Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 12

=People=

Remove Jimmy Carter
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Recentism: subject is not one of the most significant U.S. presidents of American history.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: p  b  p  15:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Accomplishments as President not the most important: barely beat Ford, had a beer-guzzling brother, lost to Reagan, recession, screw up in Iran, Camp David accords. No much else.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: Really not sure on the logic below of "every US president should be included": by that measure, most of the British royalty should be included for overseeing an even larger empire, as well as all those Prime Ministers who oversaw the whole thing! - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Here again, vital on a list of 10 k in my view. Jus  da  fax   08:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. ranked 876 in traffic, he may not be one of the most significant presidents in American history, but he is one of the most significant from a global perspective, e.g. diplomatic work after his presidency. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: If we have 10,000 articles, every US president should be included, even if they were not the most influential. Presiding over 250,000,000 people is a big deal. Ypnypn (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - Per Melody Lavender. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Charles I of England, Add James I of England
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, but I'd prefer to have both. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, I think the martyred king is more important this the man who gave the English language phrases like "cursèd is he who pisseth against the wall"...and England and Scotland weren't fully unified until Queen Anne, all James did was accede both thrones and did so with difficulty all throughout his reign causing some of the financial problems that led to Chuck losing his noggin. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * James I/VI got England/Scotland unified, got the King James Bible published, and introduced England to absolutism. Charles I got his head chopped off  p  b  p  15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * James is definitely more important than Charles, but don't forget, Charles, in his ways opened the way for Cromwell, and in getting his head removed allowed the country to become a republic for the only time. I can't help but think we maybe should have both. Carlwev (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, we need to prioritize. Until we get the total VA/E numbers down we are primarily cutting, not adding topics.  This is not a situation where we have the luxury of keeping both.  So, who is more important?  Clearly James I/VI was the more important of the two because of his role in unifying the crowns and consolidating what became the United Kingdom; his son Charles I was a monarch whose incompetent machinations brought about the temporary end of the English/Scottish/British monarchy.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, Add William Ewart Gladstone
See also Swap: Remove Harold Wilson, Add William Ewart Gladstone

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support; much better selection. Although Curzon is interesting, I'm not seeing him as important as Gladstone in the broader picture. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, see below. --Igrek (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose,--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per Igrek. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm not really seeing the significance Curzon had on the British homeland, sorry. Looks to me to be a second-tier British figure.  We shouldn't have second-tier British figures when we leave off one of 19th century Britain's most prominent figures.  Also, we have too many Tories and not enough Libs  p  b  p  15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gladstone belongs on this list, and is a notable absence among British prime ministers. Curzon was viceroy of India, and an also-ran for the Tory leadership -- a second-tier British leader and a little bit obscure.  This is a good swap.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I propose keep Curzon because he is associated with many significant events in history of India, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, in many countries (Southern Asia, exUSSR) he is more famous than Gladstone. Gladstone was a famous politician in Great Britain, but we can add him instead of other British leader.  --Igrek (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gladstone has now been added, so this could be closed. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Move George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston from subsection "United Kingdom" to subsection "Southern Asia"
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, makes sense. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support go no I'll be number 5. I suppose leaders should be listed where they led not where they were from. William the Conqueror is listed under England, he wasn't from England then ruled there when he was 38. This is vaguely similar. Carlwev (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
George Curzon is an important figure in history of Southern Asia. I propose keep him in this section. --Igrek (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Porfirio Díaz
'''Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: See rationale below p  b  p  15:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This a potentially very good addition, but I am also mindful of the numbers management problem we have with being 400+ articles over the VA/E 10,000-topic limit.  My support vote here should be read as a de facto swap vote to be implemented upon the deletion of Maximillian I, already proposed for deletion in this section.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support agree with DL and pbp Carlwev (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * We don't have any Mexican leaders from the last 140 years. TBH, the three Mexican leaders we had all served in a time period shorter than the Porfiriato.  Diaz served as leader of Mexico for most of the Gilded Age, and was responsible for many economic changes  p  b  p  15:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion to remove Maximillian I has already achieved an !vote of 5−0, so I am removing the previous qualification/condition on my support for the addition of Porfirio Diaz. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Elizabeth II, Add George III of the United Kingdom
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose: p  b  p  15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose too, agree with pbp, bad suggestion for removal Queen Elizabeth II, that won't happen. Suggest a swap with Helen Caldicott. Carlwev (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per PBP's rationale below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Very very strong oppose very misguided and historically unaware. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Again, a misplaced swap, deleting QEII to make room for the insignificant Bloody Mary and Mary, Queen of Scots. QEII is as significant a figure as George III (in fact, in many ways, their reigns mirrored each other); she's exponentially more significant than the Marys.  p  b  p  15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Add William Ewart Gladstone
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  03:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. ADAMANTLY opposed per discussion comment below.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * A fair add, quite an omission, several politician articles are destined for deletion, so I reluctantly support, and all the swap suggestions for him were not flying, maybe we should remove some of them. Carlwev (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, people, we cannot get back in the business of adding "important people" without removing someone who is less vital--when we are 400 topics over the 10,000-article limit. Even among the present list of British prime ministers, Harold Wilson is far, far less significant than Gladstone.  Wilson was a relatively successful caretaker; Gladstone was one of the two transformational UK leaders of the 19the Century.  Among monarchs, Mary Stuart was no where near as historically significant.  This exercise is about prioritizing and making choices: Not every "important person" gets to be on the list.  There are other nationals who could be dropped, too.  Bottom line: Someone else should come off the VA/E list before Gladstone is added.  Show some discipline, folks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Carlplease do not interpret my "oppose" !vote as a half-hearted "support." Opposed means opposed, for the reasons stated.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I always thought you the most sensible user here, but I feel like I have offended you somehow Dirtlawyer, but I do not know how? would you mind explaining what you mean, and what I have done? I thought we were getting along? Carlwev (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Carl, I'm not offended at all. I'll let you know when, if on some rare occasion, I am offended.  I am trying to get everyone to focus on the process of prioritization, which I think is our major VA/E mission for the next few months.  There really are no free adds, and every removal is going to to get harder and harder as we trim the people sublists.  By necessity, we need to force the hard choices.  The "vitalness," or significance, of every topic needs to be compared with that of every other subject on the list and we need to make choices.  I find the whole UK leader/monarch discussion somewhat frustrating because I could name a dozen monarchs who are more historically significant than Bloody Mary and Mary, Queen of Scots.  Hell, I can name three Labour prime ministers who are more historically significant than Harold Wilson (Ramsey McDonald, Clement Atlee, Tony Blair).  Far from being offended, I'm counting on you to speak up in these discussions as our resident Briton.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, guys, I think it's worth noting that Wilson had two tours as PM, and was caretaker in only the second. And if having Wilson bothers you, I'd be happy to swap him out for Clement Atlee or Tony Blair  p  b  p  15:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @PBP, I would trade out Wilson for either Atlee or Blair, too. Wilson is the British equivalent of George H. W. Bush; he kept the wheels on and didn't screw anything up too badly.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll start that then. As an FYI, my strikethrough of support is largely on DL's grounds; i.e. that somebody needs to be axed to get Gladstone in.  p  b  p  17:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How about losing one or two from the excessively long list of US presidents? Or even from the monumentally long US-centric list of 172 entertainers? - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it wasn't exactly a swap but Gladstone was added at the same time Julia Roberts got removed Carlwev (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Henry Kissinger
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: See rationale below p  b  p  15:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal per comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, won Nobel peace price, important role in handling the cold war situation (détente), and he introduced the concept of Realpolitik to the US. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per Melody, a clear, practical voice in foreign affairs in a world full of impractical starry-eyed idealists.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose . - Per Melody.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Has to be on a list of 10K vital articles, in my view .  Jus  da  fax   05:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * a) We don't really need both Nixon and Kissinger; b) Among American political leaders who weren't President, the only other ones we have are Franklin and Hamilton, Kissinger doesn't belong on this list when people like John Marshall and Henry Clay are absent; c) Likewise, I doubt he is one of the 20 or so greatest American political leaders, and 20 or so is probably all the U.S. deserves p  b  p  15:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To my way of thinking, this is a very close call because of Kissinger's impact on the realpolitik of the 1960s and 1970s. Nevertheless, I accept Purplebackpack's logic; given the fact that we remain 300+ articles over the 10,000 topic limit, we are going to have to start deleting some of the close calls if we are going to make room for higher priority subjects.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Mary I of England, Add George III of the United Kingdom
See also Swap: Remove Elizabeth II, Add George III of the United Kingdom

