotten about rather than people not wanting it in. Carlwev (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Carlwev (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Support addition of Communication

 * 1) Support as nominator Carlwev (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Doh. Vital. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose addition of Communication

 * 1) Oppose. What article is to be removed to make room for this addition?  Please identify.  We need to balance broad subjects such as this one with those specific related subjects already included.  Many, if not all, of the listed specific topics are already included.  Broader topics are not always better.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * I added this, 6-1 in support, most of any article proposed yet after Archaeology that was added a short while ago. Post originally started almost 3 months ago. Tally was 999 so adding this makes it the round 1000 nothing needs removing for this addition. I found this hard to place at first, it could go under language, media or society, but I added it to society sublist next to community, based on the categories the article is in, and also its place within the 10,000 list, also under society. Carlwev (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

FDR, Stalin, or VI Lenin?

 * I suggest we remove either Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Lenin, and add Franklin D. Roosevelt.

1) We already have Adolf Hitler. 2) Lenin was leader of the Soviets for 7 years, FDR led the US for 12 years. 3) FDR arguably saved the world from facism, and there are currently no US leaders from post-1865, while 6 others on the list are more recent. He is also widely considered one of the great US presidents. 4) VI Lenin is the 3rd Russian leader on the list. If we wanted to have more Russian leaders then US leaders (currently 2), we should add Peter the Great before including both Lenin and Stalin.

As alternates for removal, I suggest Stalin, Gandhi or Mao, should Lenin prove a more popular addition. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Vladimir Lenin

 * 1) If it's a choice between Lenin and Roosevelt, I vote we keep Lenin.  Lenin was the principal leader of the Russian Revolution, and changed the course of 20th Century history as a result.  No Lenin, no Russian Revolution, no world-wide communist movement, no Cold War, no Chinese communists, etc.  Churchill rallied the coalition that kept the Allies in World War II until the Russians and Americans entered the war in 1941.  FDR, by contrast, did not alter the course of world history, although he advanced the welfare state in America.  FDR's role could have and arguably would have been fulfilled by any man elected president in 1940.  FDR's impact on America and the world does not rise to the level of Washington and Lincoln.  Gandhi's impact on over a billion Indians, the British Empire, and the concept of peaceful change through civil disobedience is undoubted.  Mao was an ideological follow-on to Lenin, but obviously had a dramatic impact on the most populous country on the planet is likewise indisputable.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's a dubious question whether Lenin changed anything – very much unlike Gandhi who managed to convince many Indinans to do unusual things. The situation in Russia was so dynamic, and it followed so logically from its own social problems, the biggest of which was many people's arrogant ignorance, that no Lenin could really influence it. All he could do was pronounce his authority, and/but let people murder one another as per their wish. - 89.110.11.68 (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I hate this choice, and consider both vital. But like Dirtlawyer, I submit that Lenin is the one to go with, in a one vs. one decision. Lenin founded the USSR... I'd call that highly vital. Also agree with Dirtlawyer that Mao and Ghandi are unsuitable for deletion from this list.  Jus  da  fax   04:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I support both. --NaBUru38. (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, both should be included, Lenin and Roosevelt. Currently there seems to be room for both, because the Euro has just been voted off the list. If the choice has to be made, I'd support Lenin, because of his importance to Marxism (He tried to put the theory into practice...). --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Franklin D. Roosevelt

 * 1) Per above.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Per above - reason being FDR influenced the world, Lenin really only was significant in Russia. Later, Stalin inflenced the world and should be kept. Patriot1010 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I support both. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) The world changed in profound ways during World War II, and to varying degrees, FDR had a hand in much of it.  The world would be a different place if he had never authorized the atomic bomb or negotiated differently at Yalta, for example.  Andrew327 16:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) FDR being leader for a longer time, and with global influence. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Support alternate choice, remove Joseph Stalin and add Franklin D. Rosevelt

 * 1) Two consecutive Soviet leaders on a list of the 25 greatest of all-time is excessive.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (a)

 * Isn't it a bit strange that the leaders list does not include a single US leader post-1865, arguably the most important 148 years in US history? Also, 4 of the 6 leaders from the 20th century were dictators, but does that equally represent global politics of the 20th century? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the inclusision of FDR is appropriate. But I am not that suprised since the US really did not become a wold power until WWII (With the help of FDR). Plus one must not add too many recent US notables, as this would most likely offend those from other nations. Is that right? Not really - but eh World peace and all. Patriot1010 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As for you comment on dictators, they do usually reign longer than democratic leaders. By the simple virtue of holding power longer, they are more important. The democratic nations as a whole may be more important, but their leaders are not. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * FDR's decision to begin the Manhattan Project, has arguably changed the world in far more significant ways then the now defunct Communist revolutions ever did. While communism is largely "dead", unfortunately, nukes live on. "On 28 June 1941, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8807, which created the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) ... At a meeting between President Roosevelt, Vannevar Bush and Vice President Henry A. Wallace on 9 October 1941, the President approved the atomic program." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Kinda sorta, Gabe, but this is supposed to be a world-wide vital topics list. From 1865 onward, the United States rode the escalator of economic development and became a world power as a result.  No American national leader really changed that overall trajectory.  Roosevelt  made the same decision regarding the Manhattan Project that any U.S. President would have made.  If you were looking for most influential post-civil war presidents, I would suggest Roosevelt, Reagan and Wilson, but none of these three presidents rise to the level of Lenin, Churchill, Stalin, Gandhi, Hitler or Mao in their impact on world history.  These Americans filled their roles, and Roosevelt and Reagan arguably filled that role exceptionally well in the circumstances of their times, but they did not start great trends in world history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Starting "new trends" is not a criteria for inclusion on this list. Hitler didn't start fascism nor did he invent genocide. Wouldn't you consider the New Deal the start of a significant trend in the world's third most populous country? 68 years later, and US citizens now have access to near-universal Health Care? That would not have been possible without an FDR-type president. 2) "Roosevelt made the same decision regarding the Manhattan Project that any U.S. President would have made" is an assumption as logically weak as "any US president could have defeated the South", not? 3) Per your comment: "From 1865 onward, the United States rode the escalator of economic development and became a world power as a result." I think you are forgetting the contributions Americans made to the industrial revolution, eg, Charles Goodyear and vulcanized rubber, Andrew Carnegie and steel, the Wright brothers and airplanes, Henry Ford and automobiles, etcetera.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's any consolation, Churchill and Gandhi were both democrats, although, ironically, they were opposed to each other. I'm not adamantly opposed to FDR's inclusion, but I would suggest that keeping Lenin, dropping Stalin, and adding Roosevelt would be a better compromise.  As for the Russian Revolution and world communism, Lenin was the thinker, the founder and the leader.  Stalin was the follow-on.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Patriot and Gabe, you may want to be careful about refactoring other editors' comments. The thread can become hopelessly convoluted when you insert your comments in the middle of someone else's . . ..


 * Anyway, again, I'm not opposed to including FDR; it's a matter of prioritizing. Either we expand the list, or drop someone else.  As for Lincoln being just another president, no, I do not believe that.  Lincoln is one of the two or three seminal personalities in U.S. history.  Without Lincoln leading it, I don't think the Union would have survived the 1864 election because the war had become so remarkably unpopular.  It was only the force of Lincoln's personality, leadership, and the loyalty he inspired in the major figures of his administration and war department that kept the wheels on.  In many ways, Lincoln's administration represented a refounding of the country, as much as Washington's wartime leadership and administration represented a founding.  I think most sophisticated historians bear me out on this.


 * And, yes, you are right that there is no requirement that included persons having started a major trend in world history. That's just one way, among others, of expressing a "lasting impact."


 * Dirtlawyer, per your above comment: "As for the Russian Revolution and world communism, Lenin was the thinker, the founder and the leader." 1) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the "thinkers" who founded Communism, not Lenin, who was born 22 years after The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. A "leader", yes, he led the Revolution in Russia, and the Soviets for 7 years, but he did not lead any other communist countries, so I'm not sure what you mean by asserting that Lenin was the leader of "world communism". He only led the Soviets for 1/10th of their history, and there were no other Communist countries on Earth until at least 16 years after Lenin's death in 1924. One could argue that it wasn't until 1949 (25 years after Lenin's death) that another country went Communist without first being annexed by the Soviets. So while Stalin was the "follow-up", he did far more to spread communism to other countries. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Gabe, see Marxism–Leninism. Marx and Engels were a couple of egghead theoreticians who had no clue how the "revolution" would come about.  Marx and Engels had no practical organizational or political skills, and no real understanding of human nature.  There's a reason why the ideology is generally called "Marxism-Leninism" in most serious academic circles.  Lenin contributed most of the practical political theory, and remains the only man ever to lead a successful communist/socialist revolution without the ideological, financial and military support of a major foreign power.  By the way, did I mention that I was a political science major (big deal, I know) -- with a 30+ hour specialization in east European studies (i.e., communist/socialist political theory, economics, history, and comparative politics)?  Back in the early 1980s, I used to live, eat and breathe this stuff -- back when communism was a very real nemesis of the West.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lenin contributed most of the practical political theory, and remains the only man ever to lead a successful communist/socialist revolution without the ideological, financial and military support of a major foreign power. Saying 'to lead a successful communist/socialist revolution' is an exaggeration. There was, indeed, a successful revolution in 1917-1922, that started unexpectably to Lenin, but communism/socialism failed to happen in USSR. Some people tried (notably Mayakovsky, for example, and later, although already hopelessly, Strugatsky brothers), but other people resisted and established a country of almighty bureaucracy instead of a country of free workers. Hardly is the first to be called 'communism': the means of production were not communal, they belonged to bureaucracy, and for intelligentsia people it was hard to work for the sake of work, too, even if some, like Strugatsky, managed. So, while Lenin may be notable, it is not for any of his achievements, which were none. 89.110.11.68 (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting that Lenin was the founder of communism, or the co-founder of what came to be known as Marxism–Leninism along with Engels?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dirtlawyer, per your above comment: "Churchill and Gandhi were both democrats". Winston Churchill twice ran for Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, both times as the candidate for the Conservative Party (UK), not for the Liberal Party (UK), or the Labour Party (UK). GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's small "d" democracts, i.e. that they weren't monarchs or totalitarian dictators, in response to your "4/6 20th century leaders were dictators"  p  b  p  03:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so 4 out of 6 of the 20th century leaders were dictators, that's what I said pbp. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not voting on this. This is one of the clear cases of this list being short enough that somebody not on the list is as important as somebody on the list. There are pretty good reasons for either of these. It's certainly true that FDR's presidency had a lasting impact on the United States (in the form of the institution of the welfare state) and the world (WWII, Manhattan Project). Lenin may not have been in charge for a long time, but he was an idea man, he was really the only Russian leader who was actually true to the ideals of Communism, and there's also the globalization argument of having 12% of leaders from a country that represents 5% of the world's population and has been around for less than 250 years (this someone echoing Patroit's concern above) p  b  p  03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your 12% = 3 out of 25 (nice stat trick). Also, you missed the sarcasm in Patriot's comment me thinks. Why are you okay with two consecutive Soviet leaders while crying about too many recent US leaders (2 since 1865)? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I support expending the list. These people and many more have influenced the lives of millions. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Gabe or PBP, what's the accurate count for all items on the current list of 1,000? If we are still 11 topics under 1,000 (give or take), I would support expanding this particular sublist by one topic and adding Franklin Roosevelt.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The last time I counted (5 March) we were at 991. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gabe, would you mind doing an accurate current count for us? We are so close to the limit now that we should keep a running count at the top of the page, and update it every time we add or delete a topic.  I really don't want to get to the point with the list of 1,000 that we are having to delete articles to get back to the limit (as we're doing with the expanded list); it's always harder to delete than add.  At some point, we also need to reconcile the list of 1,000 with the list of 10,000.  Every topic on the expanded 10,000 list is also supposed to be included on the core list of 1,000, right?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll count them again, and correct the running-tally at the top of this page, but I think you have the last part backwards. Every topic on the 1,000 list should also be on the 10,000 list, not the other way around, which would be physically impossible. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * According to my re-count, we are currently at 999 articles, but perhaps someone should double-check my work. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I would keep Lenin and Stalin. While Lenin was not the founder of small "c" communism, he was the founder of big "C" Communism, which had great impact in the twentieth century.  Stalin extended Communism's influence to one third of the planet.  Had they not lived, history may well have unfolded very differently.  Roosevelt's influence is more difficult to assess.  He did not develop any new ideology and most of the programs with which he is associated were developed by others.  His domestic policies were not copied in other countries, he in fact copied similar programs in other countries.  And post-war American foreign policy was developed largely under the Truman administration.  TFD (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic question by GabeMc

 * PBP, why do you keep insisting that the coverage needs to be proportional to the span of human existence? Are firelighting or flint knapping vital articles? Neither "WP:VITAL consists of exactly 1000 articles considered vital to the encyclopedia. These articles span the breadth of human knowledge, nor Chronological diversity: the topics represent the entirety of human history, support a time-proportional system, do they? If the list were time proportional, then we would include Mammoth and Bison before horse or cattle, right? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the sam hill are you giving me the 3rd degree? I didn't disagree with you! I never said I supported a perfectly time-proportional system (I challenge you to find otherwise). What I have said is that I oppose a ridiculously time-disportional system, which is perfectly in line with the chronological diversity guideline you cite. Sure, this and VA/E are going to be disportionate weighted toward events after 1900, and disproportionately weighted against events prior to 1300. I just think that having 40 or more percent of something after 1900 is too much. You seem to have a problem understanding the nuances of my comments, and taking them to completely illogical extreme. Also, you constantly correcting on and adding to existing comments is frustrating in that you create endless conflicts  p  b  p  03:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the edit conflicts, I'll try to be more considerate, but my eyes aren't what they used to be. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Novels
I noticed we have very few works of literature on the list. Perhaps we should include some more novels, like The Catcher in the Rye or The Great Gatsby? Revolution1221 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this in general, 1000 most vital articles. I think there are too many people, authors and otherwise, they are kind of narrow in scope, adding a novel is an even narrower scope than adding a author. There are probably 100s or 1000s of novels people may think as worthy to be in. I have been trying to get things as vital to humanity as horse archaeology hospital school communication etc added with some help and some resistance. I don't like the fact there are nations like Vietnam with over 90 million people missing. Adding novels to a 1000 list is not good in my oppinion. The only books with a chance are the Bible and similar. The 10,000 list is the place for novels, there are quite a few there, in fact I think the ones you mentioned are there. Carlwev (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are three books that belong on this list: The Bible, the Koran, and Hamlet. Save the rest for WP:VA/E  p  b  p  01:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We actually do have 1 Don Quixote, 2 Epic of Gilgamesh, 3 Mahabharata, 4 Illiad 5 Shahnameh in literature and 6 Bible 7 Quran 8 Upanishads 9 Vedas 10 Bhagavad Gita 11 Guru Granth Sahib under religion that I can see. Quite a lot actually do we need all these ? and we do not have Hamlet. Carlwev (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Bhagavad Gita should be replaced by Mahabharata, of which it is part. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * They are both in the 1000. I would like to remove Bhagavad Gita, as it's part of the already included, Mahabharata. Even in the 10'000 people voted against, having the Old and New Testaments in addition to Bible, so I don't know quite how Bhagavad Gita has endured within the 1000. Carlwev (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Suspect wrong link – Latin alphabet
Hello. Could it be that what is meant to be covered in the list by Latin alphabet is actually far better covered by Latin script? Should the latter not be included instead of the former? Regards Littledogboy (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The alphabet is more all-encompassing than the script, which is only one of many possible variations of the alphabet. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct about the words – but the articles?! Littledogboy (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading the articles, it's clear that the script is more important than the alphabet. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I have changed it (other language interwikis also corroborate this). Littledogboy (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Replacement article: Imperial and US customary measurement systems
Support !votes
 * 1) Support User:Martinvl Martinvl (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An article that serves as and is titled as a comparison when merely providing approximations as its main feature is not suitable, while the replacement, with some edits, is both suitable and encyclopedic. Adavis444 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The suggested replacement is much more complete. Awickert (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose without due discussion. Why was the current article added? Why wasn't the current article updated rather than replaced? 89.206.230.105 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Response
 * This new article was written to fulfill two purposes:
 * To provide a text in the list of Wikipedia's 1000 Vital Articles. The gap was previously filled by the article Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems.
 * To provide an integrated overview of the following articles:
 * English units
 * Imperial units
 * United States customary units
 * Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems
 * and to write an overview of the use of Imperial and US Customary Units in engineering.
 * As can be seen, the article Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems addresses a specific topic which is consistent with its title and which should be retained to address that specific topic. It is therefore impractical to enlarge the existing topic. Martinvl (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
The article Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems (17 kbytes, 0 citations) has been used as a stop-gap for "Imperial and US customary measurement systems". I have now written an article Imperial and US customary measurement systems (71 kbytes, 71 citations) which I believe is suitable for inclusion in Vital Articles in place of the existing stop-gap article. The rationale behind the new article is at Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems. Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that the article Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems is inadequate to act as a Vital Article. This comparison article serves as a useful tool with some history thrown in but could not even be regarded as C-class as is. A comprehensive overview is needed instead. Thus, insofar as the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems contains all relevant historical information and whatever elements from the prior article that are encyclopedic by nature beyond approximate conversions, I would favor the replacement. Nevertheless, it remains a challenge, as a merger would not be appropriate due to the non-encyclopedic nature of the many conversion tables, which undoubtedly assist many Wikipedia users. Perhaps the comparison article should be partially relegated into Conversion of units with the remainder merged into Imperial and US customary measurement systems. Adavis444 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Following User:Adavis444's comments, I will add a section to the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems comparing the Imperial and US customary systems, citing the article Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems as a "Main article". Thank you for the first bit of constructive feedback that I have had regarding this article.Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Spelling
Don't people check spellings of articles before they edit here? It depresses me a bit to see a recent (quite animated and rather useful) discussion here in which the proposer did not know how to spell Clement Attlee correctly and of those responding only one did. Surely, given what we're here for, it is worth checking? Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Euro and United States dollar, Add Bank and Currency
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ypnypn (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
The thread for removing Dollar and Euro is further above but went a bit stale, one user spoke about it being OK to lose them so long as we had currency and/or money, so I post this instead. Bank and certainly currency are much older used virtually everywhere. Dollar and Euro are currencies, but we do not have currency itself. Although currency is kind of covered by money they are not the same and I find it odd to have 2 currencies but not currency itself. The term and topic of currency is not just a generic meaningless umbrella term, it is vital. Although Dollar and Euro are big they are not used across the entire world, nor go back that far through history, especially for the Euro. Bank and Currency are used in pretty much the whole developed world, and go further back in history, they are more vital topics. (We have money here and in the vital 100 too. We also have Finance here, I also dislike Good (economics) within economics too if that would be better to remove?) Carlwev (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobel prize
I am astonished the Nobel prize is in the list of political institutions. It may reflect the truth, but, as far as I know, it contradicts Nobel's wishes. He intended it to be an instrument of science & arts alone, with no politics/countries involved. The exception is the Nobel prize for peace, of course. - 89.110.11.68 (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt, a wikipedia list header is going to offend the late Alfred Nobel. It is an institution and has been placed with the other institutions that are not countries. The list is short only 1000 articles and there is no where else it seems to belong. The most simple answer I can see is giving the list a different title. Carlwev (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest renaming list to "International Organizations." Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Space Shuttle
Moving this discussion here from Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 18.
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove Australia (continent)
It is redundant, we have Oceania and Australia (the country) already.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  04:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This proposal is to remove the article Australia (continent) from the list of continents and regions in geography, it was added at the end of January this year by an IP who said they had done it on the talk page although no voting took place one user said well done and no one opposed the addition. We have Australia the country listed here among the nations, and there it shall remain; we also have Oceania listed among the continents and regions as well. I won't go into the specifics of the exact meaning of the terms Oceania and Australia, what they include or not, or who prefers to use which one. There is massive overlap in the meaning of the terms or what they cover, their meaning isn't always agreed on but basically both include the huge landmass of Australia, one includes Pacific islands and the other doesn't. Oceania covers a wider area which encompasses Australia (continent), plus NZ and Pacific islands. Oceania is within the vital 100 topics. Oceania also has a much longer article much more references and appears in over double the languages that Australia (continent) does. Oceania is by far the most used term and covers the most area, and we have to have it if it's in the vital 100 anyway. In a list as short as 1000 with under 90 geography articles including Australia (continent) as well, is just redundant mostly to Oceania and a bit to the nation of Australia too. I find it akin to having South America, North America and The Americas, or Europe, Asia and Eurasia which we don't have in the 1000 list they won't fit, they are redundant and waste space. (The term we all used in geography at school was Australasia, that's not here anywhere in the vital articles not even in the 10'000 but I'll get over it). This removal would probably make way for adding "Entertainment" posted above with 4-0 support, which is also in the vital 100 but not the vital 1000 yet, so we kind of have to add it. (please discuss, support or oppose on that one above separately if you haven't already) Oh and by the way, I just noticed no one has yet even added Australia (continent) to the vital 10,000 list so we cannot include it here but not there. Carlwev (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Hong Kong
Since the duplicate entry on Australia has been removed, let's add another geography article to take its place. Most rankings of global cities have Hong Kong in the top five in the world, and we've already listed sixteen other cities, so it ought to be on there as well.
 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 21:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. An important global center. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Magnetic resonance imaging, Add Hospital
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
MRI in Food and Health, under technology, it's fairly recent, very specific technology it's never had an exceptionally wide usage, like other techs internet, wheel, aviation, refrigeration, computer. We have little over 100 tech articles here, I don't believe MRI to be among the top 100 most vital or most widely used techs ever created by humans. We have 44 articles under health and medicine. I definitely consider hospital to be among the top 40 most vital articles within medicine. (We already have physician there, which very slightly covers that topic, but not enough in my opinion to not include hospital) Hospitals, have been around for longer, and are more widespread and more widely used and relied on than the MRI alone. The MRIs primary use is in hospitals/medicine. Why not include hospital but include one of many specific machines a hospital might have? Carlwev (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Fela Kuti, add Johannes Gutenberg
Relatively minor musician versus the guy who invented the printing press.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom  p  b  p  18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Ypnypn (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Don't think the nom's characterisation is entirely fair to Kuti, but I agree that Gutenberg is more vital. Neljack (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove History of China and History of Japan, Add History of Asia and History of East Asia
I suggest removing articles on the history of specific countries (although History of India is actually about the history of the Indian subcontinent), since there is no reason to introduce nationalistic bias into the list. Besides, the history of China, Korea and Japan are intimately linked, and since one of the world's first civilizations also arose in East Asia, it seems appropriate to include an article that specifically describes the history of this region. (I take it this is why History of the Middle East and History of India are on the list.) There's likely no room for histories of the other parts of Asia, so I think we should also include one article for the entire continent.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support if they are moved own a level. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC))
 * 3) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