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Per discussion comment below.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose removing Bloody Mary because of her religious policy and Cultural depictions of Mary I of England. I would rather add George III of England instead of Robert Walpole, William Pitt the Younger, Elizabeth II, Harold Wilson. --Igrek (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Bloody Mary ranks 3742 in page traffic statistics, and currently about 6000 views per day. George III on the other hand gets about 15 hits per day, that is very little (the pages that I have looked up that are on the expanded-List right now get at least 200 hits per day or many more). From an editorial perspective it is to be expected that an article on Bloody Mary is viewed frequently because of the notoriety the surname gives her in the general public - even those people who don't have an interest in history might read the entry. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) - see corrected numbers for George in the Discussion section below, the 15 hits are for the redirect page. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per the rationale of User:Melody Lavender directly above this comment. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - Per Melody.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The UK has had four significant female leaders: QEI, QEII, Vicky and Thatcher. Bloody Mary and Mary Queen of Scots, eh, not so much.  On the other hand, we've left off every single George, including the one that reigned 60 years on the British throne.  We have no English monarchs from the 17th century; and no Hannoverians before Vicky  p  b  p  15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mary I was a failed short-timer, whose lasting influence was ultimately no more than that of her brother Edward VI. Elizabeth I was the true star among Henry VIII's children.  George III, while not fondly well remembered in the United States, was an active participant in the government of Great Britain and the Empire, and case a rather long shadow over its history for both good and ill.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Igrek, Walpole and Pitt were major players in British history; it is difficult to assess the lasting significance of Elizabeth II because she is the current monarch, and we really don't know how much influence she as exercised behind the scenes. IMO, Harold Wilson looks a moderately successful caretaker and is a good candidate to be cut from the VA/E list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Melody's hit count numbers are a tad inaccurate. Per this link, George III gets about 3300 links per day (rank 3913), only about 600 hits per day less than Mary I of England (the same list assesses Bloody Mary at about 3950 hits a day and rank 3742).  And I personally believe that basing this list on what articles are hit the most is a terrible way to run it.  George III clearly had a more significant reign than Bloody Mary, he just happened not to have a cocktail named after him  p  b  p  14:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can swap George III for some other article. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hit count numbers can be interesting but alone are not very useful. Adele, not in VA anywhere is the 399th most popular article with 332K hits in May. For the same month Earth which is in VA level 1 (10 most vital articles) is lower than Adele at number 699 with 298K hits. Mary reigned for 5 years George for nearly 60 years, and he does seem more important to me, although Mary is not the worst article she is less vital than George III. However with 3 opposes I don't think this will go through. Carlwev (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Mary I of Scotland, Add Eleanor of Aquitaine
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I've thought about this one a bit, and decided notwithstanding her status as queen consort (vs. Mary's as queen regnant), that Eleanor is the more historically significant figure, and hence more "vital."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Mary Stuart is one of the most widely known historical figures, several movies were made about her life. Ranks 3690 in page view statistics. I would support adding Eleanor of Aquitaine, but not the swap. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Melody Lavender. --Igrek (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per Melody Lavender.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose -- would rather have George III.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * If you're gonna have a female leader, why not one with some class? Almost certainly the most powerful woman (and perhaps also the best educated) in Europe during the Middle Ages  p  b  p  15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @PBP, "class" is a relative term, and Eleanor certainly had her share of moral failings, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting juxtaposition, but to my way of thinking it comes down to this: Eleanor was the queen of France and England, by successive marriages, and the Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right, when the duchy was recognized as the wealthiest and most culture in Europe. In the absence of her husband Henry II, and later her son Richard I, she served on least three extended occasions as the regent and de facto queen regnant of England, with nary a peep of dissent.  Like Mary, she was part of several notable conspiracies, but she played the game far better and her historical reputation is that of a strong and competent female ruler.  Mary, Queen of Scots is mostly remembered as being an incompetent failure as monarch, a pawn in the dynastic conspiracies of others, and a royal pain in the backside to the Scots, the English and the Calvinists.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should judge whether a historical figure is vital solely on the grounds of political influence. Even if Mary Stuart may have been incompetent at her job, her life still fascinates many. We're not handing out lifetime achievement awards here. ---Melody Lavender (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't think we should judge whether a historical figure is vital solely on the grounds of political influence". Well, I'm sorry, but I believe we should.  I believe this list needs to be insulated from the opinion of popular culture.  Just because Mary, Queen of Scots has a few movies about her weave falling off during her execution or whatnot does not make her more significant than the most significant female political figure of the Middle Ages.  I know she gets over 3 times the hits Eleanor does, but Eleanor was a more important figure in the grand scheme of things.  This list shouldn't be a hit-ocracy, else we'd have to have Lindsay Lohan, who is hit twice as much as Mary, Queen of Scots.  This list should be a meritocracy, one that does give out lifetime achievement awards  p  b  p  15:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course we shouldn't inlcude Lindsay Lohan. Lohan gets many hits because she must be popular among an age-group that has frequent access to the internet, currently. We already have a list that reflects the current traffic on wikipedia. An encyclopedia is not written for the moment, so we should of course take the long run into account. The viewer-statistics reflect what the reader wants from this encyclopedia. They are just one indicator to decide what is a vital article and what isn't. I don't think encyclopedia-editors should decide what the criteria for good lifetime achievement are. I can't follow the concept of vital = life time achievement. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We should take the editorial perspective, not the perspective of a jury. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Barack Obama
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - He is the most notable American president since F.D.R.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: LBJ and Ronny have solidified their reputations more than Obama has, but I still think Obama belongs on this list  p  b  p  04:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, Melody Lavender (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose Carlwev (talk)

Discussion

 * This is pretty much the epitome of recentism. Let's wait at least until he's out of office. - Ypnypn (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gabe, there is a perfectly valid argument to be made for keeping Obama on the list, but saying that "he is the most notable American president since F.D.R." is a remarkable exaggeration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am weak oppose to neutral on this but I will add an oppose to get the thread archived and off the page soon. As I am sure this article is not getting voted off. Carlwev (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Harold Wilson, Add William Ewart Gladstone
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment: If we vote to remove Harold Wilson, we are removing the only Labour politician on this list. This to keep a not-particularly-significant Conservative politician (who was never PM, and had virtually no effect on the British mainland) in Curzon.  Sure, Gladstone is more important than either Curzon or Wilson, but I'd put Wilson above Curzon.  p  b  p  15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Gladstone is more important than either Curzon..." Important for whom? For Britain? Yes. For Asia, East Europe? No. --Igrek (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're getting selected as a British leader, you should have done at least a little for mainland Britain. Also, why do you want to delete every single Labour leader, and every postwar British political figure except Thatcher?  p  b  p  16:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For my opinion, observing the political parity in this list is a not good idea, we have need for more objective criteria. We can move Curzon to Indian politician also.--Igrek (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's nowhere close to political parity, though. As currently constituted, Wilson is the only non-Tory on this list.  What I'm asking for is 3-4 Tories, one Whig, and one Labour  p  b  p  16:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's add Gladstone without the swap method. --Igrek (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gladstone is important, this is a clear case of what I said before. It's all a matter of finding the right article to form a swap with. This may fail because Wilson is a fairly strong entry and is why I'm not as keen on the swap method. Gladstone is getting support with another swap above but I see you opposed that one. Do me a personal favour and change this to a cross section swap Helen Caldicott out Gladstone in, then it should definitely fly. Carlwev (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Harold Wilson, Add Clement Atlee
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: as nom  p  b  p  17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Easy call per my discussion comment below.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Harold Wilson is currently the only Labour PM on this list, but may not be the most significant Labour PM. Clement Atlee is routinely considered one of Britian's seminal PMs, and is usually the highest-ranked Labour PM  p  b  p  17:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Wilson is fairly important...but I think Atlee is more important. Carlwev (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree Attlee is certainly more important than Wilson.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Atlee's government fundamentally changed British government and its role in society in ways that were only partially reversed by Thatcher's government 40+ years later, and the tension between the two modern political ideologies represented by Atlee and Thatcher remains a central argument of government throughout the Anglosphere and much of the Western world. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Porfirio Díaz and Antonio López de Santa Anna and add Simon Bolivar and Emiliano Zapata
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. -- User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

 * Díaz ruled long but is mostly known for being ousted. Santa Anna is not very notable except from an American standpoint. Bolivar is notable throughout Latin America and is the independence hero of several countries. Zapata's is hugely influential in Mexico and well known throughout the world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both additions look like excellent candidates to me, especially Bolivar. I am not totally sure of the removals will have to think about them. And I find it a little strange lumping 2 swaps together, was it just to save space and time? swaps can be awkward at the best of times as users have to agree on 2 things 1 swap and 1 removal. Here we have to agree on 4 separate things at once 2 adds and 2 removals to truly support the thread, I can't help feeling it would be better split, but what do I know it still may work. Carlwev (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again although very good addition proposals, Diaz was only just voted in and added within the last 2 weeks, the archive is still on this page at the time of this comment, sometimes swaps work sometimes they are awkward, maybe better to rethink the removal candidates for this one and split it in two? Carlwev (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Archived thread, topics in double swap proposed separately, Bolivar already included anyway

Remove Antonio López de Santa Anna and add Simon Bolivar
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. -- User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose: um, Bolivar is already on this list, and I wouldn't remove Santa Anna anyway p  b  p  20:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Archived, Redundant thread Bolivar included already

Swap: Add J. M. W. Turner, remove Helen Caldicott (activist)
Support !votes:
 * 1) Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:
 * 1) Oppose - I continue to say she is indeed vital. Ask the residents of Fukushima Japan, told repeatedly they were safe yet now subject to an ongoing nuclear disaster of epic proportions, how vital her warnings about nuclear power are. This is now the third attempt to remove Caldicott. It's starting to look like a POV crusade, not an effort to improve the vital articles list. Be a good sport and focus elsewhere. Jus  da  fax   16:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Both biographies but from different areas. A gamble upon the awkward swap method. Turner could get in pitched against many of the people here. He has a prize of his own, a gallery of his own, on Wikipedia the name Turner itself takes you to him, suggesting Wikipedians think he is the most important person with the name (we have 2 others in our list here), he's pretty important, much more deserving than many on the list, and I believe this swap would be a great improvement. However by pitching him against Caldicott I could doom this thread to failure, possibly gaining two opposes immediately from the users trying to keep her, but I'll try it anyway, you never know it may just work. I believe Turner is at least 10 times more vital than Caldicott, what do other's think? Carlwev (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I proposed a removal thread 3 months ago on 1st April, then I posted no more separate threads about Caldicott until today 3 months later on 30 June. Another user posted a swap thread which I haven't voted on. I admit I have mentioned and joked about Caldicott several times though. There are/were several proposals started about the same leader within days of each other like Harold Wilson, who was removed in the end. Harry Potter had been brought up numerous times then was removed in the end. Across the 2 existing threads already here, a total of 5 users have voted to remove Caldicott and only 2 to keep. (Manus voted to remove her on the swap thread only, but not the straight removal like everyone else), So I'm not exactly fighting a lost cause. My Pro Wrestling thread 5-1 against me, I thought that should be here but that is only my POV, so I'll forget about that one, it's not working, it would be useless to start another thread for that. But this removal is almost going through, and I believe it would improve the list, as do 3 or 4 other users, so it's not exactly just my POV. I believe the notability of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is artificially pushing the notability of this one woman up. She is not the only person in the world to speak up against nuclear power, nor the only person to end up being right were a government was wrong. I can think of several articles better to represent this area, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, for one plus Nuclear and radiation accidents, Chernobyl disaster, Anti-nuclear movement, Energy security, Nuclear power debate, Nuclear safety, Radioactive contamination Would all be better, we don't even have Nuclear power plant or Nuclear reactor either. If Helen Caldicott is so important to the Japanese why does she not even appear in the Japanese language Wikipedia, she only appears in 5 languages, English, Arabic, Turkish, French and German, and not Japanese. Carlwev (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Caldicott already gone, I'll have to start another thread for Turner Carlwev (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Pedro Calderón de la Barca
Support !votes: Oppose !votes:
 * 1) Just as important as Lope de Vega. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm not too familiar with him, but assessing the article he looks quite important, no one has opposed this in two weeks, and it's probably only a matter of time before 4 votes turns to 5 so I'll support the other users and get this over and done with now. Carlwev (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Pope Francis
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Per Melody's fine logic yet again. Recentism is about articles, not lists. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, recentism. --Igrek (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Too soon p  b  p  19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose see below Carlwev (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The current pope is likely to have an important place in history because he is the first Franciscan and the first pope who was voted into office while his predecessor was still alive. He is also the first pope from Latin America. So let's discuss: is he an omission? --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, he was the first Jesuit and the first from Latin America (previous popes have abdicated; also we've had antipopes). He's been in office for just three months.  I'd feel more comfortable waiting a few years to see if he really is the transformational pope he's purported to be  p  b  p  19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We should not get in the habit of including anyone on the VA/E list merely by virtue of the office they hold. That's a rationale for including the "Pope" or the "President of the United States," where the current officer holders are prominently featured.  It is not a sound basis for including any office holder until the person has actually done something in the office they hold.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am opposing on the grounds that, if we currently have about 15 popes in different places on the list. If we wanted to list one more pope, or five more popes. If we tried to list the top 20 most vital popes, there would be many many more popes with more chance of getting in than Francis. There are many popes that are fairly vital, many are more vital than Francis, although he may do important stuff, at the moment he hasn't done that much as he's not had time to. For all we know he could die tomorrow and we could have another year of 3 popes... or he could live for years and do amazing things, we don't know, but at the moment he has not done that much compared to other popes due to his short time in his position. Or in other words what DirtLawyer said. I'm also archiving this thread, with 4 opposes this article is not getting in. Carlwev (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Michael Caine (actor)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  02:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Pretty big star in the 60s, but hasn't really ednured beyond that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Great actor and I love his stuff, but should he be among the top 10,000 articles in the world ever? - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose - the eagle has landed, dirty rotten scoundrels, blame it on rio, cider house rules, batman, inception, cars2, the quiet American, muppet christmas carol, goldmember...he has endured past the '60s.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Muppet Christmas Carol. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose ranks 1213 in statistics of most frequently viewed articles on en.wikipedia. Long lasting career. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose -Belongs in the 10K lists for my money. Suggest we pull this one as it is 4-4 now... no consensus. Jus  da  fax   07:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Tough call, but I am comparing these proposed removals against Jimmy Stewart, Meryl Streep, Richard Burton, Marlon Brando, Robert De Niro, Henry Fonda, Katharine Hepburn, Laurence Olivier. On that scale, it get easier.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it helps, my initial reaction was "No way, this is Michael Caine!" But again, I wonder if I was confusing his stardom with relevance. It's easy to do that with incredibly famous people; Julia Roberts is a comparable example: there have been few female stars as successful as she has been in the last quarter of her century, but really how relevant is she to the topic of acting? If you were to write a thesis or a book on acting we could probably skip her, whereas covering Meryl Streep would be unavoidable. Similar case with Michael Caine. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Dustin Hoffman (actor)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Talented actor similar in stature to Gene Hackman, but I'm not convinced he is as influential as Brando or De Niro. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Betty. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Nicole Kidman (actress)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Fine actress, but I will hand this one over to Lauren Bacall. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Northamerica1000(talk) 09:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I don't find the reasoning in the link convincing, the article quoted is on whether or not Kidman is a legend - as Lauren Bacall says, 'to be a legend you have to be older.' So for chronological diversity Kidman is a good choice for the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I am struggling with this one. What actress has had a better body of work in the past 25 years since Dead Calm?  Streep?  Maybe that's as much a comment on the available female roles . . . .  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The pop culture sublists are among the most bloated, and the actor/actress are among the worst examples. We are struggling to delete historical footnotes like Bloody Mary and Mary, Queen of Scots in order to make room for William Gladstone.  From that perspective, Kidman appears to be even less significant.  Delete with extreme prejudice.  Time to make some choices.  And more actors and actresses need to be proposed for removal.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Julia Roberts (actress)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support A few hit movies, and a true modern day movie star, but what separates her from Angelina Jolie for instance? It has to be said, she's no Meryl Streep who has stayed at the top of the acting tree in five different decades. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Acting popular actor. It's notability will be seen after 20-30 years later. Derslek (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I am struggling now with an apparent bias toward actors and actresses from Hollywood's golden era. Were Jean Harlow and Ginger Rogers really bigger stars, better actresses, with greater impact than Julia Roberts?  I'm still thinking about this one.  We do need representatives from the last three decades.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking somewhere along those lines. Like, the fact someone acted in the Hollywood golden age, seems to give them higher chance at inclusion than someone from say the last 30 years, which kind of makes sense but some recentish people are notable and needed too, the best of today are more notable than the mid tier golden age actors, maybe. We do need people from the 80s 90s 2000s cinema too. Carlwev (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's less a case of bias and more a case of perspective. The reality is Hollywood's golden age was a golden age for a reason. Was Ginger Rogers bigger than Julia Roberts? No. But along with Fred Astair she certainly played a significant part in the evolution of the performing arts. I doubt there is a book on musical film that omits her, so she's vital to covering the topic. I'm less convinced of Harlow's status: she is vital to the top of Hollywood's golden age, less so to the topic of film. But I honestly think that's an argument for dropping harlow than including Roberts. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Betty, I just added Jean Harlow for removal. You made the case for me.  Please !vote.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Move Orson Welles from Actors to Directors, etc. section
} Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support He really made an impact through directing Citizen Kane, Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil etc. It is his directing that shaped cinema rather than his acting. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Betty. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. no-brainer. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. obvious move to make --Rsm77 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support What about Charlie Chaplin? Carlwev (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Relatively limited body of work as an actor, but he had very real and lasting impact as a filmmaker. For present purposes, we will ignore the Ernest & Julio Gallo wine commercials from 1980s.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good call, I would like to stick directors section next to actors as they are both involved with movies, I would also contemplate somehow allowing a list of people who have both acted and directed in an important way, if there are enough people that could go in it. Charlie Chaplin is listed among 5 filmakers at the 1000 list. At the 10,000 he is among the actors. Carlwev (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think directors are seen to "outrank" actors in some sense, presumably why there are no actors on the 1000 list. It's a bit arbitrary but for this reason I would lean to putting Chaplin in with the directors.--Rsm77 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Martha Argerich
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: p  b  p  16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Burt Bacharach
Support !votes
 * 1) Support: p  b  p  16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Takes me back to the 1970s and 80s.  Clearly not the top tier of musical performers for last 75-100 years.  Priorities.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, he won the Polar Music Prize, which is considered the inofficial Nobel prize for music. (The nobel prize itself is not awarded in the category music). --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The "Polar Music Prize?" It's been awarded 40 times in its 20 years of existence; calling it the equivalent of the Nobel Prize is bad hyperbole.  Are we going to add the other 20-odd musicians who received it and aren't already listed, even as vifrtually every discussion participant has recognized that the pop culture lists are among the most bloated?  We don't include every recipient of the real Nobel Prize on the VA/E list -- why should these musicians have a higher priority?  Burt Bacharach was a pop music composer who is best known for composing 1960s and 1970s pop tunes that have been reduced to elevator background music.  This should be an easy delete.  Please do not propose stand-alone adds of obscure foreign language performers and composers when Bacharach remains on the list.
 * Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Daniel Barenboim
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: p  b  p  16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. per Melody Lavender. --Igrek (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. per Melody Lavender. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Barenboim is listed as pianist, but he is much more famous as a conductor. There are currently 10 pianists and only one conductor (Solti) on the list. He is famous in Europe, currently the musical director of the Scala in Milan. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of whether a subject is "famous" or not, or how many hits an article receives. We have already deleted numerous articles about famous people from the VA/E list, as well as those that received thousands of monthly article hits.  As I have said elsewhere, we should be attempting to assess the significance of a person within his specific field of endeavor as well as human history generally in order to determine what subjects are most "vital."  That's a pretty tough standard.  In the case of Barenboim, it is difficult to assess his impact because his primary career has been that of conductor, and not as a composer or performer, and an honest assessment requires further reading.  It is perhaps, however, not an accident that most other conductors who have been listed were primarily known as significant composers and not conductors (Beethoven, Mozart, et al).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Melody, the classical performers list is severely bloated. Baremboim is one of the less significant names on the list.  Ergo, he's in a gots-to-go situation  p  b  p  13:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer to remove Van Cliburn and some others performers before removing Barenboim. --Igrek (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dirtlawyer1 - The stress is on famous in Europe. These conductors are stars here, just like footballers. I am mentioning the fame-aspect again because I don't think they are as famous in the US, so maybe you have never been wondering why they are so important? Conductors aren't just waving their arms, they are much like movie-directors. Their work has gained importance in the last century because of the technical possibility to record music. Conductors are also performers, they bow to the audience in a concert hall, people recognize their faces in the street and everything. Several important names are actually missing from the list of conductors: Herbert von Karajan (Austrian, worked under Hitler), Zubin Mehta (India), Wilhelm Furtwängler (has a prize named after him), Arturo Toscanini (Italian), Claudio Abbado. We have Leonard Bernstein (as composer) and Placido Domingo (as singer) however. Which ones will have lasting importance? Even a specialist in the field could only guess. If we consider awards to be an indicator, then Barenboim is a good choice, he was made an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire and won a ton of Grammys.
 * If the pianist-list has to melt down: Van Cliburn is a good candidate for removal. Rock and Romanticism are the sections to be cut, in my opinion.--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Performers needs to melt down too...probably to only 15-20. Most of those cuts need to come from voice and piano.  I don't think Romanticism needs to melt down that much (probably no more than 4).  Rock needs to drop at least 5 people, and pop needs to drop an additional 5 more  p  b  p  15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Van Cliburn
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Great concert pianist, but as we pare the VA/E list to its most "vital" constituents, it is difficult not to assign a higher priority to pianists who were also known for composing great works in addition to being great performers (e.g., Mozart, Chopin et al). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Leonard Cohen
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: p  b  p  16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - With regret, since we don't have many of his type. Jus  da  fax   19:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Eminem
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, but I don't think it matters, there are too many opposes I think he will have to stay. Carlwev (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - If his popularity and influence prove a bit more lasting we can always add him back. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * Oppose MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 12:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC) !vote from a confirmed sock-puppet of an indef blocked user
 * 1) Oppose. It is not OR to say that he is one of the best selling and most popular artists of the last 15 years.  STATic  message me!  16:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, we need someone to represent this recent genre, and is still alive, as opposed to 2Pac, the other musician on the list of rappers/hip-hop-artists. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Dr. Dre, P. Diddy or Snoop would be better representatives of the genre.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Johnny Hallyday
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: In general, I don't think artists more notable for sales than influence should be included, but especially if they only have regional fame. Hallyday stands out as an obvious cut on the rock list, as just an inferior, derivative version of other names on the list, included for diversity only, without the originality or influence of non-US/UK artists like Jacques Brel, Kraftwerk, or Fela Kuti. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Per Rsm77. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per RSM's very sound rationale above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Mario Lanza
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: p  b  p  16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Not insignificant, but while we are prioritizing, he's not going to make the final cut.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - tough call per DL but I see consensus forming up nicely. Let's say he's not 10K-worthy. Jus  da  fax   07:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I can't get Lanza singing "Younger Than Spring Time" on the Broadway soundtrack of South Pacific out of my head. It was my parents' favorite Rodgers & Hammerstein musical.  I hope we are as discerning with the 1970s-to-current rockers as we are with these great performing artists of the past.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Little Richard
Support !votes
 * Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 19:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC) !vote from a confirmed sock-puppet of an indef blocked user
 * 1) Support. - As a co-founder of the genre, we should make room for him. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support More vital than some others listed. Support as long as one comes off too. Maybe Jimmy Cliff? Carlwev (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Meant to support, thought this was a remove thread. Unthinkable not to have him on this list, in my view. Jus  da  fax   22:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. Will support if and only if a lower priority topic is identified to be deleted to make room on the specific sublist.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, only because the list is already too long. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * MIJ, the VA/E list of 10,000 is already 400+ articles over its set limit. Nothing can be added without deleting something else.  What specific musical artist would you propose deleting in order to add Little Richard?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Little Richard is more deserving than half of the names on the Musicians list. Some might disagree. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 21:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC) !vote from a confirmed sock-puppet of an indef blocked user