If so, we'll have one article (History of Asia) and most of its components (Middle East, India, East Asia). Maybe include History of Southeast Asia or History of Central Asia instead? -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I'd rather include History of Asia than have to choose between those two. I considered adding both, but then I realized adding History of Oceania should probably be a higher priority for us. Cobblet (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove History of the United States and History of the Americas, Add History of North America and History of South America
Again, let's remove articles on the history of specific countries. Besides, United States is already on the list and covers that country's history. The history of North and South America can't really be said to be any more intertwined than the histories of Africa, Europe and the Middle East, and we have separate articles for the last three, so it seems reasonable to have separate articles for both Americas as well.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as reasonable cleanup of the systemic bias that tends to creep into this list. &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The US is a superpower and its history is unique from Canada and Mexico with some limited overlap, although I would have US, North America, and South America. This is on place where I don't see ethnocentricity beibg. Problem, History of US is viral at high level. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

Keep in mind that thirty years ago, the Soviet Union was also a superpower, and a hundred years ago, the British Empire was one too. As history unfolds, the relative importance of specific events may change over time, but I believe the importance of higher-level overview articles should remain generally immune to the flow and ebb of geopolitics. Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I think you are completely wrong here, human culture is not immune to the ebb and flow of geopolitics, just go back 300 years instead of 30. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC))
 * OK fair enough, "immune" was way too strong. "More immune". Cobblet (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We cannot write an encyclopedia for the future, and you lose the advantage of the medium. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

Questions

 * "Since then WP:VITAL has undergone numerous revisions by multiple editors, creating a collection of no more than 1000 essential articles that represents the consensus of the Wikipedia community."

Could you identify the current editors in charge and how "the consensus of the Wikipedia community" is determined? Because in one sense, it sounds like an editor(s) decides what is added or taken off the list but on the other hand, it states that these decision are made by the "Wikipedia community" which is composed of tens of thousands of editors. Thank you. Liz Let's Talk 15:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Oil, Add Petroleum
Whoever listed the former was probably thinking of the latter.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Ypnypn (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add more countries
One place on the list where bias is inevitable is the list of countries, but maybe the best way to mitigate this problem is to add some more. I'm going to suggest adding the three remaining G-20 major economies not on the list, because apart from their economic might I think they're notable in other ways as well:
 * I've thought for a long time we should have more nations, seems odd to have only 24 countries but over 130 people, I know the list should be varied but I myself I can't consider musicians like Hendrix and Duke Ellington to be more vital than Argentina and many other nations. I support the 3 nations below Argentina, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. I was also thinking about Ethiopia, Thailand and Vietnam as well, count me for support if they appear too. Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd love to add those too, but then we need to nominate more articles to remove. We're at 999 and I nominated two more for deletion, so adding three countries poses no problem. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Add Argentina
The largest country in the world (8th) not currently listed—it's even larger than the Caribbean Sea. Brazil is the only South American country currently listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. 21st in GDP PPP, 26th in nominal GDP, 32nd in population, and ≈60th in English-speaking population. I don't think area is that important (or we'd be adding Algeria, Libya, Congo, Mongolia, etc) -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - The list is currently at 999, so there is not room to add without going over. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose list is already full. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

User:GabeMc, I've suggested two removals as well, which would put us at exactly 1000 articles. And there are obvious candidates for removal in the People section, which I haven't addressed. (Frida Kahlo? Seriously?) @User:Ypnypn: Sure, the DRC is more populous, and we could add it if we decide Sub-Saharan Africa needs more representation, but Argentina's probably more significant in every other aspect. And English-speaking population is clearly not a criterion previous users took into consideration if neither Ireland nor New Zealand is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I strongly disagree with stuffing this list full of cites and countries like an atlas. This is an encyclopedia and I don't see the need for listing countries based on GDP. Cobblet, besides its GDP, why is Argentina vital to an English speaking Wikipedia? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because South America is currently under-represented compared to other continents. We have three African countries and three North American countries; surely South America deserves more than one if we want to achieve NPOV. And besides, Argentina is a one of the most highly developed countries in the Southern Hemisphere, a middle power, has a history of conflict with the UK, is larger than 2/3 of the countries on the list right now, and gave us Jorge Luis Borges, Diego Maradona and the tango. If my intention was to "stuff" this list with countries I'd nominate Kazakhstan; it isn't and I never intend to. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Africa and North America are both much larger than South America, so they get more countries on the list. I don't think Australia (continent) needs three as well. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absurd. Nobody is suggesting we add two more countries from Oceania, or even a third country from South America. And I'm in agreement with Carlwev's comment above: we should consider adding Ethiopia from Africa, as well as Vietnam and Thailand. None of this has anything to do with the sizes of continents. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You just said "We have three African countries and three North American countries; surely South America deserves more than one" -- 50.74.2.12 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Add Saudi Arabia
The Arab world is currently only represented by Egypt. Saudi Arabia is also home to the two holiest places in Islam.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Islam already represented by Islam, Islamic philosophy, Five Pillars of Islam, Islamic schools and branches, Islamic Golden Age, Islamism. Arab world is already represented by Arabic language and Arabic alphabet. For nation states there have been previous discussions on this talk page about which countries to include based on more complex criteria (population, geographic area, etc.) -- ELEKHHT 13:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - The list is currently at 999, so there is not room to add without going over. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose list is already full. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer including Saudi Arabia over Islamic philosophy and possibly even Islamism—for the purposes of this list, aren't those topics that would be sufficiently covered by Islam? The number of page views Saudi Arabia gets is an order of magnitude greater than either of those articles. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Most VA editors have rejected the notion that page views can be used as a basis for vitality. Maybe try swapping out Egypt for Saudi Arabia. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The !votes at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 18 were 3 to 4. Not exactly a resounding rejection, and amusingly enough our positions were reversed during that discussion. (It's good we're keeping an open mind about these things, I guess.) Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Add South Korea
A major economic power (ranked 12th in the world, and the next 4-5 countries are on our list already) with its own distinct language and culture to boot.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose GDP is not a comprehensive measure of economy, and economy is not the only relevant aspect of nation states. There have been previous discussions about which countries to include based on more complex criteria (population, geographic area, etc.) -- ELEKHHT 13:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose list is already full. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather Korea – the southern country has only been separate for about seventy years; the peninsula goes back thousands. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The point you bring up makes sense, it has been mentioned before and part of me agrees. I would like to point out also, that "Korea" is not in the 10,000 at the moment. I suggested to add it there previously for the reasons you gave among others. I argued my case and it almost got success but not quite. Some users said it was redundant to N and S Korea and the Korean Peninsula. If Korea is added here to the 1000, logic says it has to be in the 10'000 too. Carlwev (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I don't think this discussion really needs to worry about the 10,000 list but swapping Korean Peninsula for Korea probably wouldn't be controversial. With respect to the comment about more complex criteria: obviously that's true, but I don't want to bore people with arguments and prefer to let the article speak for itself. Suffice it to say that there are smaller, less populous and less developed countries on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Angkor Wat, Add Mecca
There are several temple complexes in Southeast Asia of comparable significance to Angkor Wat (Bagan, Borobudur). I suggest that besides Jerusalem, which is already on the list, no other religious site in the world compares in significance to Mecca.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support An improvement, Although I'm not 100% sure about Mecca, it deserves a place much more than Angkor Wat, Which I also suggested to remove way back. Carlwev (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect to architectural significance, you'll have to explain why we're including Angkor and not either Southeast Asian temple I mentioned, or other works of religious architecture such as St. Peter's Basilica. With respect to cultural significance, there's no contest—mecca's even entered the English language as a common noun. Cobblet (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose swap. Angkor Wat is included for architectural and broader cultural significance, swapping it based on religious significance makes no sense. -- ELEKHHT 13:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per ELEKHH. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per Elekhh. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Elekhh. Both articles are important in a different way. Maybe space should be made elsewhere to fit in Mecca.  Gizza T /C  04:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * There is a stalled discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 5. My main concern is that architecture is being constantly reduced and increasingly under-represented in this list. I think a discussion as to which articles best represent architecture in this list should be separate from this proposal. -- ELEKHHT 21:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that architecture is even close to being under-represented when we currently have eight articles listed vs. one work of art and no works of music. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not looking to the complete picture. There are 10 artists (mostly painters) and 13 musicians, (plus 15 writers and 5 filmmakers) but no architects. There are 6 artistic movements and 6 musical genres, plus 5 literary genres. but no architectural movements or styles. -- ELEKHHT 22:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you believe that works of architecture are the best way to represent the subject (which I disagree with), you're welcome to propose swapping in topics on architecture for less vital topics. I agree that the list in its current state is far from perfect. Cobblet (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As in the previous discussion I linked to, I am arguing for shifting architecture from single works to broader topics (architects, historic/geographic styles/movements). But I am against this proposal as it shifts away from architecture to religion. The issue with architecture is that the problems are similar at the Level 4 list, with an even lower representation of ca. 0.6% and similar undue weight on specific buildings/structures (7 basic terms, 22 architects, 28 structures). -- ELEKHHT 00:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Electrocardiography, Add Fertilizer
The latter has undoubtedly had the larger impact on human health and society.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Thinking about this, definitely an improvement and I definitely want Electrocardiography out, it's not a top vital 1000 article; I think I tried to remove it before. Carlwev (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove International Space Station, Add Burj Khalifa
The ISS and the Hubble Space Telescope are the only feats of modern engineering on the list. I think Hubble is the better article to keep (manned space missions are already represented by Moon landing), and propose replacing the ISS with the tallest man-made structure in the world.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Burj Khalifa. Tallest man made structures are constantly being superseded every couple of years, plus there are competing claims based on how a structure is measured. ISS is more impressive technical achievement. -- ELEKHHT 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - ISS is far more impressive technically. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above.  Gizza T /C  04:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose ISS not my fave but much better than Burj Kalifa, for reasons others already said. Maybe time to archive this one. Carlwev (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Add Martin Scorsese, Remove Steven Spielberg
Support !votes
 * 1) Support Randomuser112 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I would contemplate removing Eisenstein, I Would at a stretch maybe contemplate swapping in Alfred Hitchcock, not Scorsese. In general I think we need to reduce people here full stop, there are more important topics than people. Carlwev (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Yes, remove both at this level, and Hitchcock if either. '--(AfadsBad (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
 * As User:Elekhh has pointed out, there's an imbalance in the way the arts are represented on this list, and the five filmmakers we have are perhaps the most glaring example. If Hitchcock isn't on the list, removing Spielberg is a no-brainer. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Chess, Go (game) and Cricket, Add Dog, Cat Rat and Horse
It's a bit strange that humans are the only animal species listed. I don't think it's disputable that dogs, cats and horses have had a bigger impact on human culture than most sports or games (Association football and Track and field remain on the list), and I say this as a member of Wikiproject Chess. I'd propose adding cattle and sheep as well, but dogs, cats and horses have been valued not only for the services they provide but also for the companionship they offer, so I think it's appropriate to start with these three. Edit: Replaced cat with rat, since the latter has had an even larger impact on humans. We wouldn't need cats as much if it weren't for rats, and some people keep rats as pets too.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. However, I'd like to drop Association football and Track and field as well and add another two animals. We have 6+ plants (depending on how you count), so we can have quite a few animals. There are about 700 (!) animals on the Expanded list, we can include a few here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. -- ELEKHHT 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removing Go and Cricket while keeping Chess and adding dog and horse. I just think one example of a popular board game should remain just as there are two examples of popular sports.  Gizza T /C  04:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support yeah agree with Gizza and my original comment, support Go, Cricket, Horse and Dog. - But Chess, while not my favorite, but I like it more than rat. Rat's main claim to fame may be the Black Death which we already include. Carlwev (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Agree with adding Horse and dog, not sure about cat, would agree to add cattle as well. Not completely sure about removing chess, maybe? don't really mind losing cricket though; all of these have come up before I believe and some nearly made it. I think some of these will end up going through. Carlwev (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Note that we already have Animal husbandry and Domestication. Tend to agree with Horse. But if this is about species close to humans, for NPOV would rather favour Rat. -- ELEKHHT 20:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion. Replace cat with rat, perhaps? Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, replace c with r. -- ELEKHHT 00:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Other possible removals in exchange for more animals are Dinosaur (how is this one of seven most important animal groups?); Botany (we have Plant, we don't need "Study of Plants") -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume the animals you want to add are ones significant to humans. If that's the case, I feel that the best things to remove would be things of less significance to humans. There are several things in the Technology section, for example, that aren't truly vital: Nanotechnology and Tower strike me as being particularly egregious examples.
 * The danger of making swaps within the Biology section is that most of the articles listed there are listed because of their significance to biology, not humans, so you risk disturbing the balance of the current list if you swap them for human-centric topics. For example, Dinosaur and Algae might not seem like the most important topics nowadays, but they were tremendously significant in the evolution of animal and plant life. I agree that Plant and Botany are redundant, but it doesn't make sense to remove Botany without also removing Zoology. Personally I think the least deserving topic on that sublist is Abiogenesis, and the kinds of topics I'd consider replacing it with are things like Sense, Developmental biology and Metabolism. (Actually that's a 3-for-3 swap I might propose at some point.) Cobblet (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove Tamil language
As far as I can tell, the list of languages includes: And then there's Tamil. Why was this selected at the expense of Malay, Javanese, Punjabi, Wu and Telugu, all of which seem likely to have more speakers according to the lists I just cited?
 * 1) Two languages of historic importance to Western culture: Greek and Latin.
 * 2) The six working languages of the UN: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Mandarin (not the same as Chinese language, but that's an issue for another time), Arabic.
 * 3) Five of the most widely spoken languages (whether you go by native or total speakers) not already listed: Hindi-Urdu, Bengali, Portuguese, Japanese, German.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. -- ELEKHHT 05:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 04:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Anarchism and Dictatorship, Add Libertarianism and Totalitarianism
To me it makes more sense to have articles representing these opposing ends of the political spectrum than to have articles on specific examples of each.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I think I oppose this. I think "Dictatorship" is a weak subject to include, because it's not actually an ideology, but Totalitarianism is a deeply ideologically fraught subject, in that not everyone agrees that the parallels it draws between Communist and Fascist regimes are useful or meaningful. On the other side, Anarchism seems like a much clearer subject to me than Libertarianism, which has had a variety of meanings. I don't think it's at all accurate to say that anarchism is a specific example of libertarianism. Anarchism is a clearly defined political philosophy, while Libertarianism is an often vague umbrella term. john k (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that dictatorship is really an example of totalitarianism. There can be a libertarian dictatorship.
 * Discussion