Remove Ignacy Jan Paderewski
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: p  b  p  16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Sentimental favorite of the Poles, but not a first-tier entry.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - per DL. Jus  da  fax   20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support I'll come in late as number 5 to get this done, no one seems to want to keep him Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * If we're looking for a top-tier Polish pianist and composer, I think Frederick Chopin is our man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Rosa Ponselle, Add Niccolò Paganini
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support good swap Carlwev (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - I can hardly believe that Paganini is not already on this list.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Tim Rice
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: p  b  p  16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Relatively close call, but I'm not sure he's on the same level of significance as Gilbert & Sullivan, George Cohan, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Rodgers & Hammerstein, Lerner & Lowe, or even Rice's sometimes partner, Andrew Lloyd Weber.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support . --Igrek (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Crunch time on the consensus list. Sorry Tim. Jus  da  fax   07:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cliff Richard
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: In general, I don't think artists more notable for sales than influence should be included, but especially if they only have regional fame. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I doubt that he had only regional notability. According to info on WP he was not known in the US, but he was important in continental Europe.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * His fame in Europe is pretty limited I think (and as a Brit I do know something about Cliff Richard), and I don't think that affects my argument that his notability is regional. I can think of a lot of artists who had similar or greater levels of fame and certainly greater levels of influence. For example, among his contemporaries, Little Richard, Roy Orbison, Simon & Garfunkel, Van Morrison, Al Green, Dusty Springfield. I really don't think that Cliff Richard is so much more significant than these artists as to deserve a place on the list. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC) If cuts are needed Cliff seems like a prime candidate. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He was well known throughout Europe as the appropriate alternative to Elvis. But he had very little influence on other artists, if any.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I'm taking him off. Regional notability? article says he was not a big hit in the US or Canada, maybe his only crime, if you're not big there you won't make this list. Article says he sold 21M records in UK and total of 250M world wide, so what region is he limited to if less than 10% of his sales are in his home country, and 90%+ elsewhere? Even if I were to oppose this, I would be the only one. It matters not 5 votes and he's gone. Carlwev (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the UK a region. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Jimmie Rodgers (country singer)
Support !votes
 * 1) Support: p  b  p  16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Remove: unknown outside of the US, and even by most Americans younger than 50.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: too much representation of country on the list - it is not all that influential a genre globally --Rsm77 (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Reluctantly; there are so many other similar artists that are not included. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. Not particularly well known in the modern CW era, but his lasting influence on the genre is pretty clear.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Please note that the VA/E sublist is redirect; correct address is above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward remove on this one but I haven't quite made up my mind. I would be number 5 Carlwev (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC) No I've done it now Carlwev (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps User:Dirtlawyer1 might reconsider his !vote here for the sake of compromise? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Shania Twain
Support !votes Opposed !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Not only do I support deleting this topic, I would like to know what editor added it in the first place.  Only justification for inclusion would be diversity: topic is a female country-western artist from Canada.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - per DL. Jus  da  fax   20:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Twain is the most influential country singer of the last 25 years. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, see below. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * "Most influential country singer of the last 25 years." One of the bigger exaggerations yet on this talk page.  She's on par with Faith Hill, who is not going to make the final cut, either.  I can name a dozen CW singers from the last 25 years who are far more important, and another dozen from the 25 years before that, not counting those already on the list and subject to review.   This is about significance, not about the number of records sold.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia-article on Country pop she performed in this genre even before Dolly Parton. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Melody, that is factually incorrect. No one had ever heard of Shania Twain before the early 1990s.  Dolly Parton had her first top-10 solo hits in 1971.  Twain was born in 1965; Parton was born in 1946.  Please read their linked bio articles.  The overview article you cite is poorly written, and lacks numerous references -- remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles per WP:RS.  When in doubt, check the references cited.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. Still, when I did the research, on country music it became quite clear to me that Garth Brooks and Shania Twain are the most important singers currently. I have never heard of Garth Brooks but I have heard of Shania Twain before. Both of them are popular in many parts of the world and sell an insane amount of albums. Country pop is a very popular genre, and looking at the list as a whole, country has a reasonable size; other sections are much more bloated, like Romanticism and Rock. It's hard to figure out which current artists will have "staying power" - but in my estimate, Shania Twain, like Grath Brooks, may well remain important names.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Vangelis
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Yes, he was popular synth music from the 1980s, but on a bloated list of pop culture icons, Vangelis is a low priority.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Not a musical artist of enduring notability. Jus  da  fax   22:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - because of diversity in ethnic background, and because he won an academy award and pioneered a genre. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Melody Lavender. --Igrek (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - For globalization. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * One recent Greek band is enough, we have Nana Mouskouri.  p  b  p  17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see many composers of music for films on the list, such as Ennio Morricone or Max Steiner. Vangelis could cover that territory to some extent. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sydney Pollack
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Specialized in middlebrow cinema. Some decent films, but he's no Scorsese that's for sure. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, someone has to go --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This should be relatively non-controversial. Read the bio, folks.  Solid filmmaker?  Absolutely.  Among the most significant ever?  Not really.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I get him confused with Sidney Lumet. Maybe that kind of confusion got him on the list in the first place. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Bob Beamon
Support !votes Oppose !votes (UTC)
 * 1) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support . - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per comment below. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013
 * 3) Oppose see below Carlwev (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think is not anyone who can hold 22 years a world record. He is the most famous long distance jumper in history. Simply realized a miracle in the 1968 Olympics. It is a legendary Sportsman worldwide. Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have Jesse Owens who held the record even longer and we need to cut the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jesse Owens is legendary not only by the Olympic medals or the record time, he has a tremendous historical importance because "defeated Hitler". In fact he is the most famous sprinter of history, more than Lewis or Bolt. I believe that it is irrational to cut him from the list. As I said below, the list of athletes is small in proportion to the amount of legends that this sport has produced. In contrast, has less relevant sports with excessive people listes. Rauzaruku (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I will not support adding another large round of athletes to already bloated sublists, even for list-worthy athletes. If you propose a swap of a lesser athlete in favor of Beamon, I will support.  A big part of this VA/E exercise is prioritizing and forcing hard choices, not making easy additions to the list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure do not have any other area, other than the sports, which is really bloated? Because sports clearly need 150 people, not 100, to be a fair list. It's difficult to propose an exchange between two legendary athletes, I should propose if an athlete is not as important in favor of another, but at the moment it is not very possible. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I read the article. The record is quite impressive. I might be persuaded with a swap for a lower article but not a strait add, he is not important. His fame is from one event when he won his single Olympic medal, although it was impressive some saw it as a fluke and he didn't have a long lasting career in fact apart from that one single event the rest of his career is quite insignificant compared to who we are removing already. As for a record holder, there are numerous sports and athletics records, and numerous holders of each record, even fairly long standing ones we can't have them all, and considering this one jump seems to be his main claim to fame, I cannot consider him to be in the top 160ish most vital sports athletic biographies. Carlwev (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove David Beckham
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Media phenomenon, not an all-time great football player.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: certainly not one of the 10,000 most important topics in the world. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Per above comments. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * He is best known for the physical beauty and the advertisements that performs than the titles. Not legendary enough, even more so if compared with the other players of the list. Players like Cristiano Ronaldo, Romário or Roger Milla, who are not in the list, are much more legendary than Beckham. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a little sad, because when he was playing he really was considered among those legends - he screwed that up for himsefl by becoming a supermodel instead so that know that is what people remember him for. In the late 1990s he was the main European player. Milla was famous for his playing in one tournament only.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Sergey Bubka
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I don't know much about pole vault but even to me the name sounds familiar. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - For globalization. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per my discussion comment below. This is about priorities, people.  Who is the lesser athlete to be deleted to make room for Bubka?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Bubka is a legendary sportsman, he was famous even in countries where the pole vault was a unknown sport. Hit an absurd amount of world records, and has a amazing superiority front any existing competitor. Much more legendary than Bannister, Decker or Kaino, who are in the list. Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will not support adding another large round of athletes to already bloated sublists, even for list-worthy athletes. If you propose a swap of a lesser athlete in favor of Bubka, I will support it.  A big part of this VA/E exercise is prioritizing and forcing hard choices, not making easy additions to the list.  When we are almost 400 topics over the limit, there are no free adds.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure do not have any other area, other than the sports, which is really bloated? Because sports clearly need 150 people, not 100, to be a fair list. It's difficult to propose an exchange between two legendary athletes, I should propose if an athlete is not as important in favor of another, but at the moment it is not very possible. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Kenny Dalglish
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Not legendary enough, even more so if compared with the other players of the list. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ryan Giggs
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) '''Support:Rauzaruku (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Carlwev (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Not legendary enough, even more so if compared with the other players of the list. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Paul Hamm, Add Li Ning
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom  p  b  p  16:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, not my favorite, but I have to admit this is an improvement. Carlwev (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Appears to me to improve the list overall. Jus  da  fax   16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm not sure why exactly Paul Hamm is on there. There are loads of Asian or Eastern bloc gymnasts who won three medals.  On the other hand, we have a dearth of Chinese athletes in any sport on this list.  A good candidate is Li Ning.  Li Ning has six Olympic medals (three gold) and 14 World Championships medals.  He won more medals than anybody else at the 1984 LA Games, the first that China PRC participated in.  Thanks to his and other Chinese athletes success in '84, the Chinese kept coming back to the Olympics, and then hosted the 2008 Olympics, where he was the final torchbearer.  p  b  p  16:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Gabe, what's your rationale for opposing this? This seems pretty open-and-shut in my book: Ning had a much more successful career than Hamm p  b  p  18:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Bill Shoemaker (jockey)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Maurice Richard
Support !votes
 * 1) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  13:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