@User:John K: Would authoritarianism be a better choice than totalitarianism then? And do you believe anarchism is a significant enough topic for this list (as a layman I don't really see how it compares to the other political ideologies on the list in terms of practical significance), or should we swap it for something else? Cobblet (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Authoritarianism would be a little better, although I'm not certain authoritarianism qualifies as an actual ideology. Personally, it seems to me we should have articles about forms of government, and we should have articles about ideologies, and that these are not the same thing, although in many cases the same words are used to describe both. The current organization is totally confusing. Why is Liberalism under "Politics," but Socialism is under "Government"? I'm not sure there's anything distinctive enough about either authoritarianism or dictatorship to warrant them being on this list. In terms of anarchism, I'd say "maybe." Obviously, it hasn't really been put into practice (except maybe very briefly in a few parts of Spain during the Civil War). It was, however, a very influential ideological movement in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and early Marxist socialists, in particular, often defined themselves in contrast to anarchists. But 1000 is a very small number of articles. john k (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Dental caries, Add Dentistry
Compared to the other diseases on the list, cavities don't seem that vital: I don't see why they should be included over periodontal disease, for instance. It might be better to include the general medical discipline, which is traditionally considered separately from other branches of medicine and is barely mentioned at all in that article.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Incidentally, I think we have too many diseases in general. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I agree (surely there are better medicine-related topics like surgery to include instead), but right now I have no idea how we should decide which ones to keep. This was the most obvious substitution I could think of. Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Meteorology and Oceanography, Add Soil and Map
Since we've got weather and sea, I don't think we need articles on the scientific study of each. (Otherwise why not include other branches such as climatology, hydrology or geomorphology?) I'd like to remove them so that we can broaden our coverage of the earth sciences. Pedology is the remaining branch of physical geography not currently represented, and soil is obviously a vital topic. So are maps: they predate books and have been integral to our understanding of the world around us.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I've wanted to get map aboard for a long time. Carlwev (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) '''Spport p  b  p  03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Email, Add Mail
No doubt the former is important, but it's subsumed to an extent by Internet; while the latter has been in existence for much of human civilization and is to my mind the more significant topic.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – mail is weak, but email is weaker. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support At least relative to each other, mail is historically more important. Still not sure if either is important to be in a list of 1000 most vital articles though.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 01:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Mail is a historical item whereas email is currently vital to global economics. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with nom comment, and I had same kind of idea a while back. Mail, While not tip top vital, probably makes the 1000 list and is definitely a big improvement to email. Email probably covered enough by internet at the 1000 level. Without examining the list the only included topics in the 1000 that cover mail I can remember would be writing and communication and at a stretch possibly infrastructure or transport? which are too broad to be expected to cover mail in any depth. Carlwev (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * User:GabeMc, George Washington was a historical person while Barack Obama is vital to global politics. But you wouldn't suggest making that swap, would you? Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't, but I still think that email is more vital than mail. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Ocean, Add Land
With the recent expansion of Sea to cover the subject of "the sea" in general and its successful promotion to FA (congrats to User:Chiswick Chap and User:Cwmhiraeth), Ocean no longer seems vital at this level, since most of the content one might expect to be in it is already in the former article. It also begs the question of why a similar overview article couldn't or shouldn't be written for the other 30% of the planet, Land.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 01:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Should we add land to the level 2 list?
If this proposal passes I'll take this as a sign that we agree Sea adequately represents Earth's oceans, and replace Ocean with Sea on the level 2 list. How do people feel about replacing River with Land on that list? I realize rivers are vital to physical geography and civilization, but in theory an article on land would cover all significant terrestrial features, including rivers, lakes, coasts and forests. And unless somebody notices an article that's glaringly out of place on Level 2, I don't want to make a swap of land for an article unrelated to geography. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove Comics
As a type of drawing, it's a step down in significance from that or the other visual arts. We don't list things like puppetry or animation either.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 02:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Why remove this artform/narrative form before individual artists, writers and works? If animation is also missing then try to add it don't remove other artforms to make it "fair". I think I'll make no difference though. Carlwev (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the rationale. If it's to be removed, it needs to have a rationale that is not entirely mistaken.  "Animation" is a subset of the "film" medium.  Comics is itself a medium. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I would prefer if this was kept, I think animation should be in too. Carlwev (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I'm not at all opposed to a replacement article in the visual arts. Part of the reason I don't think including comics or animation is such a good idea is because we already have drawing and film, while many other types of visual arts (of varying significance) can only be covered by the parent article. Applied art, Decorative art, Craft, Handicraft, Design, Fashion, Graphic design, Industrial design, Interior design, Conceptual art, Printmaking, and Typography are the kind of topic I was thinking of. Cobblet (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm neither going to support nor oppose, but tonly correct the mistaken rationale: Comics is not a type of drawing—that's cartooning, a common, but unnecessary, element in comics. Comics is a narrative medium. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a case could be made for adding narrative; but I still don't see why this particular narrative medium needs to be on such a select list. Cobblet (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Latin America
Within the "Continents and regions" section, I understand the argument for including Mesoamerica and the Middle East as cradles of civilization, but I don't see the argument for including Latin America when other modern groupings of countries by culture (e.g. Arab world, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Western and Eastern Europe) aren't listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 10:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Caribbean Sea
A good case can be made for including Mediterranean Sea on this list, since not only is it hydrologically distinct from the Atlantic (it is saltier) and formed through different geological processes, it is historically significant in that several important civilizations sprang up on its shores and for them it was a vitally important avenue of trade and commerce. I'd argue that the Caribbean doesn't really stand out in terms of geological, hydrological, or historical significance (why include it instead of the Gulf of Mexico, to name one comparable?), and I would rather remove it so that space on the list could be made for more vital geography articles.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 10:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Chess
Games are already well represented by the inclusion of genres (board game, card game, video game). Even though I happen to be a member of Wikiproject Chess, I don't believe this list needs an example of a specific game. Chess would probably be the game with the greatest cultural significance, but in this aspect it is definitely inferior to other forms of human recreation — compare the number of Wikipedias in which articles on Usain Bolt (90), Pelé (91) and Diego Maradona (88) appear, versus Garry Kasparov (70) and Bobby Fischer (74).
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. -- ELEKHHT 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Salt (chemistry), Add Salt
Table salt is of obvious importance to animal life and human civilization. Given that salts are formed from the reaction between acids and bases and we've already listed both articles (which do cover the formation of salts), I think swapping in a more specific article is justified here.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Ypnypn (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Homosexuality, Add Sexual orientation
I think this topic deserves to be covered from a broader perspective—there are four letters in "LGBT", after all. November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. -- ELEKHHT 05:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2
 * 5) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Physician
This is the only topic on the list about a specific profession. Having both medicine and physician on the list is like having both education and teacher—it seems clearly redundant.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C  04:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Glass
Like paper, this was an essential invention for the development of civilization. Without it we'd have no glass windows, which allow houses to be better insulated and illuminated; and optics wouldn't be possible, so we wouldn't have eyeglasses, microscopes, telescopes, or optical fibres.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 10:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: remove Joseph Stalin, add Franklin D. Roosevelt
We already have Lenin, and nowhere else do we include two consecutive leaders from one country. It could be argued that Stalin's policies have largely been overturned since his death, but FDR's legacy continues with the passage of the ACA. Washington started the Union, Lincoln preserved it, but FDR was integral to the defeat of European fascism, thus ensuring Democracy's presence on the continent for another 60+ years. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  18:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Agree with nominator. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose both the proposed removal and the proposed addition. --Yair rand (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the removal of Stalin. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Yair rand and Curly Turkey. I'd support a swap of FDR for Benjamin Franklin. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I agree with Cobblet's comments about Stalin's impact. I would support adding FDR though. Neljack (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose but open to removing Lenin.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 11:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Stalin foot print on history is way more iportant than FDRs. So is Lenins.

I don't accept the implication that Stalin's impact on history is less than FDR's because his policies were overturned after his death: so were Hitler's and Mao's. And wasn't Stalin also integral to the defeat of fascism? And the argument that we shouldn't include Stalin because "nowhere else do we include two consecutive leaders from one country" seems a bit arbitrary to me—at best, it's an argument to remove Stalin or Lenin; it's not an argument to add FDR. Since we take such pains to maintain diversity on the People list, why not replace Stalin or Lenin with another Russian, say Peter the Great? And if we want to add FDR to better represent America's contribution to world history, why not have him replace another American, say Benjamin Franklin? Cobblet (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * Cobblet, 1) The People's Republic of China is still Communist, so no, not all of Mao's policies were overturned. On the other hand, the Soviet Union no longer exists. 2) Yes, Stalin helped defeat fascism, but only because Hitler betrayed him. Further, what Stalin implemented in Europe after the war was arguably just as dictatorial as Hitler; Stalin did absolutely nothing for Democracy in Europe whatsoever. 3) I think it's more than excessive to include two consecutive leaders from one country, let alone the same political party. Call it arbitrary all you want, 99% of all rationales on this page are just that. The Universe has many more than 10,000 vital topics, so by definition this list will not include them all, and many will be excluded based on editorial preferences. 4) Last year I replaced Stalin with Peter the Great and I was reverted. 5) There seems to be a big soft spot for Franklin here, so I seriously doubt he could be removed for FDR. 6) Anyway, this is my proposal, so please just oppose and stop badgering me. You have like 100 proposals currently up, so why not allow others to give their input? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Socialism with Chinese characteristics has nothing to do with Maoism. Tbh, if I had to pick one political figure to represent 20th-century China it would be Sun Yat-sen. Swapping him in for Mao would help reduce the glut of mid-20th-century politicians on the list. 2) Then you might as well say Winston Churchill helped defeat fascism only because Hitler betrayed Chamberlain, and that FDR only helped defeat fascism because of Pearl Harbor. 3) and 5) To me, including two people who represent the American Revolution (it looks like we've established that Franklin's contributions to science are not the primary reason he's on the list) is a more obvious imbalance than including both Lenin and Stalin. 4) I know. 6) I would not be helping build consensus if I simply opposed the motion without discussing why I did so. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider that we include Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Churchill. So isn't FDR a glaring omission? I think it is, and if I was going to cut one of those four I would cut Stalin. To simply add FDR is 1930s-40s excess, but to omit him in favour of two Soviets in a row is a mistake, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say remove Churchill first, and perhaps also remove Lenin. --Yair rand (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Stalin ran the USSR for thirty years, oversaw its industrialization, its becoming the other world superpower, and its defeat of Hitler along the way. It's Stalin who was behind communization of Eastern Europe and the erection of the Iron Curtain.  Stalin was behind the Great Purge, as iconic as Hitler for the mass suppression of dissidence.  It's Stalin's brand of communism, not Lenin's, that folks like Mao imitated.  Stalin's impact on history far outweighs that of FDR. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Stalin's impact has been largely erased in Russia, but FDR's influence still going strong in the US (see the PPACA). GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See Neo-Stalinism and google "Stalin nostalgia". Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hitler's impact has been largely erased in Germany. Whether or not there's Neo-Stalinism today (or the PPACA?!?) is incredibly beside the point—Stalin is one of the towering figures of world history.  Rome fell aeons ago—I guess that makes Julius Caesar passé as well?  Talk about lack of perspective!   There's a whole world outside them Unitedstatesian borders, y'know! Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How silly. Julius Caesar still influences philosophy and politics, as do ancient Roman governments in general. Stalin was a hack, IMO; he is not at all in the same league as Hitler, so that's funny. Well, hyperbole aside, my main point is that I find it more than odd that in a group of 25 leaders of all time, we have two back-to-back Soviet leaders. This is an obvious overrepresentation of Soviet Russia. Can you argue that Soviet Russia deserves two consecutive leaders when no other civilization in the history of Humankind does? If so, why? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Can you argue that blah blah blah": I didn't—this discussion is Stalin vs FDR. Please stay on topic.
 * "Stalin was a hack, IMO": We're not interested in your opinion, only the facts—especially when it's your opinion that the PPACA has had a greater impact on the history of humanity than the Iron Curtain, the Holodomor, the Battle of Stalingrad ... instead of having me list every wide-impact policy or event he was behind, why not go read the article? We're talking about the man behind the construction of the 20th century's Only Other Superpower here, not that that should be taken into consideration, eh? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We get it; you're a big Stalin fan, but the Iron Curtain is long gone, Jack! On the other hand, the type of socialism that FDR propagated is all around billions of people, while Stalin's style is old hat. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right, I'm a closet Pinko, Gabe! Report me quick for COI!  At least do something other than present a cogent argument to what I've actually written! Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories
It seems that there are currently two systems for VA categories: Category:C-Class vital articles and Category:Wikipedia C-Class vital articles. The former seems based off of WP1.0; the latter off of Vital article. Do we need both? -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Theocracy, Add Oligarchy
There are other forms of oligarchy that are just as significant as theocracy, e.g. Meritocracy and Aristocracy. I think it makes more sense for us to include the overarching topic.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose it makes less sense to include the oerarching topic when it is not as consequential as some of the individual subtopics. IN any case the swap would have to be between the overarching topic and the subtopics and not with another topic that is itself vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Categories
It seems that there are currently two systems for VA categories: Category:C-Class vital articles and Category:Wikipedia C-Class vital articles. The former seems based off of WP1.0; the latter off of Vital article. Do we need both? -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Theocracy, Add Oligarchy
There are other forms of oligarchy that are just as significant as theocracy, e.g. Meritocracy and Aristocracy. I think it makes more sense for us to include the overarching topic.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose it makes less sense to include the oerarching topic when it is not as consequential as some of the individual subtopics. IN any case the swap would have to be between the overarching topic and the subtopics and not with another topic that is itself vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Updating talk pages
Is anyone making sure all VAs have Vital article applied to their talk pages? -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the answer is no, since none of the articles I've removed so far have the tag. I've been adding it to the articles I've added to the list, but haven't checked the others. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientists
Swap John Dalton for James Clerk Maxwell, Benjamin Franklin for Richard Feynman. Still retains balance areas - physicists for physicists. Jamesx12345

I think Maxwell and Franklin are the two most significant people out of those four. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * I would be of the opinion that Feynman was more significant than Franklin. I'd like to see at least one physicist in the latter half of the 20th century - perhaps Edward Witten?
 * Tough decisions have to be made when we can only pick 20 scientists—Louis Pasteur probably has a better case than Franklin or Feynman. Cobblet (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Franklin may not earn his keep as a scientist, but as a diplomat, printer, polymath? He needs to be on here somewhere. Dalton for Feynman? HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maxwell comes top for me out of all of them, and Dalton bottom. Jamesx12345 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As physicists alone I would rank Maxwell and Feynman highest, but considering Benjamin Franklin's achievements in other non-scientific areas I would say Franklin and Maxwell. Very suprised Maxwell wasn't on the list already.  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove John Dalton, Add James Clerk Maxwell
Based on the discussion above, it seems like more people are a little more willing to remove Dalton and add Maxwell, so I have taken the liberty of separating the two proposals. Cobblet (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Jamesx12345 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dalton perhaps doesn't get enough attention, but I would have to agree that Maxwell is more vital. Neljack (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Agree with Neljack Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Benjamin Franklin, Add Richard Feynman

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Jamesx12345 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Franklin is not famous as a scientist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for Franklin's significant non-scientific accomplishments czar  ♔  05:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose surely you're joking? --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 3) Oppose Really ridiculous nomination. Someone deserves being struck by lightning on this one. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: Important in a number of other fields in addition to science.  The question isn't if he belongs, but where  p  b  p  16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't really pay attention to his being in scientists, and I also have been confused by the importance of a topic due to its category. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC))


 * Discussion
 * I think User:Purplebackpack89 hits the nail on the head. Franklin is not that vital as a scientist, but he would seem to be vital overall. Maybe we need a Polymath sub-list, or similar. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That just opens up a new can of worms: who one considers to be a polymath. Does Winston Churchill count? In the end, our task is simply to choose 1000 articles. While classifying things by topic might help us with that, reading too much into said classification is naturally going to lead to confusion and misjudgments. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just making an open-ended suggestion. I don't see any reason why all 1,000 entries can't be accurately categorized. Franklin is not vital as a scientist, and TMK that position has not been questioned. Maybe we should change Politicians and leaders to Politicians and Statesmen, since both statesmen and politicians are types of leaders. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not saying a polymath category is unreasonable (I'm OK with any reasonable classification system) – just pointing out that the issue of how to classify things is endlessly debatable. Personally I'm more interested in figuring out which articles we should include. That being said, we do have a specific quota on the leaders category. Cobblet (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is in agreement with those quotas; I'm not, and anyway, the link you provided also says: "There are no "set in stone" guidelines for WP:VITAL.". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you, but I see why we needed such a guideline. It helps set a quota on the number of people to include (but a quota on the entire People section would be more useful, IMO). Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Cobblet, FTR Franklin is currently included in Politicians and leaders: Early modern period, at Level 4. So why would we include him as a vital scientist at level 3, and as a vital politician and/or leader at level 4? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Beats me. Why is Hildegard of Bingen listed as a writer on Level 4 but a musician on Level 3? This is why it doesn't really matter to me how people get classified on this list. Cobblet (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that people shouldn't be listed in two different categories. Hildegard of Bingen was a polymath, and it's not at all inaccurate to call her a composer/writer, but still, we should only have her and Franklin and people like them in one category, IMO. Hence my suggestion that we put polymaths into a sub-list of their own. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Steven Spielberg, Add Alfred Hitchcock

 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom. Spielberg is too recent, and not at all as vital as Hitchcock.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 10:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support p  b  p  16:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Although it's a slight improvement I'd prefer to remove Eisenstein or Hendrix, who where both active for a shorter time, or perhaps Duke Ellington. All of whom have probably had less impact than Spielberg. Recentism? Spielberg and Hendrix or the Beatles, all started in the 1960s, only Hendrix and Beatles were cut short under a decade where Spielberg has carried on to present day, which makes him seem more recent; Film by it's nature is within the last 100 years, so all filmmakers also have to be too. To have a selection of filmmakers (last 100 years) and also not seem recent too means we need filmmakers from only the early to mid 20th century over representing that period but almost miss out the late 20th century to present day completely,. I know I brought up musicians and not filmmakers, but if we think the articles in the 1000 are not right, why would we think the number articles in each sublist of it is right? Music has been around much longer than Film but 5 of our 13 musicians are from within the last 100 years, it was higher before we've also previously had Fela Kuti, Michael Jackson and Antonio Carols Jobim. I However think Hitchcock is an OK inclusion if we are having 5 or 6 filmmakers. Spielberg just isn't the first person I'd boot off to make room. Carlwev (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * Of the world's three "great" races, Hendrix and Ellington are two of only three representatives of the Negroid race on this list. Of the 134 people currently listed here, only 2.24% are Negro, despite the fact that they make up 15% of the global population. There have been so many discussions of the list's systemic bias that I shouldn't have to make a big argument that all three major races should be represented here, and not just Asian and European. Hendrix is also the only person on this list with Native American heritage. It greatly concerns me that the last three or four people that have been removed from VA3 have been people of color. There are more people in Africa then in Europe, and there are roughly as many people of Africa decent as there are people of European decent, but this list is currently disproportionately white. There are currently 9 Asians and 3 Negros included, which is only about 9% of this list, despite the fact the Asians and Negros make up 75% of the global population. Whites make up 15% of global population, but 91% of this list. So please stop attempting to remove the few people of color on this list; we are only three removals away from 100% White and/or Asian. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The arts
Why doesn't "(the) arts" sit above (or at least very close to) "art"? It's the top of the art category hierarchy and would appear to directly subsume the other. I didn't even see it in level four, so I thought it may have been an oversight. Perhaps this is more of an issue of the art article's purview and how the two topics may need merging, but I wanted to start my inquiry here. Forgive me if I am missing something elementary, but I didn't find any previous discussion on this subject in the archives. (And tangentially, I didn't find anything on the inclusion of "humanities" either.) czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure (and this is a very old (relatively speaking) project), but I would guess it's to do with (1) an attempt to avoid collective-term topics like "humanities" and "physical sciences", in order to (2) increase the diversity of topics we can squeeze into the artificial limit of "1000" items; but also because (3) by it's very nature it's likely to remain a WP:Summary style article for a long time. Possibly none of those factors, and possibly more. Just thinking out loud. –Quiddity (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else? Is this worth pursuing? czar  &middot;   &middot;  13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you make a good point and we should replace art with the arts, since we also have visual art on the list. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Art, Add The arts

 * Support
 * 1) As nom  czar  ♔  20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I (Cobblet) am going to flesh out the reasoning behind this swap a bit more, since this is a change that should apply equally to the level 1 and 2 lists. It appears that art seeks to answer the philosophical question "What is art?", while the arts answers the question "What do artists do?" I think the latter is the more important article to have on all three lists, particularly when we also include aesthetics on this list. In a way it's similar to the reasoning behind having History of the world rather than History on the Level 1 list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobblet (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 October 2013(UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Checking back in on this. I'd amend your observation by saying that "art" is synonymous with "visual/fine art" for the purposes of the encyclopedia. This said, the definition of art ("what is art?") would be the first topic/section on the visual art page (and on "the arts", methinks). The arts is the all-encompassing reference to performance, literature, visual arts, which as a whole appears more "vital" to me than the visual arts alone. (This said, with the above support, art itself will need to be added to vit2 or somewhere else.) czar  ♔  05:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Updating talk pages
Is anyone making sure all VAs have Vital article applied to their talk pages? -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure the answer is no, since none of the articles I've removed so far have the tag. I've been adding it to the articles I've added to the list, but haven't checked the others. Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientists
Swap John Dalton for James Clerk Maxwell, Benjamin Franklin for Richard Feynman. Still retains balance areas - physicists for physicists. Jamesx12345

I think Maxwell and Franklin are the two most significant people out of those four. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * I would be of the opinion that Feynman was more significant than Franklin. I'd like to see at least one physicist in the latter half of the 20th century - perhaps Edward Witten?
 * Tough decisions have to be made when we can only pick 20 scientists—Louis Pasteur probably has a better case than Franklin or Feynman. Cobblet (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Franklin may not earn his keep as a scientist, but as a diplomat, printer, polymath? He needs to be on here somewhere. Dalton for Feynman? HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maxwell comes top for me out of all of them, and Dalton bottom. Jamesx12345 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As physicists alone I would rank Maxwell and Feynman highest, but considering Benjamin Franklin's achievements in other non-scientific areas I would say Franklin and Maxwell. Very suprised Maxwell wasn't on the list already.  069952497a  (U-T-C-E) 21:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove John Dalton, Add James Clerk Maxwell
Based on the discussion above, it seems like more people are a little more willing to remove Dalton and add Maxwell, so I have taken the liberty of separating the two proposals. Cobblet (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Jamesx12345 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Dalton perhaps doesn't get enough attention, but I would have to agree that Maxwell is more vital. Neljack (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Agree with Neljack Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Benjamin Franklin, Add Richard Feynman

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Jamesx12345 21:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Franklin is not famous as a scientist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for Franklin's significant non-scientific accomplishments czar  ♔  05:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose surely you're joking? --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 3) Oppose Really ridiculous nomination. Someone deserves being struck by lightning on this one. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: Important in a number of other fields in addition to science.  The question isn't if he belongs, but where  p  b  p  16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't really pay attention to his being in scientists, and I also have been confused by the importance of a topic due to its category. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC))


 * Discussion
 * I think User:Purplebackpack89 hits the nail on the head. Franklin is not that vital as a scientist, but he would seem to be vital overall. Maybe we need a Polymath sub-list, or similar. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That just opens up a new can of worms: who one considers to be a polymath. Does Winston Churchill count? In the end, our task is simply to choose 1000 articles. While classifying things by topic might help us with that, reading too much into said classification is naturally going to lead to confusion and misjudgments. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I was just making an open-ended suggestion. I don't see any reason why all 1,000 entries can't be accurately categorized. Franklin is not vital as a scientist, and TMK that position has not been questioned. Maybe we should change Politicians and leaders to Politicians and Statesmen, since both statesmen and politicians are types of leaders. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not saying a polymath category is unreasonable (I'm OK with any reasonable classification system) – just pointing out that the issue of how to classify things is endlessly debatable. Personally I'm more interested in figuring out which articles we should include. That being said, we do have a specific quota on the leaders category. Cobblet (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is in agreement with those quotas; I'm not, and anyway, the link you provided also says: "There are no "set in stone" guidelines for WP:VITAL.". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you, but I see why we needed such a guideline. It helps set a quota on the number of people to include (but a quota on the entire People section would be more useful, IMO). Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Cobblet, FTR Franklin is currently included in Politicians and leaders: Early modern period, at Level 4. So why would we include him as a vital scientist at level 3, and as a vital politician and/or leader at level 4? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Beats me. Why is Hildegard of Bingen listed as a writer on Level 4 but a musician on Level 3? This is why it doesn't really matter to me how people get classified on this list. Cobblet (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that people shouldn't be listed in two different categories. Hildegard of Bingen was a polymath, and it's not at all inaccurate to call her a composer/writer, but still, we should only have her and Franklin and people like them in one category, IMO. Hence my suggestion that we put polymaths into a sub-list of their own. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove nth root, Add 0 (number)
Nth roots are a special case of exponentiation (already on the list) and therefore aren't vital. As the additive identity, and the digit that made the decimal system possible, zero is perhaps the most important number in mathematics.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC
 * 3) Support From a layperson's perspective (as opposed to mathematician) the number 0 just seems to be far more fundamental than the nth root. Although I also support removing percentage and keeping nth root as an alternative (see discussion below).  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 02:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose remove. See my comment below. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Being a subcategory of something else doesn't make it not vital. We have number, real number, rational number, integer, natural number, and prime number, each of which is a special case of the one before it. More calculators have than, so roots are clearly very important to math.
 * Discussion

I'm also not convinced zero is so vital. Decimal system, yes, but why does the additive identity beat the multiplicative identity?

If you really want to remove something, I'll suggest percentage (a special case of fraction), or numerical digit. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * More calculators have than  :-) But seriously, while the concept of natural numbers is virtually universal across human civilization, the idea that "nothing" could be a number revolutionized the way we understood mathematics: it's why Arabic numerals have displaced every other numeral system. And while I don't really want to imply that the additive identity "beats" the multiplicative identity (I'd support replacing percentage with 1 (number), even though the calculator sitting on my desk has a  button!), there's no question that addition is a more fundamental mathematical operation than multiplication, since the latter is simply repeated addition. I'll also point out that the list includes logarithm, which is a more logical complement to exponentiation than nth root is. And I just noticed that my calculator has dedicated buttons for exponentiation, squares and reciprocals, but not square roots and nth roots (which require the shift key): and indeed it could be argued that inverse element is a more vital mathematical topic than nth roots. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, you (and the article) convinced me that zero is vital. But I still think roots deserve to be here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Cuisine or Cooking on the Level 2 and 3 lists
I have compared the Level 2 and Level 3 lists, and added three articles on the shorter list to the longer one. There is one remaining article on the Level 2 list that I haven't added, which is cuisine, because the Level 3 list already has cooking. I believe the latter topic is more general, as it refers to the fundamental human activity separate from cultural influences. I propose keeping cooking on the Level 3 list and having it replace cuisine on the Level 2 list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite follow; are you saying that cooking should be on both the Level 2 and Level 3 lists? I would like Cooking on the Level 2 list and Cuisine on the Level 3 list. They are different things. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I'm saying we should have Cooking but not Cuisine on both lists. That would preserve the status quo on Level 3 but change it on Level 2. The principle behind the lists is that each level should contain the articles of the level above it, so it would not be possible to have Cooking but not Cuisine on Level 2, and Cuisine but not Cooking on Level 3, if that's what you were suggesting. I wouldn't necessarily oppose adding Cuisine to Level 3, but I'd have to take a closer look at the entire list first—there are likely more serious omissions. Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is Food? I suspect cuisine should be rather high. At least level 3. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

Add Molecular Biology remove blood

 * Support
 * 1) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Support A fundamental field of scientific research. We don't need both circulatory system and blood at this level. Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Both should be included. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Blood is an essential topic p  b  p  16:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Almost all biology today is actually molecular biology; this is how biology has been done since the mid 80s with the advent of PCR, and, now with new fluorescent imaging techniques that have been around for the past 20 years, even more biology is being done onthe molecular level. This article should not be down there in the 10,000 with Developmental biology, it is far more critical. The blood article can be carried with the circulatory system article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discuss

Remove Shahnameh
While undoubtedly important, this seems a step down in global significance when compared to the other works of literature on the list (Don Quixote, Epic of Gilgamesh, Iliad, Mahabharata) as well as several not currently listed (Aeneid, Divine Comedy, Analects), so I propose removing it.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - It's on par with the others mentioned above (Don Quixote, Epic of Gilgamesh, Iliad, Mahabharata). Athenean (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Orchestra, Add Musical ensemble
Not sure why Western classical music deserves preferential treatment on this subject, particularly when the list of musicians is already tilted towards that area.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Cobblet.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 02:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I dont think most people use orchestra exclusively for classical orchestras. But I agree with the general motivation behind this swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Very well-known term. Athenean (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Machu Picchu, Add Andean civilizations
It's photogenic, yes, but it's hard to see why Machu Picchu deserves to be on such a select list over other New World historic sites like Chichen Itza; besides, we could use an article on the cradle of civilization that produced it.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose woud be like swapping the Eiffel tower for "European culture". Yes, the Inca Empire should be on the lñist if it isnt already. So should Macchu Pichu.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - One of the most globally renowned archeological sites. Athenean (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per Maunus.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 08:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Parthenon, Add Athens
I still think works of architecture are over-represented on the list (even after my suggested swaps, we'd still have five, compared to five works of literature, one painting and no works of music) and would like to replace them with more deserving articles. Athens wouldn't look out of place on our list of cities; there are only a handful of cities in the world older than it, and none of those can claim to be the birthplace of Western civilization. True, we do have Ancient Greece on the list, but I think Athens is important enough by itself to be listed separately.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose not comparable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there are too many single works of architecture for a top 1,000, but architecture is not over-represented. I would suggest Ancient Greek architecture instead, but is not yet in the L4 list. Otherwise Athens has merits, probably more relevant than HK historically. -- ELEKHHT 00:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Rat
Apart from humans, the only mammal with a truly global distribution. As pests, invasive species and model organisms, they impact fields as diverse as agriculture, ecology, public health, medicine and psychology. Universally vilified but occasionally domesticated and even sanctified, few animals match their prominence in human culture.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. -- ELEKHHT 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Per nom. Athenean (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Cattle
Probably the best livestock animal to include. Major uses include meat, milk and leather; and of course there wouldn't be civilization without plows drawn by oxen. It's also sacred in some cultures. We're at 999 articles and I've proposed a number of removals elsewhere on the list (and could easily propose more), so we should have room to add this.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support (as long as we stay under 1000) I think cattle is a very solid case. Carlwev (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - per nom. Athenean (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as stated below if we have plenty of crop related articles why not livestock?  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 23:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - We have enough animals on Level 2. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose would not oppose a swap of cow for horse.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The main reason for opposition before has been "yeah but we already have animal husbandry". In my view, an example of an animal or two used by humans is good for a 1000 list. We are not removing Everest because we have Mountain, Nile because we have river, or Elvis because we have Rock music, I wouldn't vote down Cattle "only" because of the inclusion of Animal Husbandry. After all we also have several crops, Rice, Wheat, Corn, Soybean, Potato, so why not Cattle. Carlwev (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove History of agriculture, Add Tourism
While obviously important, the former is covered adequately by Agriculture and History of technology, as well as articles on specific historical developments (Animal husbandry, Domestication, Fertilizer; and the mechanization of agriculture is covered in Industrial revolution). I suggest removing it so that we can diversify our coverage of industries beyond those that involve resource extraction. Tourism is probably the most significant industry not on the list, and right now the word "tourism" isn't even mentioned once in the Industry article.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I tried to add tourism a long time ago, truly a vital topic that is missing in my view. Not sure if I would've picked history of Agriculture for removal, maybe, as you said covered by agriculture and history of technology. I believe tourism definitely belongs more though. Carlwev (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Agriculture is vastly more important than tourism. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Yes, tourism is insignificant in the perspectve of the truly ital topics that an encyclopedia must coer. The history of agricuture is not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Both should be included. Athenean (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No doubt agriculture's more important than tourism. But is it so much more vastly important that we need an article on its history in addition to the parent article, the four other articles I pointed out, plus fourteen agricultural products? And is tourism so insignificant that we should have nothing on it at all? Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * History of Agriculture aside, do users think Tourism belongs or not? I think it's a important topic to have, I believe more vital than listing many individual writers, musicians or artists for example. But do other user's think this is a bad article or just a bad swap? Carlwev (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Le Corbusier, Remove Frida Kahlo

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. - ELEKHHT 01:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose: For one, if we're going to improve the representation of architecture, I'd start with somebody else. For two, we're dropping one of the few women and one of the few Latins on the list  p  b  p  19:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per PbP.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I think removing Frida Kahlo would lessen the quality of this list. There needs to be more representation of South Americans, not less.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Too many EuropeaN men already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This would be a tiny step towards improving representation of architecture in this list. As Fallingwater has been recently removed, there is no article about the architecture of the last three centuries. Le Corbusier has been globally influential not only in architecture but also urban planning. He is one of 22 architects listed at L4, yet no architect is in this list, while there are 10 painters (6 of 18-20th centuries), 15 writers (8 of 18-20th centuries) and 13 musicians (12 of 18-20th centuries). Frida Kahlo was much less influential in her field. -- ELEKHHT 01:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * If you want improve the balance further, I'd nominate Hip hop music for removal. The other music genres on the list are significantly more important—hip hop is more comparable in significance to R&B and country music, while electronic music is arguably more important than all of them. Cobblet (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly accurate. According to this site, during the last few years Country has outsold electronic/dance music and R&B has sold approximately as much as electronic/dance music. Hip-hop does not sell significantly less than R&B, Country, and/or electronic/dance music. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about the impact electronic music's had on rock and pop (e.g. Moog synthesizers), not sales figures. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Purplebackpack89: Which architect would you choose instead? I agree that we should be aware of gender and ethnic bias, but I object to the notion of choosing not to represent all aspects of art or choosing artists of distinctly less significance for the sole purpose of representing female/ethnic artists. Wasn't Frida's husband or Georgia O'Keeffe more notable? Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe Diego is, but I don't think O'Keefee is. In regards to "choosing not to represent all aspects of art", if Kahlo goes, a major piece of art goes with her.  With only ten artists, it's impossible to represent all genres, media, or ethnic groups.  And if you're talking about significance, isn't Frank Lloyd Wright (Prairie School and more) or Frederick Law Olmsted (essentially most of American land use policy) more significant than Le Corbusier?  Half the reason I'm opposing this is I'm uncomfortable with Le Corbusier being the modern architecture guy.  p  b  p  21:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're possibly right if you have only the US in mind, but I think we should look at significance more globally. I'm not opposed to FLW, and would support a second swap to bring him onto this list. Both the German and French Wikipedias included both LeC and FLW in their vital 1,000. -- ELEKHHT 23:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FLW for Steven Spielberg, perhaps? Also, for the purposes of this level, we should expect Mexican art to receive coverage under Mexico. I'd prefer to obtain more balanced representation of different cultures by adding topics on countries rather than people. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Giuseppe Verdi, Frédéric Chopin and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky; Add Claude Debussy
Romantic music is probably the most single over-represented art movement on the list with four figures (the three I'm suggesting to remove, plus Wagner) as well as Beethoven, who started it all. I don't think Verdi, Chopin or Tchaikovsky can be said to have made a greater impact on Romantic music than Schumann, Liszt, Brahms or especially Schubert, and I think we should limit this list to figures who've had a revolutionary impact on their field. Debussy is undoubtedly such a person: his treatment of harmony was responsible for the ultimate abandonment of Western tonality in 20th-century classical music and he epitomizes the shift away from Romanticism.