 * I don't understand nothing about Ice Hockey, but we need to cut articles, so, I think he is the less important of the 10 in the list. Rauzaruku (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Mario Lemieux
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  13:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Have got to cut, and I can't quite call him vital. Jus  da  fax   16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - If you really knew hockey, you would know why. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I understand that these players are heroes to some people - but does that make them vital to an encyclopedia? I would prefer to stick with the general instead of the specific in the sports-related sublists, and list events or teams rather than individuals. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Bobby Orr
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - per ML. Jus  da  fax   16:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
The record that probably got him a place on the Vital/E list is that he is the player who received the highest pay in his first year as a professional player because his contract was negotiated by an agent. He is an important player in the history of the Chicago Black Hawks, which I imagine could be a vital article. We should also include NHL. These articles are much more vital than individual players.--Melody Lavender (talk)

Remove Jimmie Johnson
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Agree per discussion. Jus  da  fax   16:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Not legendary enough. Petty, Foyt and Earnhardt have more titles and are sufficient to represent NASCAR. Rauzaruku (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Helen Caldicott
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support deletion of Caldicott. When we are 300+ topics over our limit, this one seems pretty insignificant regardless of the "geographical diversity" issues.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Helen who? --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Carlwev. --Igrek (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - She is the only anti-nuclear activist and the only representative on the list from Oceania. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Notable and enduring, active to this day, and while I am not positive about Gabe's statement, if true it reinforces my oppose. Also an anti-nuclear bomb activist, not just nuclear power, but her warnings about the dangers of nuclear power, in the wake of Fukushima, are convincing proof she was on to something. Vital? You bet! Jus  da  fax   22:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I propose to delete the anti nuclear power activist, Helen Caldicott, from Rebels, Revelutionaries and Activists, She is not very vital, or well known, or of huge impact to the world it's culture or policies. The section includes People like Joan of Arc, Guy Fawkws, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Osama Bin Laden, Che Guevara, She is not of the same caliber. Even compared to other similar recent people, I believe she is not a vital biography. Carlwev (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)/
 * Caldicott's main notability is for being part of the Anti-nuclear movement. But this movement itself is not included within the vital 10'000 articles. It is very odd to have an activist but not their movement/cause. It would make more sense to delete Caldicott outright; or delete Caldicott to add the Anti-nuclear movement, which is known world wide and includes many activists, books etc. Carlwev (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guys, but I still think keeping Caldicott on this list is a reach. Jean Paul Marat?  Che Guevarra?  Joan of Arc?  Guy Fawkes?  Robespierre?  Martin Luther King?  Osama bin Laden?  And Helen Caldicott?  As Colonel Henry said above: "Who?"  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From a different perspective, if one thinks Oceania or Austrlia is underpresented, why include Caldicott if we don't even have the capital cities of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra and Wellington, or the cities of Brisbane, Perth or Adelaide, all 10 times or more vital than Caldicott from a national or international POV. Carlwev (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This really is one of the weakest articles here. We should not be removing UK, US Mexican and Soviet leaders nor even top entertainers dare I say, to make room for people like this. The comments here only suggest the notability of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and the Anti-nuclear movement, not of Caldicott herself. What if 50 people were "on to something" with Fukushima? would we list them all? Only anti nuclear activist and the only activist from Australia? Hell we better add Henry Spira as well then, as he would be the only animal rights activist and the only activist from Belgium... and he was definately on to something too. Carlwev (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I am prejudice here as I find the inclusion of Caldicott ridiculous. If the votes were 4-2 in favour of keeping I would leave it be, other topics I was voted against in sufficient numbers so I had to let them go. But this one has reached 90 days+ and is at 4-2 in favour of removing. 67% want to remove, and 33% want to keep, twice as many want to remove as keep. But it falls below the 70% threshold that exists only because one user suggested it. And the 90 days is also only the cut off because one user suggested it. As this topic is 67% in favour of removal I say we remove it now or un-archive and wait and see if it can gain that last vote, several fairly active users have not voted on this. So please users that have not yet voted on this please review this topic, decide if you think it is truly a vital top 10'000 article or not and comment or vote. 4-2 is to close to a remove consensus to archive with no result in my book. Carlwev (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Arundhati Roy, Remove Helen Caldicott
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --Igrek (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Per above. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I'd like to add Arundhati but not at Helen's expense, so no. Jus  da  fax   07:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Users voting on this such as User:Maunus, also review the above proposal for straight removal of Caldicott, if you support a straight removal...or oppose it, please state as we only need one support vote there to push it through and then this thread will be redundant anyway. Carlwev (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Archived swap thread also, redundant, Caldicott removed already above.

Remove Alexander Cockburn
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support his niece is far more important, even though she's a terrible actress.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose - One of the most important of the "counterculture" writers. I have been trying to get on board this proposal and just can't do it. Would be better to cut another semi-icon on the bloated acting and pop music list than this guy. Just as Henry Kissinger should stay on the list, so should Cockburn. Jus  da  fax   10:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Ideologically partisan columnist of narrow influence. Not even close to being on the same level of "vital" as Cronkite, Greeley, Lippmann, Mencken, Murrow or Woodward.  This is exactly the type of narrow favorite that needs to be deleted from the VA/E list to get the numbers under control.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Mike Royko
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  16:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportCarlwev (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removing Mike Royko -- he was an influential regional journalist, but does not rise to the level of a short list of a dozen best examples of American print journalists. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Royko was one of the better columnists of the 20th century.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Walter Winchell, Add Joseph Pulitzer
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Good swap that improves the list, trading a popular gossip columnist for an industry leader who helped lay the foundations for academic journalism.  Like Carl, my only question is whether we should include Pulitzer's bio or his namesake prize.  In any event, swapping Walter Winchell for either represents an improvement.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - per above, good swap. Jus  da  fax   07:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * We have 26 journalists at the moment. Pulitzer probably makes the top 10 most vital journalists. I was looking through the journalists, trying to figure out who was less notable and more notable and reading about who has won a Pulitzer Prize and who hasn't. Then I noticed we don't have Pulitzer himself nor his namesake prize either. Should we have the Pulitzer Prize instead/as well, if we can find a suitable swap, maybe for a newspaper or magazine? thoughts on that too? I think Pulitzer would belong in Journalists, but one could argue for his place in businessmen. Carlwev (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove James T. Kirk
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - The popular hit Star Trek movie showing in theaters at this writing with a new, younger Kirk, shows the enduring worldwide popularity of this character. Suggest we cut elsewhere. Jus  da  fax   06:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think Carl has the right idea here: these are all popular characters from 20th Century movies and/or books -- books and movies that already appear elsewhere on the VA/E list -- and are therefore redundant to listing the book or movie. Star Trek is already one of a handful of television series that appears on the list of VA/E television shows.  Does Star Trek really merit an entry for its two main characters, too?  Heck, let's list "The Trouble with Tribbles," too; it was the most popular Star Trek episode ever . . ..