With regards to the cultural balance of the list, apart from people like Picasso and Chopin who spent their adult lives in France, that country's contribution to the arts is represented solely by Claude Monet. Russia (Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Eisenstein) and Italy (da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dante) are currently better represented.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I have to agree with Cobblet here, though it pains me to remove Verdi in particular. Debussy did have a more revolutionary impact on music than any of these three. I'd be supportive of adding some others to balance things out - Stravinsky, Mahler and Schubert would be possibilities. Neljack (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) 'Support Getting rid some of the extremely overrepresented European classical composers is essential. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gabe: So you believe musicians deserve more representation over visual artists, explorers, mathematicians or religious figures. I'd beg to differ, but that's a different discussion. Whether you believe the list is "right-sized" or not, why do you think Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky should stay on the list? I'd argue that Michael Jackson has done more to change the course of music history than any of the Romantic-era composers I've named with the exception of Schubert. Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - I think the musicians list is currently "right-sized" and not in need of a reduction. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I can't support this as it's currently proposed p  b  p  03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Verdi perhaps, Chopin and Tchaikovsky definitely not. Athenean (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * To call Michael Jackson a musician is a bit of a stretch, IMO. He was a singer, songwriter and performer, but to my knowledge he did not play any instruments or write any music. With all do respect, I think you are getting a bit carried away with remaking nearly every aspect of the VA lists. Maybe take a step-back and allow others to help shape the direction. If I recall correctly, I think the reasoning behind including Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky had somethnig to do with the fact that at the time they were added, the classical composers were almost entirely, if not entirely German. We added those others in an effort to better represent all of Europe. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A singer-songwriter isn't a musician, really? Are you suggesting excluding all musicians who aren't instrumentalists from consideration, and if so, why? I support the idea of diversifying the list, but not at the expense of over-representing a genre or including people of lesser significance; and Debussy isn't German. Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said that no singer-songwriters are musicians; many of them can write and play. I said to call MJ a musician is a bit of a stretch when you compare him to people who could write for and play various instruments. I know Debussy isn't German; I never said that he was. I said that when we added Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky the composers were disproportionately German. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoth the OED: "musician, n. 1. A person talented in the art of music. 2. A person who performs music, esp. on a musical instrument; a professional performer of music." Cobblet (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, and for the second time I never said MJ wasn't a musician, but if you are going to compare him with brilliant composers and instrumentalists I don't think that he stands a chance. Also, your definition includes: "A person who performs music, esp. on a musical instrument", which is my point exactly. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support a straight add of Debussy, which would further diversify the nationalities of the classical composers. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if we did want to keep the same number of musicians, I could still name composers more significant than Verdi, Chopin and Tchaikovsky that would also broaden our representation of classical music outside the Romantic era without compromising geographic diversity. From Italy I'd pick Claudio Monteverdi; from Eastern Europe I'd pick Franz Liszt (we don't have a single Hungarian on the list, while Poland at least has Marie Curie); and from Russia I'd pick Igor Stravinsky. That being said, I could comfortably argue that Debussy is more significant than the last two figures (it's harder to make a direct comparison with Monteverdi). Cobblet (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Maunus, this proposal won't "get rid some of the extremely overrepresented European classical composers", it will only serve to replace the ones currently listed with others. Also, we currently have 8 classical composers on the list, and if we dropped 2 or 3 of them this would lead to a situation where there are as many "modern" musicians on the list as classical, which will then lead to the addition of more classical artists and/or the removal of the modern musicians, namely the only three non-White ones, I predict. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think half modern and half classical would be about right. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So do I, but I assure you that we are in the minority in that regard. Mark my words, if this proposal goes through it will lead to the removal of the three non-European musicians, and the addition of three more classical ones. I predict that in addition to Debussy, they will want to add Stravinsky and Liszt, so that the list will never be 50/50. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:GabeMc, are you not even reading the wording of the nomination now? The first sentence was "Romantic music is probably the most single over-represented art movement on the list." Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we both oppose such a proposal they would have to amass a lot of people to get that one through.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Two opposes is rarely enough to block a proposal. As long as they get 5 supports the proposal will pass, and I can count 3 or 4 right off the top that will support. I respect your choice here, but be warned that this will lead to more not less classical representation, and the removal of the only three musicians of colour. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I cant vote oppose for what is clearly a move in the right direction just on the suspicion that it will be followed by a subsequent move backwards.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, removing three for one reduces the diversity right off, not? Anyway, mark my words, if they remove two classical composers the list will include 6 classical and 5 modern, and the next move will be to remove a few modern to balance it out. Who do you think will be the first three removed? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Add Hamlet
It seems odd that on a list of 1000 articles vital to the English Wikipedia, none of the four or five works of literature (see above for a proposal to remove Shahnameh) we've chosen are in English. I think adding Hamlet would be an appropriate way to fix this imbalance, particularly when none of the other works are plays. Are we sure that Hamlet is the best choice if we are going to include only one work written in English? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I would say that Hamlet is probably the most influential literary work in English. Neljack (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - per Neljack. Athenean (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Pending a discussion regarding which work would best represent English literature. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. No need for quotas, and besides, Shakespeare's already on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose see comment Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 08:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Do you have a better suggestion? -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would take A Christmas Carol, Frankenstein or 1984 over Hamlet. I'm curious what others think. If we are to include only one work of English lit, I think more discussion should occur, versus a straight !vote on Hamlet or not Hamlet. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User: John K and User:Rsm77, you guys have done some excellent work with the expanded literature list. We'd appreciate your comments on this issue. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that Hamlet is the best choice to represent English literature. FWIW, my picks for literature on this list would be Iliad, Don Quixote, Hamlet, and Divine Comedy. If it was up to me.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Hamlet is the most highly-regarded work by Shakespeare who is central to the canon of literature in English. It has been influential on numerous other writers and is still hugely influential today on both literature and popular culture.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Hamlet is perhaps the best regarded Shakespeare work (although I'd say King Lear is at virtually the same level among critics, just less read in high schools and less produced), but Shakespeare has so many important works that I'm not sure it'd make sense to isolate just one. Classically, the two most highly regarded works of English literature are probably the Canterbury Tales and Paradise Lost, but I'm not sure either makes sense to include, given the extremely limited number of articles that can be devoted to this (an advantage of one of those, though, is that neither Chaucer nor Milton is on the writers list, while Shakespeare is already represented). I'm not sure that, in such a small list as this, it makes sense to have any works of English literature, just because English isn't dominated by a single work in the same way that Spanish is dominated by Don Quixote, or Italian by the Divine Comedy. I'd add the Divine Comedy ahead of any work in English, simply because it is the great work of Italian literature, while there is really no single English work that has the same importance. john k (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both of your comments. I agree that the Divine Comedy has a very strong case to be included. However, we already have a similar case of overlap between Miguel de Cervantes and Don Quixote, and our list of writers includes both Shakespeare and Dante. So, if I had to pick between Hamlet and the Divine Comedy, I'd prefer adding the work in English unless a case can be made that the Divine Comedy has had the greater influence on world literature. Cobblet (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that, since we already have Shakespeare, there's no reason for singling out Hamlet—Shakespeare's reputation would be secure even if he hadn't written Hamlet. The idea that A Christmas Carol, Frankenstein or 1984 could replace any of Shakespeare's better-known works made my eyes pop. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. I think the only competition to Hamlet might be Beowulf or Canterbury tales.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone enjoys the Bard; I find his writing, verbose, self-indulgent and pretentious. I would take a good story by Dickens or Twain anyday over Hamlet, and that doesn't make me any less intelligent, so try not to poke fun at other people's personal tastes; there is no need to be rude and insulting. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Most people find every work of literature ever written to be "verbose, self-indulgent and pretentious". The last thing that should be dictating inclusion or exclusion from this list is personal taste.  I don't understand quantum physics, but I sure woulnd't argue against its inclusion just because I found it "bo-o-o-o-oring"! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, sorry. I hate to disagree, but I want to share my genuine view otherwise there's no point me being here. In a list as short of 1000, do we need Shakespeare "and" a work by him? I have always thought biographies are slightly narrow in scope, even more so when we are leaving of nations, Empires, industries, artforms among other things. No matter how influential one work by one man is even more narrow, when we have the man himself already. Only my view but trying to remove comics, and trying to add Hamlet, and also the disliking tourism and nations such as Vietnam etc seems odd. Also we have several musicians and music genres. Several Writers, but literature genres? we have E A Poe but no...Sci Fi, Fantasy, Horror, children's Lit, Romance.... They're not the most important I know and I would like to suggest many things but probably not those, but we seem to have writers to represent genres instead of the actual genres. We have only fiction poetry novel short story. Also several directors including Eisenstein? but not "animation" also bugs me. Maybe someone can change my mind, but there many articles missing from the 1000 that I think probably belong before I vote to add a Shakespeare work. Also although a decent work I wouldn't include a Christmas Carol before Dickens either, he's famous for numerous works, but he himself is not included at present. Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Theocracy, Add Oligarchy
There are other forms of oligarchy that are just as significant as theocracy, e.g. Meritocracy and Aristocracy. I think it makes more sense for us to include the overarching topic.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose it makes less sense to include the oerarching topic when it is not as consequential as some of the individual subtopics. IN any case the swap would have to be between the overarching topic and the subtopics and not with another topic that is itself vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Asteroid belt
Not sure we should be listing this when we don't list Kuiper belt and also have Asteroid.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - per comments below. Athenean (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

How about comet as a replacement article within astronomy? Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

I think "Swap, remove asteroid belt, add Comet" is pretty good idea. A bit silly to have asteroid 'and' asteroid belt, but not comet at all. Carlwev (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support such a swap. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK someone needs to start it, I've opened it below. Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Nanotechnology, Add Paper
Nanotech is an emerging technology and hardly vital enough at this stage of its development to include on this list. We don't include things like fusion power, the hydrogen economy or the Semantic Web either. Meanwhile paper is surely one of the most important inventions in history.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  03:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C  04:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - per nom. Athenean (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Series (mathematics), Add Sequence
A series is the sum of the terms in a sequence: the latter is the more general topic.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thinks that math is over-represented on the list with 60 articles? Compare the number of articles we have on history (63), the arts (59), physics (41) or chemistry (36). There are a number of items listed that I'd consider obvious candidates for removal (Percentage, Fraction (subsumed by Rational number), Triangle (Trigonometry and Polygon ought to suffice), Golden ratio), and I also question the wisdom of including articles on such specific aspects of geometry such as point, line, plane, area and volume when there are whole areas of math not currently represented (e.g. linear algebra, differential equation, graph theory) and there are concepts in both pure and applied math that are at least as significant (polynomial, Euclidean vector, etc.). Cobblet (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I agree that the Math section is over-represented (I'd like more in the History section, for example), and that geometry is especially excessive.
 * (Regarding this specific swap, I'm not sure: the main usage of sequences is their sums, so the general article may not be best here.) - Ypnypn (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Acid and Base, Add Acid–base reaction
Every acid has a conjugate base, and vice versa: we don't need separate articles to describe two sides of the same coin. The article on the type of reaction is enough.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Ypnypn (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Athenean (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Agnosticism, Deism, Pantheism and Polytheism
We are including lots of topics related to the nature and existence of God/gods (which Deity already covers to an extent; we also have God and Goddess) at the expense of other philosophical topics, e.g. entire traditions such as Scholasticism or Continental philosophy. Wouldn't it be sufficient to limit our coverage to Theism and Atheism, which admittedly can have more narrow meanings, but can also include the other theistic/non-theistic philosophies (which is currently reflected in both articles)?
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support There is no need to list so many articles that cover a single philosophical topic.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C  03:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

If you do believe all of these topics are worth including, please explain why we picked these topics over others such as freethought or monotheism. Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Rain, Add Precipitation
This swap would allow us to cover other forms of precipitation such as snow and hail.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems obvious. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I think the specific is better than the wider term in this case, I would to add snow too, as that covers snow on the ground as well as in the sky, that precipitation does not. Carlwev (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 10:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) oppose Specificity is good when the overarching topic is vague and unlikely to eer hae a good article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, both Rain and Precipitation are Good Articles. It might be easier to convert Rain into a Featured Article.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 00:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Athenean (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * We should also have wind as well really. Carlwev (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Having both rain and snow is overkill IMO. Swap tornado for wind? Cobblet (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Precipitation is hardly vague: it's a well-defined component of the water cycle. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: remove Vladimir Lenin, add Franklin D. Roosevelt
It's excessive and undue to include two consecutive Soviet leaders in a list of the 25 greatest leaders of all time, and since there appears to be a running consensus that Stalin is as vital as Hitler, we should remove Lenin, who only served as the Soviet leader for two years. FDR made a lasting impact on the US and western civilization, and was the longest serving US president. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; two consecutive Soviet leaders is excess; no other government or civilization enjoys this level of coverage; Lenin only served for two years.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose the addition but Support the removal; if nationalistic diversity is a priority, no country (be it the US or Russia/the Soviet Union) should be represented by more than two leaders on such a short list. And if chronological diversity is something else we care about, the Middle Ages/Postclassical Era is currently underrepresented: in particular, there is a 750-year gap between Augustus and Charlemagne that could be filled. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose addition & support removal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Lenin is historically vital FDR is not. Lenin and Stalin are comparable in Vitality to Lincoln and Washington.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Co-Founder of Marxism/Leninism which became the most influential communist theory, in fact communism as a social and political phenomenon itself. And communism was one of the three great ideologies of the 20th century besides liberalism and fascism. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * It's unconscionable that US politicians would monopolize 12% of the "great figures" of history. Otto von Bismarck is one off the top of my head that had a greater impact than FDR; if we want more diversity (as in, more non-Europeans), I'm half-surprised Tokugawa Ieyasu isn't on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's even worse when you consider that by consensus, Benjamin Franklin is on the list partly for his political contributions. As for non-Western leaders, Ashoka also comes to mind. Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The most recent leaders for Germany, China, Russia, India and England all died less than 70 years ago, but the most recent US leader was born 204 years ago. If the USA became the world's leading Super Power during the 148 years since Lincoln died, then how did they accomplish that without a great leader in 150 years? That's would mean that the US had two great leaders before they became a super power, but none since, which seems unlikely to me. If not FDR, then who? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's silly reasoning. Japan was (until very recently) the second most powerful economy in the world.  What "great leader" gets the credit for that?  Nobody, because no one person can claim responsibility for that.  How about giving credit for American superpoweress to the American people—the Edisons and Fords and MacArthurs and on and on who, as an aggregate, made the US central to politics, business, and culture of the 20th century? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the Civil War, the USA has not experienced the same kind of disruptive change that characterizes the modern history of the first four countries you mentioned. So it's not surprising to me that no president after Lincoln is on the list. Of course they've had great leaders since then: in fact, they've had many great leaders, of which FDR might be the most significant, but does he tower over his contemporaries to such an extent that he should be on the list at their expense? I'm not so sure. One thing I am sure: adding a third leader of a comparatively young nation flies in the face of our attempts to broaden nationalistic diversity. Cobblet (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Vladimir Lenin
It's excessive and undue to include two consecutive Soviet leaders in a list of the 25 greatest leaders of all time, and since there appears to be a running consensus that Stalin is as vital as Hitler, and FDR is not vital, we should remove Lenin, who only served as the Soviet leader for two years. Lenin does not belong on a list of the 25 most significant leaders in the history of the world. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; either Stalin or Lenin should go, and since Stalin apparently isn't going anywhere, V.I. must make room for others. I would suggest Peter the Great, but I agree that no nation should have three.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support could make room for someone rpresenting an underrepresented world region. Technically Caesar and August were also consecutive leaders, but that argument is neither here nor there. I do agree that three leaders for Russia is too much on such a short list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - Co-Founder of Marxism/Leninism which became the most influential communist theory, in fact communism as a social and political phenomenon itself. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Leninism, the vanguard theory, the Russian Revolution and the founding of the Soviet Union - he's absolutely vital in my book. If Russia is thought to have too many leaders, then Catherine the Great is the least vital and should be removed instead. Neljack (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Che Guevara
Iconic leader, known across the world. Ony one other Latin American leader on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose No reason to have two Latin American leaders when South Asia only has one and Korea/Japan, Southeast Asia, Oceania all have none. Cobblet (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous oppose rationale. We have three East Asian leaders: Qin Shi Huang, Mao Zedong and Genghis Khan. Japan, Korea are single countries not continents and Oceania is not of comparable importance in world history to Africa and South America. Latin America and Africa compbined account for 5/134 of the entires in the entire people section and the only Africans are egyptian rulers and Ibn Batutta. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Is it any more ridiculous than nominating the addition of another man to the list when we only seven women? Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would of course be happy to nominate a soputh American woman as well. BUt when I nominate I try to gess at what other people might want to support, and generally it is a very limited selection. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Che before Castro? p  b  p  21:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Che's significance is both political and as a (pop) cultural icon.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Add Nelson Mandela
Iconic leader, known across the world. Ony one other African leader on the list.

We clearly dont need two rulers of Egypt on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 00:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Like Gandhi (whom we have), Mandela had a profound effect both on the history of his own country and as an international symbol of justice and reconciliation. Neljack (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose For the same reason given in the previous case, plus we have two rulers of Ancient Egypt so it's only true that we have one Sub-Saharan African leader. But I would support swapping Shaka out to add him. Cobblet (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * It's not so clear to me: these are the only two Ancient Egyptians we have in general. (By comparison we have seven figures representing Ancient Greece.) Who would you remove? Cobblet (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would remove Hatsheshut, whom most people have never heard of. I would of course also support removing some Greeks. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, but I assume she's on the list as a notable female leader. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we wanted an egyptian female leader Cleopatra would be the obvious choice, imo.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see an argument for Nelson Mandela in that he represents the rising conscioussness of racism as a thing to be fought against that has only risen in any significant form since the late 20th century. I won't vote one way or the other, however. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , we have only two Greek leaders, this discussion is about leaders, so why would Greek leaders have to pay the price for the lack Egyptian philosophers? Yeah, there might be seven Greeks in toto on Level three, but seven out of 134 isn't at all ridiculous for an English language Wiki when you consider what a staggering influence ancient Greece has on modern Western Civilization. Did ancient Egypt influence Western Civilization at a comparable level as Greece? There are nine Asians on the list, BTW. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But Greek is notable for its philosophers not for its political leaders, so why should they have two leaders on the list?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was just a point of reference: I'm OK with it myself, but was not sure if Maunus would be, if he considered it obviously necessary to remove one of the two Egyptians. And both Curly Turkey and I have suggested Asian leaders that could be added to the list, so your point has been acknowledged. Cobblet (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotta admit, Greek influnce has been far, wide, and broad. Personally I wouldn't be bothered to see it bumped to eight by switching up Homer for the Iliad.

Categories
It seems that there are currently two systems for VA categories: Category:C-Class vital articles and Category:Wikipedia C-Class vital articles. The former seems based off of WP1.0; the latter off of Vital article. Do we need both? -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Shaktism or Kali or Krishna, Add Shaivism or Shiva
Of the six articles related to Hinduism, two are foundational, general groups of texts (Vedas and Upanishads), two are related to Vaishnavism branch (Bhagavad Gita and Krishna) while two are related to Shaktism branch (Shaktism and Kali). There are no articles related to the third branch of Shaivism of which Shiva is the primary deity. There is a huge overlap between the Gita and Krishna since the latter has a major role in the former (if two articles are kept on Vaishnavism, maybe Vishnu should replace Krishna to reduce the overlap). But the Shaktist branch is the least influential of the three so removing of those article also makes sense.