 * I think this sublist of "fictional persons" should be preserved for two categories: (1) myths and legends not covered elsewhere; and (2) characters from literary and movie series where the character is better known than any one book or movie in the series, and it is more appropriate to include the main character. The perfect examples of the latter are Sherlock Holmes and James Bond.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Every novel, movie, TV show has a main character, to list the show and it's character is kind of redundant. The popular hit new Star Trek movie showing in theaters as I'm writing this, with a new, younger Kirk, shows the enduring worldwide popularity of this character the Star Trek franchise itself which is already included. So I suggest we cut Kirk. Carlwev (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Holden Caulfield
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support - as nom. One of the most important characters in literature in all languages for all time? Not really. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, the Catcher in the rye is already included. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Good "Catch". We have the book. Jus  da  fax   07:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Excellent, suggestion, we already have the book itself, character is not needed, is redundant. Character does not appear widely across a series or franchise, although the character and his family are used in a few other works, he is far from being one of the most important characters ever. The book has a place, but the character is definitely not one of the top 10'000 most vital topics. I would have nominated this my self with the other characters if I had seen it. Well spotted, find some more. Carlwev (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Holden Caulfield character is redundant to the already listed Catcher in the Rye novel, and on a list of 10,000 most vital topics, we should have not double or triple list entries based on a single work or series of works. Same logic applies to the Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, and Star Wars characters: if the work or series of works is already listed, we don't need to list the individual characters.  In the case of the James Bond series, it makes more sense to list the character rather than the individual novels or movies; likewise, Tarzan and a handful of others.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow 6 support in under 20 hours, I'd like to remove this now, but I suppose I'll wait, in case anyone wants to oppose. Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 week, removed early but would need 3 opposes to consider keeping this, I just don't see that happening, I think it's OK to remove now. Carlwev (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Natalia Makarova
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Too many dances p  b  p  20:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. as important as Nureyev or Baryshnikov — Robert Greer (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - She is one of the best of all-time. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
=History=

Add Golden Horde
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support The largest medieval country in Eastern Europe before Russian Empire. - Derslek (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Pretty sensible, lasted over 250 years, pretty big size, probably more important than some of today's smaller nations, cities and country divisions we have listed. Carlwev (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - As reluctant as I am to add articles, this is too big to pass by. Add it. Jus  da  fax   07:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think with 6 support and no oppose in 10 days, I will add this, it would need 3 opposes to consider not adding, I don't see that happening Carlwev (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

=Geography=

Swap: Remove Livingstone Falls, Add River Thames
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Much more notable topic, especially as the Congo is already on the list. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. The historical significance and centrality of the Thames to English history and development is undeniable.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * They are actually about the same length. I know Thames is short compared to the Nile and Amazon, but it's been a very significant river for over 2000 years, to Britain, it's more important than Livingstone Falls, and is more likely to be covered in an encyclopedia I believe. Much more vital than 10+ Ice Hockey players and Tennis players and 25 Journalists.Carlwev (talk)
 * The Congo river is on the list and I don't see why we should include a part of that river. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a Brit thank you for seeing this, I honestly thought this was going to be opposed due to it's comparative shorter length compared to bigger rivers elsewhere. But from a British point of view or an international POV you should never have British articles like John Humphreys or the London Library before the Thames, it's just silly. Happy to put this to bed now. Carlwev (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Brisbane
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Oppose stand-alone add; support swap proposed below.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Brisbane has a population of 2.2 million, I propose to add Brisbane and to remove all countries with population < 200 000. --Igrek (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the addition of Brisbane, pretty vital city more so than many others on the list like Charlotte, North Carolina. Although I support it, this may get more support from others if it were a swap, as some are rightly so not supporting lone additions due to our over limit problem. Carlwev (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I ask users to also read and consider the swap proposal below to swap in Brisbane for Wilkes Land, it only needs one more to go ahead. Especially User:Igrek, and User:GabeMc who have already expressed their wish to add Brisbane here, assess whether you think getting Brisbane in is worth losing Wilkes Land, and cast a vote below if you do Carlwev (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC).

Alternative swap proposal: Add Brisbane, Remove Wilkes Land (Aus. Antarctic territory claim)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ypnypn (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Good swap.  National territorial claims in Antarctica are trivial, not vital; only McMurdo Sound and one or two other permanent Antarctic research stations have any significance whatsoever.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Per Carl.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - per DL and Carl. Strengthens the list, in my view.  Jus  da  fax   16:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Brisbane one of Australia's biggest cities of over 2 million people, more vital than many included cities, very important to Australia and the whole world, much more so than an Antarctic claim, while big has virtually no population so no culture and hardly any history, and who's boundaries are arbitrary strait lines of longitude, with no real meaning in either political or physical geography. (Yes, I am thinking of proposing removing all/most Antarctic claims soon, so don't state we need this one because all the others are there) Carlwev (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Perth, Remove Australian Antarctic Territory
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ypnypn (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Vital city, non-vital territorial claim.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I would support deleting all Antarctic territorial claims; they are all virtually uninhabited, nearly meaningless politically, and no real human activity occurs there other than research occurs there. When we are looking to cut nearly 100 articles from the Geography sublist, these should be easy cuts.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sian Ka'an
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Hard choice, but we have to trim. Jus  da  fax   10:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I could be easily convinced to add (or, more likely, swap) several of the "vital" archeological sites included within Sian Ka'an, but including the name of the huge, aggregated administrative district itself, which virtually no one has ever heard of, is silly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap:Remove Southeast Indian Ridge, Add Impact crater
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom, see general discussion further below Carlwev (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap:Remove Southwest Indian Ridge, Add Seabed
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom, see discussion below Carlwev (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Geography has a sublist called ocean floor containing 11 articles. Typing ocean floor itself redirects to seabed. We don't have ocean floor or seabed, but we have 11 features of the seabed?

Remove Central Indian Ridge
Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Chile Rise
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove American–Antarctic Ridge
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap:Remove Pacific-Antarctic Ridge, Add Pangaea (to geological history)
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Pangaea should be in --Rsm77 (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, definitely. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Swapping another obscure ocean floor feature for prehistoric super continent seems obvious.  The question remains whether Pangaea belongs in Geography, Geology or another appropriate science subsection.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - After looking at both articles, this swap seems an improvement of the 10K list. Lets do it. Jus  da  fax   07:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

 * Well these ridges are getting support for removal, I'll nom some more. Carlwev (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

= Arts =

Add New Testament and Old Testament
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * Support as nom p  b  p  00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SupportCarlwev (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. - Have you ever seen the two in two separate books, other than the books of the Torah? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The Bible is on WP:VA. We have a couple dozen biblical figures in bios.  We even have a couple translations of the Bible in lit.  So why not the Old and New Testaments?  p  b  p  00:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have seen the Bible printed as more than one volume. But, more importantly, the reason for including all three is that the Old and Testament articles cover things the main Bible article doesn’t.  If we have 15 articles on characters of the Bible, we can have three articles on the books of the Bible.  The Bible's pretty important  p  b  p  01:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe a real print encyclopedia is more likely to have separate articles on the Old and New Testament before having separate articles on 15 characters/people from the Bible. If a person or class is studying this area, they are more likely going to devote study to one of The Testaments as a whole before most of the individual people in it. You can get the Testaments separately, I have them myself. They are two distinct works made at separate times put together later. Some of the people in the Bible in the early story, of which it is thought they are probably not real people, the Old Testament is the main or only source of information on them. Most (not all) of the time you wouldn't have a character before the one work they appear in. There are plenty of peolpe in fiction/religion/mythology that can go to make way. I believe we could have them in. Carlwev (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to add, in the 1000 list which is even more exclusive, under Hinduism we have both Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharta, but we have both, this is the same kind of thing as having Bible plus Old and New Testament. If it is OK for the Hindu scripture to have 2 parts mentioned in the 1000 why not the Christian scripture to have it's 2 parts mentioned in the 10'000? Also for Lord of the Rings, we have 1 the book 2 the movies 3 Gandalf 4 Frodo 5 Middle Earth until I removed it as well as 6 Tolkien himself. Up to 6 articles for Tolkien and his works. Why is it not OK for Old and New testament but OK for Gandalf and Frodo which are part of the Lord of the Rings. The Bible and its parts are more vital than Lord of the Rings and its parts surely? Carlwev (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose additions as unnecessary false equivalence among religious literature. We already have the Vulgate, the King James, the Guttenberg Bible and The Luther Bible listed under literature.  These evolving versions/translations of the Bible are more important to the history of Christianity than separately listing the Old and New Testaments.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Move Garden of Eden to Religion
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Smart move. Let's do this asap and remove another text-block from this long page. Jus  da  fax   08:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Me, too, pile-on support.  Until someone can draw Eden on a map, it belongs on the Religion sublist.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This seems to be the only religion-related article not in the Religion section. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Heaven is there under religion that's a place too, they both probably belong in religion. But thinking about this further Bible is within religion but editions/translations of the Bible: Vulgate, Tyndale Bible, the King James Bible, the Guttenberg Bible and The Luther Bible are listed under literature, so that could be confusing. Also Greek and Roman gods are in Mythology section of Philosophy and Religion, but Demigods like Hercules are under people, and the creatures of Roman and Greek mythology like Cyclops and Centaur are in Literature, under arts, so too are folklore/myth creatures Fairy, Dragon, Mermaid, vampire, sphinx. Whole thing needs a good look at at. This move seems good to start with.