Support Oppose
 * 1) As nominator.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C  03:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - It seems like there is a good idea in here, but this proposal is too open-ended as it stands right now. Consider re-working this as an either-or, versus a multiple-choice, which doesn't work all that well here, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Another option would be to remove a Hinduism related article and not replace it with anything since it seems to be overrepresented compared to other religions.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C  03:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that the Mahabharata is also on the list elsewhere (an epic connected to the Bhagavad Gita and Krishna). There is far too much overlap for all three of these articles to be on the Vital 1000.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C  04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gizza: Thanks for pointing out these issues. I agree that Hinduism is overrepresented compared to other religions and we need to fix this. It does seem that Shaktism, Krishna and Kali look like weaker choices for the list—what do you think about replacing them with Hindu denominations, in order to represent all branches of Hinduism without favouring any one in particular? And would swapping in the Ramayana for the Mahabharata make any sense, in order to maintain representation of Indian literature while removing the overlap with the Bhagavad Gita? Or would that be a bad idea for other reasons? Feel free to criticize and suggest better ideas—I know nothing about Hinduism and am just brainstorming ways we might be able to improve the list. User:John K, do you have any opinion here? Cobblet (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response Cobblet. I think that the overall concept of a discussion on Hindu denominations itself is unfortunately not very significant within Hinduism. Though this is not quite the same thing, I checked the HD page views with the current listed and it is nowhere near as popular as any of them (Shaktism is the lowest of the six). I believe the most god/dess neutral thing to do is to do remove the bottom three (Shaktism, Krishna, Kali) and just keep the texts and perhaps also as you said, swap Mahabharata with the Ramayana. Having three articles under the main topic "Hinduism" puts it on par with Buddhism and Islam and one less than Christianity, which I feel is reflective of its influence over the modern world.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 11:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Islamic philosophy and Islamic schools and branches, Add Sunni Islam and Shia Islam
It's strange that we have room for three major branches of Christianity and Buddhism but can't find room for the two major branches of Islam. On the other hand, it's equally strange that we include Islamic philosophy but not philosophies based on other religions. Let's kill two birds with one stone. Just what I was thinking. After Islam itself why have "branches of Islam" instead of an actual branch of Islam. We don't include "branches of Christianity" and leave off Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant etc. We seem to have an unwritten rule against lists, and have removed pretty much all list articles from the 1000 and 10'000 projects. Although well written, Islamic schools and branches is at heart a very fleshed out list, with a summary of each entry. Carlwev (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Athenean (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC
 * 5) Support - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Are we going to start adding every sect of every major religion? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

@User:GabeMc: I think it's reasonable to include any religious denomination with a large number of adherents, say 100 million people. I think the only denominations on the list that don't meet that arbitrary criterion would be Vajrayana and Shaktism, and the only denominations that do meet it and aren't on the list would be Vaishnavism and Shaivism. I think that would be a logical two-for-two swap (while the overrepresentation of Hinduism can be fixed by removing Shaktism, Krishna and Kali. Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, both Oriental Orthodoxy and Anglicanism enjoy close to 100 million adherents, but neither are currently on this list. Also, the list currently includes Jainism with 4.5 million adherents, and Taoism with just 3 million followers. Also, Judaism is included (obviously), but it has less than 20 million followers. So, while I see the basic intent of your "100 million" criteria, sure numbers should not be the only determining factor. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's obviously reasonable that we be more inclusive toward actual religions as opposed to branches of religions. Still, if three branches of Christianity and Buddhism are considered vital topics, I can't see how one could argue that Sunni and Shia Islam are any less important. Cobblet (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that, in general, there are already far too many religious topics on this list, and adding some from Islam in an effort to balance them out only exacerbates the problem. In the past I have suggested that we should include only the general topical articles, and not the various sects and branches. Christianity should suffice; we don't really need to list denominations, IMO, and doing so only serves to alienate those that we do not add. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect that opinion, and agree that religion overall is a bit over-represented. Nevertheless, since the religious branches do remain on the list, I assume there's a consensus that some are important enough to merit inclusion (some of them are surely more important than Gnosticism, which nobody seems to have suggested to remove), and if that's true, then we have to choose the best ones to include. Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Nobel Prize

 * Support
 * 1) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Too specific.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 05:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose unless we add a more significant article to replace it in the social sciences category. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this is vital. If the idea is that it's an annual event which makes headlines, Election would be more logical. It can be considered the pinnacle of academic accomplishment, but we don't have any other academia-related articles (except Education). -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The Nobel Prize is not simply an academic award (few of the winners of the Peace or Literature Prizes would consider themselves academics) but a way of recognizing contributions to humanity. The concept of such a prize was revolutionary in its time; that it remains a significant part of human culture is evidenced by the headlines it makes every year and the number of similar awards it's inspired. It might not be notable enough for such a short list, but I'm curious to hear what people would rather see in place of it, particularly since at least this topic doesn't overlap with anything else while there are others in the category that do, e.g. Politics and Political science, or Broadcasting, Journalism, Mass media and News. Should we add social class or investment, for example? Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Social class would be a good add; it's had a huge impact on society throughout human history. Investment is also okay. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But they wouldn't be in the social sciences section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Kidney or Lung, Add Eye
In the Anatomy section of Biology, there is currently a bias towards internal organs (Brain, Muscle, Liver, Kidney, Lung, Skeleton, Heart, Human gastrointestinal tract) with only one external organ article present (Skin). To redress this imbalance, I propose including eye in place of either kidney or lung. Also a far great number of animal species have eyes (including arthropods and molluscs) compared to kidneys or lungs (the latter two mainly restricted to vertebrates).

Even if kidney, lung or another internal organ isn't removed, I am strongly in favour of including eye. As subjective and hypothetical as this is, I believe for example that if Eye were to feature on Today's Featured Article on the Main Page, we would see a similar positive reaction to what we saw with Sea. The average reader of Wikipedia probably sees the eye as a fundamental topic, much more than many of the articles mentioned which won't elicit a similar reaction were they to become TFA's.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support either, preference to lose kidney though. Carlwev (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support swap for kidney; oppose removing lung Cobblet (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Ypnypn (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Remove kidney. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - The kidney and lung are vital organs, the eye is not. Athenean (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Eye has a stronger case than the other sensory organs, but I wouldn't mind debate on Ear, Nose, Mouth, etc. Also as an alternative, we could have Visual perception or Visual system but I personally am biased towards tangible and less technical titles.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * We have at present Blindness and deafness but not sight or hearing nor eye or ear. Which I always felt very odd. Eye is a good idea, ear or hearing is not bad either. I would prefer kidney to go before lung, but either is probably an improvement. Carlwev (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we really? I'm not *seeing* them on the list... Cobblet (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK my mistake, we had them in the past I hadn't noticed their removal. see here [], agree all the same. Carlwev (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ideal number of People/biographies
Currently there are 134 out of 998 articles that are on famous people throughout history (around 13.4%). I've seen some comments above that think this number is too high. What would be the ideal number of biographies on the Vital 1000? On the Expanded Vital 10000, the "target number" of people is 2000 which is 20% of total articles.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 08:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is stating the obvious, but the different sections of the list don't have to scale proportionately on each level—on a list of 10,000 vital articles it seems reasonable to include a large number of people; but just because we have 2000 people there doesn't mean we should have 200 people here, or 2 people on the Level 1 list! Having somewhere between 100 and 125 people seems reasonable to me. If we're prepared to restrict the list to people who made a revolutionary impact on culture and society, it shouldn't be so difficult to remove some names. But right now there appear to be some people who insist that the list of people represent the entirety of human diversity, even at the cost of adding less significant people on to the list. In my opinion, such an approach renders an already problematic task virtually impossible. (Oh no, we removed Fela Kuti recently: now we have nobody to represent 300 million West Africans...) Cobblet (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a strange position on West Africa when just yesterday you said that all religious sects with 100 million people or more should be included. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Catholicism is an important subtopic of Christianity. Fela Kuti doesn't hold the same significance to West Africa. Cobblet (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that sports is never as important as religion, but to some people it is. E.g., there are over 1 billion atheists on earth, so I doubt they care about Catholicism as much as you think they do. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sports? Kuti was a musician. And I assume nothing of the sort. I think you'll find a lot more people care about major religious denominations than even FDR, to name your favourite example. But I digress. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cobblet, sorry, I mis-typed; I meant Music. BTW, I noticed that a good deal of your comments lately include personal attacks, particularly against me. Please re-read WP:CIVIL and attempt to refrain from personal comments about editors; keep your comments about content, please. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When I make arguments that others find untrue or incoherent, I expect to be challenged and corrected (and this has happened many times—you did it to me right here). I don't perceive such comments as personal attacks, and when I feel obliged to defend my opinion, I'm surprised that others would consider my words as such. Cobblet (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes you're right. I think it is a reasonable trend that as the number of vital articles increase, biographies as a percentage also increase. There are none in the Vital 10. I also support a slight trimming to around 125 or maybe a bit lower.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 12:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think People is fine as it is, and I would suggest that there are numerous areas with excess that should be trimmed before People. E.g., I think that Science is currently the most bloated section with 187 articles, including 5 types of chemistry, 10 elements, Science, History of Science and Scientific Method, Chemistry, Chemical bond, Chemical compound, Chemical element and Chemical reaction. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just curious: besides People, are there any other sections of the list you don't consider bloated? Cobblet (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mathematics, Health and medicine, Arts and culture and History seem about right. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I happen to disagree (IMO math could easily be cut by 10 topics and history increased by the same amount), but at least I understand where you're coming from now, thanks. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think Mathematics and Health and Medicine could be cut back with about 10 topics each, and I also think that both history and people could be expanded with 10-20 articles each.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's relatively right-sized at the moment. I wouldn't go much lower than 125, nor higher than 150  p  b  p  17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Add Liu Hui to Mathematicians
1) There are currently no Asians included in the list of Mathematicians. In fact, the list is currently 100% Indo-European. 2) Liu Hui is one of the greatest mathematicians of ancient China. 3) There is a 1,000 year gap between Euclid and Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī; Liu Hui fits neatly in the middle, having been born around 220 CE. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; adding Liu Hui would diversify the list both ethnically and chronologically.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for the same reasons given here. The nominator himself didn't consider Liu Hui worth adding to the Level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Cobblet, please stop making this personal. I opposed the previous addition hastily, and have since reconsidered. Zu Chongzhi also has a good case for addition, but since Liu Hui is much earlier and his solutions to mathematical problems presented in the famous Chinese book of mathematics, The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art make him a better candidate, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You weren't the only one: there was a strong consensus not to add him. The best person to represent China's contribution to math and science in that time period is undoubtedly Zhang Heng, although he was not first and foremost a mathematician, but an inventor. (That shouldn't make it a problem to add him—he is clearly more notable than Liu Hui.) I'm also opposed to adding more people when we haven't critically examined the existing list. For example, it's not clear if Pythagoras was responsible for much of the work that has been attributed to him. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have been critically examining this list for several years; or do you think that the work we did before you came on wasn't critical enough? Have fun trying to remove Pythagoras; that should be entertaining. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That Fela Kuti was hastily added and then just as hastily removed as recently as a few months ago suggests that we have not yet established sound criteria for what sort of people to include. Cobblet (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * FTR, User:Maunus added Kuti almost 10 months ago in the interests of cultural diversity. I don't remember anyone except maybe Carl complaining until you came along. For the sake of globalization, please allow us to also include people of African and Asian decent. You seem intent on angelizing an already Euro-centric list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You flatter me: in fact, he was removed by consensus out of a discussion that I didn't even start. Who's being personal now? Your comments on my supposed European bias are laughable when you know nothing of my ethnic background, and when you've opposed suggestions I've made in the past to counter such bias (e.g. the people and cities I've suggested adding to the Level 4 list, the countries I've suggested adding to this list, and the swap of orchestra for musical ensemble I suggested.) Cobblet (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Add Zu Chongzhi to Mathematicians
1) There are currently no Asians included in the list of Mathematicians. In fact, the list is currently 100% Indo-European. 2) Zu Chongzhi is one of the greatest mathematicians of ancient China. 3) There is a 1,000 year gap between Euclid and Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī; Zu Chongzhi fits neatly in between them, having been born around 429 CE.


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; adding Zu Chongzhi would diversify the list both ethnically and chronologically.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not on the Level 4 list, and not as notable as Zhang Heng. Cobblet (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Zhang Heng to Mathematicians
1) There are currently no Asians included in the list of Mathematicians. In fact, the list is currently 100% Indo-European. 2) Zhang Heng is one of the greatest mathematicians of ancient China. 3) There is a 1,000 year gap between Euclid and Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī; Zhang Heng fits neatly in between them, having been born around 25 CE.


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; adding Zhang Heng would diversify the list both ethnically and chronologically.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose additions purely for the sake of diversifying the list. Might support adding him if another mathematician were removed: Pythagoras would be my suggestion, since many things credited to him may not actually have been his work, while Ancient Greece's contribution to math and science is already represented by Archimedes and Euclid. That being said, Shen Kuo is already on the list. Are we overlooking someone not from China? Cobblet (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * User:Cobblet, are you asserting that on a list of 31 Inventors, scientists and mathematicians, that one Chinese person is enough? They are among the most ancient civilizations on Earth and currently the world's most populous nation. On what basis do you think that there is only one vital Chinese person in the history of all invention, science and math? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not "asserting" that any more than you're "asserting" that only European, Arab and Chinese people deserve representation on a list of vital inventors, scientists and mathematicians. While I think that it's a futile exercise to try to expand this list to cover people of all possible backgrounds in anything approaching a proportional manner (apparently this is true even of the level 4 list, where my attempts to move in that direction have met with general opposition), I'm open to the idea of making rational substitutions to increase its diversity. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Cobblet, regarding Pythagoras and your assertion that "many things credited to him may not actually have been his work", what then of Shakespeare, who is well-known to have "borrowed" heavily in some of his major works? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I quote from our article on the Bard: "Only a small minority of academics believe there is reason to question the traditional attribution." Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, but if it was, then I assume this article could be nomed for deletion then? Shakespeare authorship question 2) Ever heard of the poem, The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet? In an article in The Atlantic (April 2002), Richard Posner notes that Shakespeare's "famous description in Antony and Cleopatra of Cleopatra on her royal barge is taken almost verbatim from a translation of Plutarch's life of Mark Antony." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Of course not. It's been a subject of scholarly research, which has indicated exactly the opinion expressed in the quote I gave. 2. And a personal website counts as an RS, I suppose. Are you seriously comparing this one case of plagiarism to the authenticity of a person who was supposedly son of Apollo and had a golden thigh? Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One case? Perhaps you should take a look at Sources of Hamlet, which accurately states that the Bard likely ripped the story off of Thomas Kyd's Ur-Hamlet.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In this particular case we're not even sure Ur-Hamlet existed, or that it was Kyd's work. Even if all that was true, I doubt there are many people who would remove him from the list for that reason alone: see the first sentence in Plagiarism, which is just common sense (backed up by six citations)—we're talking about an artist, not an academic. If you persist in comparing the question of Shakespearean authorship to the authenticity of a person who was supposedly son of Apollo and had a golden thigh, I will recuse myself from the conversation. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A passage from The Tempest (Tempest, Act I, Sc II), comes heavily lifted from Michel de Montaigne (‘On Cannibals’ – Vol I, Chapter XXXI). Source: A Companion to Shakespeare's Works, The Poems, Problem Comedies, Late Plays. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Guru Nanak Dev
Sikhism has just 30 million devotees, but putting numbers aside, it hasn't made anywhere near as significant an impact globally as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; Sikhism has not made the historical impact that the world's other major religions have made.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support we cant have the main figures of all religions with 30 million adherents.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Currently there are 3 Sikhism related articles (the religion itself, Guru Nanak Dev and Guru Granth Sahib which per above is far too many for a religion of its size. Then there is the fact that Guru Gobind Singh was arguably more influential than Guru Nanak Dev. I would also argue for the removal of the holy book.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 09:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Association football, Olympics, and Track and field
Association football, Olympics, and Track and field are too specific for Level 3. We shouldn't identify vital sports at this level; including Sport is sufficient. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. As nom; these three specific sports do no belong at this level; let's leave the inclusion of specific sports for Level 4, where there is ten times as many spots.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Sport deserves more than one article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: First off, I'm fine with having up to 10 sports articles on this list.  Second, two of these aren't that specific: you have a discipline that's been contested for 2,500 years and consists of a variety of running, jumping and throwing events.  Then you have an international competition that serves as the premier championship for many sports.  Soccer is more specific than track or the Olympics, but it's also the most popular sport worldwide  p  b  p  21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Each of these are significant elements of human culture in their own right, much more so than any other sport (or chess for that matter). I think these three articles are pretty much exactly what we need: the only thing I'm not sure of is why we chose track and field over athletics (sport) or running. Cobblet (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I would support removing track and field.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap; Remove Track and field, Add Athletics (sport)
Track and field is too narrowly defined for Level 3. We should not be so specific; we should be more general when listing sports-related topics. Athletics covers much more than Track, which is arguably subsumed by Athletics. Yes, we have the specific sport of Association Football, but as the world's most popular sport, it is the exception here, not the rule. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  17:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; too specific for Level 3. Athletics covers much more area and in more inclusive.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Remove, not add. I think Athletics is covered by Olympics no?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The distinction between track and field and athletics as a whole is a legacy of the history of Western sport, particularly the Ancient Greek Olympics. From an NPOV perspective it seems better to include the latter article. And saying athletics are "covered" by the Olympics is like saying soccer's "covered" by the World Cup. Cobblet (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - as per nominator BluesFan38 (talk)
 * 6) Support - per nom. Athenean (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

, I think Athletics covers all sports not included in Olympic games. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  18:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * How so?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In fcat the article only includes running and jumping sports. In my usage "athletics" refers to all the traditional sports of the olympics, like spear and discos throwing, and running and jumping and whaever others there are. I guess Americans sometimes use athletics for all sports.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Add Bede (Philo/Soc sci)
We have no historians, and we're weak in the Middle Ages


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  21:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - If we are looking to add a historian, then Herodotus would be the best candidate, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Herodotus or Leopold von Ranke are better choices for historians.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Herodotus (Philo/Soc sci)
We have no historians
 * Support


 * 1)  p  b  p  18:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - The first historian. Athenean (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - "father of history" (Cicero) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Vital to Western civilization, but not vital in a global sense. Cobblet (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the most serious omission on this sublist might be Francis Bacon. To call Herodotus the "father of history" is impressive but imprecise: better to say that he was the father of Western history. Look at how the lead of Histories (Herodotus) is written; or consider that he had no influence on people like Sima Qian. On the other hand, Bacon's ideas were directly responsible for the industrial and scientific revolutions that have ultimately spread around the world. In other words, Bacon's influence is global; I don't think one can say that of Herodotus. Cobblet (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

I don't disagree that Herodotus is worthy of inclusion, but I would say Thucydides is at least as important. They represent two different historical traditions, much like Plato and Aristotle in philosophy, and I would say that Thucydides's realism has probably been more influential than Herodotus's moralism. There is a very interesting discussion of their respective historical approaches and subsequent influence in our article here: Thucydides I don't think two historians is two much, when you compare it to, say, philosophers, but I suspect others may disagree. Neljack (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Generally there are too many illnesses, several of which are not really that important to have an article about. Yes, COP kills many people, but its social and cultural role is very limited.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportAbstractIllusions (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Dengue fever
Generally there are too many illnesses, several of which are not really that important to have an article about. Yes, Dengue is serious in many regions, but it is not up there with Aids, Malaria or Influenza in significance.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Bot
There is a BRFA over here. Ypnypn (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Mary Wollstonecraft; add Kahlil Gibran
1) There are currently 4 British writers on the list of 15, which is 26%; I think we should cut one. 2) There are currently NO Arab writers. 3) The list currently includes exactly one non-Indo-European. 4) While Wollstonecraft was moderately successful and is widely read Gibran is the third best-selling poet who ever lived.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom; this add would improve the list's ethnic diversity and reduce it's systemic bias toward Indo-Europeans.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Wollstonecraft kinda, sorta founded feminism.  She wasn't a popular writer, but a political one.  While it improves diversity on the ethnic level, it reduces it on the gender level.  p  b  p  23:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose not a good swap. Per Purplebackpack.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - agree with Purplebackpack reasoning. BluesFan38 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Maybe a straight add then? If we retain Wollstonecraft, then we are basically saying that Britain will have four entries when no other culture has more than two and several have none. Maybe she is in the wrong list, because there are other better and more important writers than she who are not currently included. Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , by no means did she start feminism in Europe. There were significant changes in that regard at least 50 years before she was born. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there is an easy fix here. Add Gibran, Move Wollstonecraft to Philosophers. She's taught in far more introductory political philosophy courses and textbooks than world literature textbooks. And if her only reason for being a writer is not the prominence of her pieces, but their impact on creating (or fostering) a political philosophical system (feminism), then certainly she can be moved. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very least, she needs to be moved; there are armies of writers more highly regarded that Wollstonecraft as writers—there are armies of female writers whose writing is more highly regarded than hers (e.g Jane Austen). Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

== Move Mary Wollstonecraft from Writers to Philosophers and social scientists ==


 * Per AbstractIllusions, Mary Wollstonecraft is not vital as a writer. She is vital as a philosopher. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support . - As nom; she is misplaced in the list of writers.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support . fine. Gives more room in writers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I'm unsure about the Gibran part below. But this move makes sense. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Kahlil Gibran
1) There are NO Arab writers on the list, which currently includes exactly one non-Indo-European. 2) Gibran is the third best-selling poet who ever lived.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom; this add would improve the list's ethnic diversity and reduce it's systemic bias in favour of Indo-Europeans.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support . Per nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I may consider him the Danielle Steel of poetry, but reading New York Times Book Reviews that mention him showed me that this debate (actually insightful poet vs. faux-mystic fluff) is part of his significant importance. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C  09:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Shaktism, Kali and Krishna
Per the discussion above (link here). In summary, Hinduism is overrepresented in having 6 subtopic articles. The three texts are more universally revered within Hinduism than the one sect, one Goddess and one God.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C  09:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems a reasonable move. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Middle East from Geography: Continents and regions
In Geography: Continents and regions, we include both Asia and Middle East, but since the Middle East is a region of Asia, and we do not include any other sub-regions of any other continents other than Arctic, I think this could be trimmed as excess double-coverage. I realize that the region is quite notable, but certainly others that we do not include are equally important. At any rate, per WP:UNDUE it seems odd to single out one specific region of Asia as being equally important as the continents. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; we don't include any other sub-regions within any other continents except Arctic, so why should we include this specific region that is just one small part of Asia, which is of course already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. The Middle East also includes portions of northeastern Africa and a smidge of Europe.  It's a geopolitical area. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Asia is a huge continent, with 60% of the world's population. The Middle East has a separate culture and history from the rest of Asia, and has is very related to Europe and Africa. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Middle East is vital in its own right, not just as a subregion of Asia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * User:Curly Turkey, I realize that its a geopolitical region, but it's also currently the only such region included on the list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * GabeMc: I see Europe and Asia on that list—should we replace them with Eurasia? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Both Europe and Asia are continents, why wouldn't we include them in a list of continents? The Middle East is not a continent. FTR, Eurasia was on the list not too long ago and it was removed for essentially the same reasons I am using above. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Europe and Asia are defined politically and culturally as separate continents, not geographically, so the Middle East is not the only geopolitical region on the list. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's really a stretch. All I meant was, according to the ENTIRE WORLD, there are officially seven continents, of which Asia and Europe are two; the middle east isn't a continent and the only other region we include is arctic. What I hear is: "yeah, the middle east isn't really a continent, but since it's so important (to religion I presume) we include it." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ALL CAPS does not make your arguments look any more convincing—to the contrary, it makes you look hysterical. Europe and Asia are considered to be separate continents by the "whole world" because of political, cultural, economic, linguistic, and religious differences—the same reason the Middle East is considered a distinct geopolitical area.  Chopping down the region's significance merely to religion shows a level of ignorance that itself invalidate your arguments—especially when that "religion" is the three Abrahamic religions, and the neverending earthshaking newsmaking tensions between them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I could make an intervention: It is not true that the "entire world" says there are seven continents. From Encyclopedia of World Geography, "Because of the imprecision of the definition, geographers do not agree on the number of the earth's continents...In lists of continents compiled outside the United States, Europe and Asia are often combined as Eurasia. And since Africa and Asia are connected at the Suez Peninsula, Europe, Africa, and Asia are sometimes combined as Afro-Eurasia..." The conclusion I draw from this is that a clearer division between continents and "geopolitical regions" may be warranted. AbstractIllusions (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove History of East Asia, History of India, and History of the Middle East
Under History, we include these three sub-topics under History of Asia, which seems excessive. We have History of Europe, but not History of England, and History of North America, but not History of the US. Also, to include History of Asia with History of East Asia, History of India, and History of the Middle East, means that about 1/2 the landmass of Asia is double-covered. Currently, History of East Asia is a very poor article that repeats much of the material about the history of China. History of India and History of the Middle East are already covered at length at History of Asia, which states: "The history of Asia can be seen as the collective history of several distinct peripheral coastal regions such as, East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East linked by the interior mass of the Eurasian steppe." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; these articles contain too much overlap and duplication with the broader article.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Asia is a huge continent, with 60% of the world's population. Comparing these large, populous areas with eventful histories to History of England is completely inaccurate. In fact, let's replace History of Asia with History of Central Asia and History of Southeast Asia to round out the picture and reduce the redundancy. Ypnypn (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Each region of Asia is similar to Europe in terms of area, population and cultural diversity. I wouldn't mind removing History of Asia and adding Central and Southeast for balance. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 08:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose overlap is a concern, but see alternative proposal below. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Grammar and Word; Add Linguistics and Orthography
In Languages: Grammar is but one aspect of linguistics, as is word. Orthography covers most of what linguistics does not. If we swap out grammar and word for linguistics and orthography the list will cover more ground without adding to it's numerical total. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  23:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; this swap would greatly broaden our coverage of language related topics.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support These two are the ones that should be kept. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose grammar and word are two of the most central concepts relating to language. They cannot be removed without crippling our coverage of language related topics. Add linguistics. Orthography is of little consequence when we have writing and or writing system.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Maunus. The rationale is confused, and the audience is miunderstood. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose removing word and grammar and oppose adding orthography. Support adding linguistics. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 08:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Oh we're still finding inconsistencies, I noticed Linguistics, is in the vital 100, but is missing from the vital 1000. Although I think grammar may be should stay, may be. Linguistics has to be in, whether a swap or add, as it's in the vital 100. Well spotted. Carlwev (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Carlwev, grammar is one aspect of linguistics just as syntax is an aspect of grammar. At level 3 we should strive for the broader, more encompassing terms. E.g., we will not likely be including terms like phonetics, semantics, or pragmatics, and we should not include the term grammar at the exclusion of all others for the same reason. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Grammar is an aspect of language, not of linguistics. In some definitions of the discipline, for example Chomskys, linguistics is the study of grammar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm wrong about this, Maunus. Linguistics is the overarching topic, grammar is one branch within linguistics. Word is a simple unit in linguistics, and it's place here is odd, IMO. Linguistics covers grammar and word and many other sub-disciplines such as semantics and syntax. Orthography may not seem as vital as linguistics, but it deals with virtually everything language related that linguistics does not.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a linguist by profession and I know you are wrong.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought you said you were a cultural anthropologist? Anyway, as a linguist, are you really saying that grammar and word are broader topics then linguistics? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that is a little complicated, technically I am a linguistic anthropologist, but my first degree was in linguistics and my second in anthropology and I work in both fields. As a linguist I am saying that grammar and word are vital topics because they are some of the main components of language. Linguistics I would also consider vital, but not more so than the substance of what the discipline studies. Just like we don't swap "society" with "sociology". The article on linguistics is a bout the discipline and its methods and history, not about the substance that its studies. Nonetheless the substance is more relevant for more people to know about than the discipline.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the article on language covers vastly different topics then the one on linguistics, and they do not really overlap much at all. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article on Language covers Grammar, the article on lingustics doesn't. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article on linguistics goes into quite a bit of detail relating to grammar. See Linguistics, and the sections that follow, including Early grammarians, Comparative philology, Structuralism, Generativism, and Functionalism. At any rate, I seriously doubt that the Wikipedia article is an authoritative source on this point. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Word" is not a simple unit in linguisitics, it's a single unit in a language. Linguisitics is the study of language; if Language is already on the list, then I don't see linguistics as being nearly fundamental enough to include.  I might support removing Wrod and Grammar, but am opposed to the proposed swap. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a good analogy to use is that linguistics is the study of language just as biology is the study of life or living organisms. Word is then similar to Cell (biology. And cell is a single unit of life (for a multicellular organism) and so word is a unit of language not the study of it. I am still undecided over the specifics of this proposal. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 05:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what CT is talking about; the overarching topic is linguistics, which subsumes both grammar and word. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You are trying the equivalent of removing DNA to make room for genetics. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, and I assert that genetics should be listed before DNA, since the former subsumes the later. According to your logic, we would include "word" before "letter", or "clause" before "sentence". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not helping yourself. Word is an actual unit of language. Letter is a random symbol used in some languages to represent the sounds in a word. Word of course is more important than letter. Genetics does not subsume DNA, but existed as a discipline almost a hundred years before the discovery of DNA.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not helping myself? Please keep your comments about the content, not the editors. All I am saying is that both grammar and word are topics that relate to linguistics, which is the overarching topic that describes those terms. Every thing to do with grammar is also linguistic, but not everything to do with linguistics relates to grammar. That seems quite obvious to me, and the fact that linguistics is already at level 2 supports my assertion that it's more vital than both grammar and word. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And all I am saying is that you are wrong. Grammar and word are subordinate to the topic "language", not to the topic lingustics which is the academic study of Language.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that; I never said otherwise. Maybe you misunderstood me, but I am well aware that linguistics is the study of language and grammar is the branch of linguistics that deals with the underlying structures. Are you really saying that grammar isn't a branch of linguistics? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is no branch of linguistics called "grammar". Grammar is studied in most branches of linguistics, except for phonetics and phonology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * From the International Association of Young Lingusits: "Grammar, branch of linguistics dealing with the form and structure of words (morphology), and their interrelation in sentences (syntax)."


 * From A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics: Grammar: the branch of linguistics dealing with the construction of such descriptions and with the investigation of their properties."


 * From The Basics of English Usage: "In modern terms grammar is a branch of linguistics (the study of language), once called philology."


 * From Readings in Machine Translation: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics."


 * From The Complete Idiot's Guide to Grammar and Style: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics that deals with the form and structure of words."


 * From Informal Logic - Volume 20, Issues 1-2 - Page 143: "Standard Grammar is a branch of linguistics, itself a natural science."


 * From Child development: through time and transition - Page 283: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics dealing with the form and structure of words (morphology), and their interrelation in sentences (syntax)."


 * From Rand Memoranda - Issues 2915-2925: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics."


 * From The literate executive - Page 9: "Grammar is a branch of linguistics that deals with the form and structure of words."


 * From The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics: "Grammar: Any systematic account of the structure of a language; the patterns that it describes; the branch of linguistics concerned with such patterns."

User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, if you are correct, then are all these sources are wrong? Is your point here that syntax is the branch of linguistics that focuses primarily on grammar? If so, then why not swap grammar out for syntax? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  18:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are wrong (or rather they represent a common misunderstanding that confuses the phenomenon with its study), and you will note that none of them are high quality sources, and most of them are not actually directed at or written by linguists. The "study of the structure and form of words" is called morphology, not grammar - because by that definition isolating languages like Chinese would not have any grammar. You will not find any linguist saying that they study "grammar", they study syntax, morphology, semantics all of which are subfields of linguistics describing specific parts of grammar - but as I said, for a large majority of linguists, linguistics IS the study of grammar. In any case this irrelevant, because even if there were such a branch that would not mean that the phenomenon grammar is subordinate to linguistics it would only mean that we would have to include both the phenomenon and the discipline. (the two high quality sources seem to think that "grammar" is another way of saying "descriptive linguistics")User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics describes grammar as "the branch of linguistics concerned with such patterns." To be clear, your assertion: "linguistics IS the study of grammar", is not 100% correct. Linguistics is the study of language, and grammar is one aspect of language, but linguistics is not concerned only with grammar; it considers things that are not at all related to grammar such as phonetics and phonology, which are completely separate from grammar. Why do you see grammar as a more vital topic than linguistics? Are the other four braches of linguistics less vital than grammar? Is grammar really the most important thing studied in linguistics? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not my definition, but Chomskys. He redefined the discplin in that way in the 1960s. Not everyone follows his definition but a majority of American linguists do. You also keep confusing the topic the dictionary says that grammar is BOTH the phenomenon and the study of the phenomenon. The phenomenon is vital. The study of the phenomenon is less so. And yes grammar is easily the most important thing studied in linguistics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not confused; I know that grammar is both an object of study and a study in itself. This is bizarre, IMO, because you think that one particular aspect of language is more vital than all the rest, but how do we even get to grammar without phonemes, syllables, and morphemes? This appears to be a semantics argument about whether or not grammar is a branch of linguistics. Well, let's agree that it's not a branch of linguistics, but in that case grammar is still not the overarching topic, which is syntax. Can we agree that syntax is the branch of linguistics that deals with the grammatical structures? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . In Chomskyan linguistics grammar = syntax. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If grammar = syntax, and grammar is not a branch of linguistics, then is syntax also not a branch of linguistics? Because the sources you linked to above consider syntax as one of five braches of linguistics. Therefore, the branch of linguistics that specifically deals with grammar is syntax and syntax is the overarching topic that subsumes grammar. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, morphology also explicitly deals with grammar, the confusion arises because Chomsky considers morphology a part of syntax, although other theoretical directions dont. But under any view syntax is a branch of linguistics and I would be happy to include it in addition to grammar and linguistics, but I fear that would probably give overrepresentation to the field of linguistics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are some better sources. About how linguists understand grammar . About the branches of linguistics User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Swap Israel with Democratic Republic of the Congo
DRC is big (11th largest in the world) and populous (19th largest) and is the poorest country on earth. Israel is small and small and is one of many examples of middle-GDP democracies in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support, as nominator and see below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom and discussion. It will also boost representation of the currently very underrepresented region of Sub-Saharan Africa. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 00:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom  Pass a Method   talk  18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as above and because of Congo water resources significance. - Thewellman (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Israels global and historical importance exceeds its mere numerical importance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Fuller explanation: There is a clear outlier in the Countries list. Israel is the 96th most populous country in the world and 153rd largest in terms of area. The closest other countries in the list are Australia (52nd most populous) and Bangladesh (94th largest). If we account for GDP, Israel's total rank is 289 (96(pop)+153(area)+40(GDP)), which is 120 total ranking points over Bangladesh (8(pop)+94(area)+58(GDP)). DRC is the "largest+most populous" state not on the list. In addition, although there are a lot of rich countries and middle-GDP countries on the list (the highest is Bangladesh at 58), DRC is in the lower half of countries in terms of GDP and the poorest country on earth in terms of per capita GDP. These aspects seem to make it more vital for knowing about "Countries" in all the diverse forms they come in than is Israel. (Should you care about geographical coverage of the list, number of other countries within 2000 KM of Israel listed=3, number for DRC=1) AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, you're itchin' for a new lead-lined hole in your head, ain'tcha? Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, just looking at it objectively. I was as surprised with what I found as the best replacement as anyone (started thinking Thailand or South Korea would be a better fit). I'm not pumped about DRC, but I do think Israel doesn't fit on the list and am up for any alternatives. AbstractIllusions (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't include or exclude countries on population. Israel's significance goes beyond it's borders. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you (population is simply a means of gauging an entity's exceptional-ness or normal-ness in the group), the question then becomes: What is it about Israel's significance which makes it worthy of being a truly exceptional case in the list? High GDP? Nope. High English language population (as mentioned in the FAQ)? Nope. It is ok (even good) to have exceptional cases, but we should be clear on why are including some cases but not others. I would like to propose that exceptional cases should be included when they fill conceptual gaps. I can't see what 'concept' of the entity known as 'countries' that Israel adds that isn't already covered by the other examples (or by other better examples). It would seem that a list which omits any HIPCs is missing a really crucial piece to the puzzle (and about a fifth of the countries of the world). You may think that my proposed approach is not great or that my application of it to Israel is wrong, but I think it would be useful to be transparent about the criteria we want to go about for including outlier cases. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Wind

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 08:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jaqeli (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Definitely vital. Season is too. Neljack (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Can't imagine why we wouldn't have wind, surely vital. We have several things that are within winds scope but have missed wind itself. We have wind power, tornado and tropical cyclone which are in some form wind related. We also cover other weather things I consider slightly less important than wind, like cloud and flood. I considered a swap with one of the former weather articles but posted a straight add, as we are under count, adds and removes are going up alone more now; long time back a swap for wind vs wind power came and went with no consensus, partly because some didn't want to lose wind power. If you think a swap with something is better bring it up. Also I'm contemplating season as an add or swap with something, thoughts on that? Carlwev (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support of swap of wind in place of wind power or just the removal of wind power. I don't think it is as significant currently and historically as the other forms of energy listed. Things may change in the future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm surprised that coal isn't listed. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Good (economics) and Services, add Macroeconomics and Microeconomics
The entire economics category is wanting. Macroeconomics and microeconomics are the most common sub-classifications for economics, but they are omitted entirely. "Goods" and "services" are given top billing here, even though not much interesting about them can be said without a broader understanding of economic theory. The Good (economics) article is a good example of this since it offers little more than basic definition of "goods" and a discussion of "types of goods" (including Giffen goods), which isn't of much interest outside of a broader discussion of economics. This article is stuck in "start" class for a reason. --Bkwillwm (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Per nom. I still think goods and services are vital at the 10,000 level. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support EllenCT (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support As nom. Bkwillwm (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

@Bkwillwm and EllenCT, you can add your support votes formally now. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Market, add Supply and demand
Market is a term that covers a wide variety of physical and non-physical facilities where trade occurs. Much of the detail in the "market" article isn't relevant to high-level economics. Supply and demand covers the economics behind "markets" in a more abstract manner, and the concept of supply and demand is clearly more fundamental in economic theory. --Bkwillwm (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Per nom. I still think market is vital at the 10,000 level. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support EllenCT (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support As nom. Bkwillwm (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

@Bkwillwm and EllenCT, you can add your support votes formally now. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Clitoris, add Human body
An article so fundamental as Human body should be a vital article, and I do not think that Clitoris warrants inclusion in the top 10,000 most vital articles of Wikipedia, certainly not over Human body --LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree that the Clitoris article should be removed, and not just because I'm the one who has extensively worked on that article. It should be clear to anyone who has read that article why it is a vital article, especially given female genital mutilation (which is usually performed on the clitoris) and how commonly neglected the clitoris is in a variety of ways. If you want the Human body article listed, okay then. But the Clitoris article should not at all be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No one would suggest that we remove the Vagina article, for obvious reasons. And though the vagina gets far more attention than the clitoris from society (which is one of the things that makes the clitoris topic so vital, as essentially thoroughly noted in the Clitoris article), it is the clitoris that is equivalent to the penis/human penis, it is the clitoris that has been most controversial, and it is the clitoris that is most important to female sexual pleasure. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Human body is an article of fairly large importance to Anatomy. There must be another article that can be swapped on its behalf. --LT910001 (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, Johnuniq made a valid point with regard to context on this matter. As for swapping an article for the Human body article, do we need to do a swap? The Human body article can't simply be added? Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say many men consider the male equivalent one of their most important body parts. It seems that the clitoris might be just important to women. Likely of concern to men who don't know what to do with it. Perhaps bump off an actor or rock star? I think there are way to many of those. BTW: testicle is visited far less that clitoris. Maybe remove testicle? Jim1138 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Human body
Seems pretty vital to me, and since we are under the limit a straight add here makes sense. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom; a glaring omission.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Human body should be added. Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support either add or swap  p  b  p  21:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as nom. --LT910001 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Jim1138, when we are under the limit a swap thread is not required. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Moved oppose to support. Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Earlier discussion, mentioned the number 10,000 and the clitoris, both of which are relevant to the 10,000 list but not the 1000. This is the 1000 list talk page. Which list are we voting for? If it is the 1000 list, an addition to the 1000 list would mean an automatic addition to the 10,000 too any way; wouldn't it?... My view: human body definitely belongs in the 10,000, and maybe in the 1000. Some overlap exists but probably not too much, with human, and anatomy. Human is very broad not just about our bodies, anatomy is about the study of the body as opposed to the body itself, and includes more species than just human too. Carlwev (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. The editors above seem to be arguing that Human body should be included in the 10,000 list, not the 1,000. As far as "an automatic addition to the 10,000", well, in theory maybe, but I have yet to see this written as a working policy. I.e., I am not aware of anyone automatically adding something to the 10,000 list because it was added to the 1,000 list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The workings of this list and project to some extent baffles me, I feel if we have a list we ought to include Human body, but I don't have the time or patience to understand the rules of yet another byzantine Wikisystem of which we received no consultation as a WikiProject. --LT910001 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , read the introduction at the top of this page; it might not explain everything, but its a good start. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Homer
Odd that writers has Sophocles and Virgil but not Homer. RJFJR (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I Agree. Consider starting an add thread. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Add: Homer
Propose adding Homer to writers section. (Formal proposal in addition to comment above.) RJFJR (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support (as nom) since it's odd to have writers Sophocles and Virgil but not Homer.  RJFJR (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - A glaring omission.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, but only if Iliad is removed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support swap per Curly Turkey. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support One of the most influential and famous of all writers - a striking omission. Neljack (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Much can be said about the Iliad & the Odyssey & their influence. Almost nothing can be said with certainty about the individual, not even if he wrote both works: his personal appearance, where he lived, how he earned a living are all unknowns. Even Homer's sex was disputed by Samuel Butler. And his personal influence, how he personally helped other writers/artists -- as opposed to, say, Vergil, Ezra Pound, Virginia Woolf, Basho -- is undocumented. Any article about Homer must needs be a lengthy compendium of theories & suppositions about the personage attached to the name which, in many cases, say more about their authors than about the ancient poet. The only reason to include Homer on this list is out of knee-jerk obedience to what we were taught in school. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * , I've refactored the proposal so as to conform to our SoP, but I didn't want to place your support !vote; you may want to do that. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I mentioned this before, but I thought Homer was a much better choice than singling out the Iliad. I'll support this, but only if the Iliad is removed first. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove: Iliad

 * Support
 * 1) Per . Homer is a better choice for inclusion.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support on the condition that Homer is added. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support swap per Curly Turkey. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 05:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support; I'm comfortable with removing Illiad and adding Homer, especially since we don't have the Odyssey, which I'd give equal weight. RJFJR (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support if swapped for Homer per RJFJR; it's the writer, not just some of his works.  Montanabw (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose More can be said about the Iliad, its meaning & influence on Western Civilization -- & of a more useful quality -- than about Homer. (I could say more, but I would be repeating what I wrote above about including Homer.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Asteroid belt Add Comet
I'll create the thread; several user's comments in "Remove Asteroid belt" above suggest many like this idea. We currently have Asteroid belt and Asteroid but don't cover comets at all, this swap would cover more ground. Asteroid belt is covered in asteroid, it has a subsection in asteroid. Comets studied in modern astronomy, and also known to ancient cultures and astronomers too. Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Made this a straight-up add, so that people who object to the inclusion of either asteroid belt or comet, or support the inclusion of both, can record their opinion. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support As significant to human culture and history as the planets. The study of comets contributed to the discovery of solar wind, the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Ypnypn (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Athenean (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 02:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - I don't think we should include such a specific topic; there are hundreds of Astronomy/Astro Physics topics that could be included. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Bedrieger (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap Delhi with Athens
Athens is the cradle of Western civilization, philosophy, and democracy, and through that, vitally important on a global scale. Should be included together with Jerusalem and Rome. Delhi on the other hand is not the most notable nor the largest city in India, that title goes to Mumbai, which is also the financial and entertainment capital of India, while the spiritual capital is in Varanasi. Two Indian cities is moreover overkill, and Delhi has not played a particularly critical role in Indian or world history. Athenean (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Athenean (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I was relcutant, but the rationale convinced me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) support Bedrieger (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Although Delhi's historical and cultural contribution to the world is important, on balance, Athens had a greater overall influence on world history and culture, at least imo. I also think that Delhi's population, although a strong consideration, should not override the accumulated and multifaceted historical impact that Athens had on the world.   Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   01:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Reason below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per AbstractIllusions.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I can support including Athens but not at the expense of Delhi.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 02:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per DaGizza. --Carwil (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Per AbstractIllusions. Solomon7968 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per abstractillusions Pass a Method   talk  19:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose because of comparative contemporary significance (and Ancient Greece covers historical significance of Athens). Thewellman (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * If we treat cities as cities and not as things held within recently constructed national borders (as the nomination does) then the whole Delhi vs. Athens thing collapses. Delhi is 14 times larger than Athens in population. Athens would be the smallest city in population terms on the vital articles page. Delhi has three world heritage sites, Athens has one (if we want some way to objectively measure "critical role in world history"). And if we want to talk about overkill, five cities from an area with 710 Million people (Europe) or two from an area with 1 billion people (India or 1.7 billion to more appropriately talk about the subcontinent) (and of course zero from an area with 800 million people, subsaharan Africa, but nothing new there). It is problematic to say Athens, if we must add another European city, is more geographically or historically important than Berlin, Madrid, Vienna, or Amsterdam? If the vote was just an add Athens, I say yes. It is the shaky removal of Delhi that is so problematic. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I went with strict city numbers for population. If we go with the urban or metropolitan area, my claims *14 times larger and *smallest city in population would both not hold. The ratio (from 14 times to 5 times) and its ranking would change (3rd smallest I think), but not significantly so. AbstractIllusions (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delhi is the second largest urban area in the world. Or if we don't like raw data, here's a good explanation. And it is estimated to be second largest in the world for the next decade at least. Removing the second largest urban area in the world from a list of vital cities should require some careful discussions it seems to me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to what AbstractIllusions has said with which I agree, I would argue that Delhi has played a critical part in Indian history. It was the capital of two significant empires (Mughal Empire and British Raj. Khari Boli, the dialect of Hindi spoken around Delhi is the standard dialect and along with English one of the lingua francas of India and other parts of the subcontinent (It is the dialect predominantly used in Bollywood films as well despite it being based in Mumbai). At the moment the only countries with two cities on the VA list are China and India, which due to their billion plus populations I believe is reasonable.  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T /<sup style="color:teal;">C 02:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus: If the primary rationale is Ancient Greece, that already is on the list.--Carwil (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove History of Asia
Better covered in the more focused articles on the histories of East Asia, Middle East and India. Removing this article avoids overlap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC) To cover the remaining 1.2 billion people, we would need to add History of Southeast Asia and History of Central Asia. Possibly History of Siberia as well but there are other lightly populated regions which aren't covered by a history article in the V1000 including Australia/Oceania. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 08:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support. As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - A fine suggestion.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 07:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Maybe someday when content changes this should be reconsidered, but right now overlap is significant. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. This would result in the histories of over 1.2 billion people and nearly 30 million square kilometers not being covered by anything more specific than "History of the world". --Yair rand (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Yair rand. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Yair rand. Cobblet (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Consider that we're twelve articles under the 1,000 limit, we can add History of Southeast Asia and History of Oceania without problems. (Siberia isn't necessary, given its minimal population and history). -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Indo-European languages from Everyday life
For some reason we have 13 specific languages listed under Language, and then Indo-European languages, of which nine have been specifically listed. Is there any reason why we would favor this particular group of languages above the others? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. - As nom; we already list nine specific Indo-European languages and there is no particular reason to single out this language group as being more vital then all the others.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  At this level I don't see any need for language families. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support If there was space for one language family only Indo-European would be it due to its number of speakers and its significance to historical linguistics and the development of the comparative method. But among the 1000 most vital articles, there is no space for its inclusion in my opinion. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 09:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. The add Sino-Tibetan proposed fix was interesting, but ultimately I think the list is more coherent with only languages and no language families. AbstractIllusions (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Without having thought this through too thoroughly: Oppose. Afaict, almost half the global population speaks an Indo-European language as their native tongue, making it the most important linguistic group by an enormous margin. --Yair rand (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The solution to the perceived problem is to add sino-tibetan languages, not to remove indo-european.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Agree with Maunus. Neljack (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Yair rand, yes, it's true that 45% of the global population speaks an Indo-European language, but that still leaves out 55% of the world, right? Why not also include Sino-Tibetan languages, which are spoken by 22% of the global population? Anyway, my main point here is that it seems odd to include nine specific Indo-European languages and the topical article. Perhaps we should consider removing the specific languages, and instead including the 10 largest language families. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it goes with outsaying that the 10 languages with most speakers are vital. However some languages with few speakers may also be considered vital becuase of historical or cultural significane and they should be added. Adding the 10 largest language families is not a particularly good idea, since the last 5 would account for less than 10 percent of the world's population.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In a tight list like this, I can't see any language families making it on. I also don't think population should be given undue weight. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: We could replace Indo-European languages with Language family, thereby locating the concept without having to choose just one.--Carwil (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Specific criteria for inclusion, and question regarding exact number?
OK, two questions, both of which are possibly stupid and already asked and answered repeatedly.
 * 1) What if anything are the specific criteria for inclusion? I myself might think, for instance, having an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica Macropedia might be one specific criteria among several that articles should meet, and, maybe, depending on how many such articles there are in such, maybe a defining criteria.
 * 2) Isn't the exact number 1000 rather arbitrary? Might it not make sense, given the wild expansion of content we have here, to maybe come up with some other basis for inclusion, like, maybe, having an article (or sufficiently long part of an article) to qualify as "vital" for all encyclopedias based on the content of other print or online reference sources? John Carter (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As for number 2, there are different levels: At level 1 there are only ten articles, at level 4 there are 10,000. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The number may be arbitrary, but it's important we hold fast to it. There are lists that can be as big or little as desired, and those are Top- and High-Importance article lists.  This is not one of those lists  p  b  p  02:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Architecture
Surely architecture is more important than a mere subset of visual arts. In many ways it is the defining characteristic of any civilisation, in any meaningful terms far more important than literature. Arguably, anyway, but then this whole list of lists business is pretty subjective. ProfDEH (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to taking architecture out of the "visual arts" section so it has its own section under "Arts and Culture". It is a good idea. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 04:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, as that would be consistent with Vital articles/Expanded/Arts, but also simply because architecture is much more than visual art. -- ELEKHHT 08:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss: Momentum?
We have Energy (as well as Kinetic energy and Potential energy) and Force and Motion. But we don't have Momentum. If we wanted to add momentum would we need to remove something else (and if so then what could we remove?) RJFJR (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think we could just add momentum, but if you want to be more confident that it will pass I suggest finding another article in the same section that should be removed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything vital about momentum. "Vital" entails that only a few articles will be selected out of the vast array of articles written.  Kinetic and potential energy seem to cover the subject well enough.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Core Contest
running for a fifth time - 10 Feb to 9 march....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Swap: add Magnet, Remove Kinetic energy
Magnet (and magnetism) are a basic forces even thoughthey were unified with the electric force early. Hard to believe we didn't already include magnet as vital. (We do have compass and magnetic compases have magnets.) While Kinetic Energy is pretty important it is already covered in Energy (and I'm proposing removing Potential energy which is the other entry under energy in the following motion). RJFJR (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Would magnet or magnetism be the better add? Neljack (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Thewellman (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the principle behind this; we can debate swapping for magnetism later. Cobblet (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion
 * I was also wondering magnet or magnetism. We should have at least one not sure which, I think magnet is so OK I'll support it. While you consider Kinetic energy covered by energy, I also see we have motion in the vital 1000, which kind of covers it as well. Carlwev (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also prefer magnetism. Cobblet (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Swap: add Momentum, Remove Potential energy
Momentum is a basic concept in Physics. Suggest adding it and removing Potential energy (motion above suggest swapping out Kinetic energy the other entry under Energy) because it is covered as part of the Energy article. RJFJR (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Momentum should certainly be on here. Neljack (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Thewellman (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add: Indigenous peoples
Seems to be missing.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Per nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support indigenous peoples worldwide, not just in the Americas and Australia, the phrase covers all, though if someone really wants to list each broad group individually, it's a bit complex to do so, but the principle is understandable.  Montanabw (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Agree with Maunus. The oppose is simply factually incorrect on people not looking at the article. In any case, page views are hardly the main criterion here - what is crucial is how vital the article is. I would say that the general topic of indigenous peoples is clearly vital, considering that colonialism is an extremely important historical (and indeed contemporary) phenomenon and that indigenous peoples are receiving increasing recognition of their rights and their claims to autonomy. We must remember that indigenous peoples are not limited to the ones we might think of in English-speaking countries, but exist all around the world. Neljack (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Agree with Maunus and Neljack. Native Americans, the First Nations, Aboriginals Australians and Maori aren't the only indigenous people in the world. They just happen to be the most notable indigenous people subjugated by the British. Including those four at the expense of the rest would show huge Anglospheric bias. Arguably every nation state in the world would its own indigenous people and the general concept of IP is vital. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 11:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Although the separate names for various groups was the standard a few years ago, "Indigenous Peoples" has been enshrined in international law, scholarly study, and increasingly in common usage. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose no one goes looking in an encyclopedia for "indigenous peoples" as a term in the English language.  Native Americans, First Nations, or Aboriginal Australians would seem to be better choices, although I don't see why any of those would be vital to the English speakers in Europe, Africa, or other parts of Asia.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * There is no international convention on the rights of Native Americans, First Nations or Aboriginal Australians. 112,000 people looked in this encyclopedia for "indigenous peoples" in the last 90 days. Not as a term in the English language, but as an important concept in international legislation. It is a ridiculous and parochial notion that English speakers should not be interested in peoples who happen not to speak English or who live in other parts of the world. And the mere existence of an encyclopedia, contradicts this notion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove percentage, add 0 (number).
To quote Cobblet, "As the additive identity, and the digit that made the decimal system possible, zero is perhaps the most important number in mathematics." Percentages are just another way of representing small numbers in business and statistics; they're not actually used in math.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I can see how percentage might be considered one of the 10,000 most vital articles, but the 1000 most vital ones? Surely the fact that it may be looked up a fair bit cannot be enough when it doesn't have much mathematical significance? 0 is certainly a more important mathematical concept than percentage. Neljack (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per Ypnypn and Neljack. 0 is definitely more vital than percentage. I believe percentage is vital enough to be to the top 10000 but is covered by the more general fraction at the 1000 level. I'm open to the total number of mathematics articles going above 60 but probably won't support the inclusion of percentage. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 01:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom and above. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Percentage doesn't hold much in terms of encyclopedic interest. In other words, I don't believe it's possible to learn much more about percentages by consulting an encyclopedia as opposed to a dictionary. Frankly, much of the material in the current article doesn't look like encyclopedic content to me. Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removing percentage - I think it's pretty important and something that might be looked up a lot. I've got no objection to adding zero, but I think it (and it's additive identity-ness) should already be covered when we discuss numbers so it less important than percentage.  (Let me know if we have a discussion on adding zero without removing percentage because I'd probably support that.) RJFJR (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per RJFJR. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

‎YpnBot?
Has ‎YpnBot gone a little nuts? It tagged about 20 articles on my watchlist over the last few days as vital articles, and though I certainly am fond of the topics myself, I do wonder if, for example, show jumping meets the criteria? Anyone else run into this? Montanabw (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It automatically tags all pages listed on WP:Vital articles and its subpages. Show jumping appears on Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life. (I do agree that it's not really vital, but that would have to be discussed at WT:Vital articles/Expanded. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)