Swap: Remove Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman", Add Christmas carol
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman"
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Melody Lavender (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support cutting minor work by Mozart. We should include The Magic Flute, Symphony No. 41, and Don Giovanni.  That's enough for Amadeus.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Carlwev (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This is a minor work by Mozart; we have The Magic Flute. I don't think anybody would look up Christmas carol in an encyclopedia, that's why I'd rather see this as a removal instead of a swap. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Don Giovanni, Add Music of Latin America
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support: Latin American music as a whole is hugely underrepresented, and European classical music is hugely overrepresented and Mozart particularly is very well-represented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose - We could double the number of Mozart works here and not go wrong. We have to cut or swap elsewhere, please. Jus  da  fax   08:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, on the contrary, several operas should probably be added. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * See my comment about removing individual works and replacing them with more general topics. We have several other Mozart works on the list, including another opera, the Magic Flute  p  b  p  22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Re:Jusdafax: I am of the opinion that the musical works list is seriously bloated in every single era, and there probably shouldn't be any composer on this list with more than two works. Why do we need a bunch of Mozart works if we have the man himself?  Seems kinda redundant.  p  b  p  15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Jusdafax, I am not supporting this swap, but I think that including a significant composer -- any composer, including Mozart -- plus more than three of his works as VA/E topics is disproportionate when (a) we are 300+ topics over our VA/E limit of 10,000, and (b) there are other list-worthy persona and related subjects that are not presently included. Nobody, not even Mozart, should get more than four entries.  IMHO, the Mozart bio, plus The Magic Flute, Don Giovanni and Symphony No. 41 is the max for old Amadeus.  It's simply a matter of fairness and for lack of a better word, "diversity" within the VA/E list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest removing all individual operas by Mozart and add Mozart's operas (an FA).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus, while I appreciate your suggestion, I have very mixed feelings about including "list of" articles on the VA/E list. I am not irretrievably opposed, but I am going to take need some convincing before I start to affirmatively vote to add lists.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the case of operas I think the individual articles are the ones that are more encyclopedic than a list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Archived, with 5 opposes this is not going through. Carlwev (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove A Clockwork Orange (film)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Another fine film, but didn't shape a genre the way 2001: A Space Odyssey shaped science fiction. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: as per BL - great, but not vital. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - One of Kubrick's most overrated films. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm leaning towards a weak support but not quite there.--Rsm77 (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove King Kong (1933 film), Add Triumph of the Will
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Obviously King Kong is an immensely popular film, and Triumph of the Will is, erm, not. But while King Kong arguably created an iconic monster it is not really intrinsic to the topic of film. I have thought long and hard about this and I think Triumph of the Will is crucial, since it revolutionized film's role in political propaganda. It's basically the Citizen Kane of documentary films, and is an important historical document in its own right. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Betty's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per Melody and Carl.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - both are essential films and ought to be on the list. Find another film to remove...one of lesser virtue, or remove a useless actor or comedian, in order to add Triumph. King Kong needs to stay. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think that going back to the roots - listing the first piece of art that inspired many others - can sometimes produce very odd results like this one. I would doubt that a propaganda-film is a work of art at all. I know this piece has influenced many movies, like The Great Dictator by Charly Chaplin and so on. Does that make Triumph of the will art or is it advertisement?
 * King Kong, on the other hand, has one of the most impressive film-scores, by Max Steiner (not listed), which influenced subsequent film-music significantly.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy swapping out King Kong for this. Like Godzilla, I would consider swapping King Kong movie for character. We are moving towards including critics favourite arty farty movies that are less heard of and removing the most well known iconic movies, next we'll be removing Star Wars for having no depth. Sometimes iconic movies that are a big part of culture are not critics, or artists favorite ones, it's not only critics and people studying cinema that watch movies everyone does. Plus surely we need to add thing such as Propaganda and Documentary themselves, as they are missing, before we add this movie. Carlwev (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove The Sound of Music (film), Add Deep Throat (film)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. The Sound of Music was an immensely popular film—it usurped Gone with the Wind—but has never been considered high art, nor was it particularly influential (it was basically the last hurrah for the musical). Deep Throat on the other hand is probably what Psycho is to the horror genre, or A Space Odyssey to science-fiction etc. Perhaps more so, because it revolutionized adult entertainment and had more impact than any other film on the sexualisation of the media. As you can see from this literature review, it is one of the most discussed films of all-time. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per DL. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Seriously, Betty? Normally, I'm inclined to agree with about three quarters of your film recommendations, but this one is a stinky, dead fish wrapped in last week's newspaper.  Deep Throat is a horrendously bad movie that is difficult to sit through; 40 years after it was released, it's hard to understand what the fuss was all about.  If you want to include something about the sexualization of popular culture on the VA/E list, include an article on pornographic films or the industry, but Deep Throat is no serious critic's idea of an "art film," either.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be limited to "great" or "nice" films. The fact remains there are few films that have been analysed more than Deep Throat over the years; the film was just as much a cultural phenomenon as Star Wars. It also seems reasonable that the pornographic genre is represented too. Betty Logan (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Betty, it's not a matter of "nice," otherwise I wouldn't support adding Triumph of the Will because of its association with the Nazi regime. I have actually watched Deep Throat.  It may have been innovative within the porn industry in 1973 because it included something that resembled a plot, but it's still a very, very bad movie from the perspective of cinematography, acting and screenwriting.  We are cutting mainstream films that we far more innovative and have a 1,000 times the artistic merit of this film.  Any way you slice it, Deep Throat is not among the 45 most significant movies of all time.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is among the top 40 or 50 most influential or vital movies ever. We already have pornography listed under sexuality. Myself, and others by the sound of it, might be persuaded to swap in the parent topic, pornographic film, but I don't think Deep Throat will get in. Also not that it really matters, Deep Throat is not within the 500 strong Film core list either that you brought up a while back, which isn't surprising. Carlwev (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sunset Boulevard (film)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support A classic, but then there are so many classics not included here. There is nothing fundamentally "vital" about this topic. It didn't really influence filmmaking (a'la Citizen Kane) or have immense cultural impact (a'la Gone with the Wind), so if you want to cut down these lists, films like this need to go. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Betty. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: Nothing "vital" about this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Clearly others don't agree, but I think this is an example of a film that manages to be both one of the better-known classics and have significant critical acclaim, and as such should not be hastily cut.--Rsm77 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Titanic (1997 film)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support removing topic from the list without substitution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Being a huge hit doesn't make the article vital. Jaws as the progenitor of the summer blockbuster would be a more valid inclusion than this movie. Betty Logan (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: Nothing "vital" about this rather bland film. - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I'm rather neutral on this film but I'll support the emerging consensus to keep things moving, I don't feel strongly about trying to keep this. Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - As one of the top movies of the last 16 years its certainly more vital then ketchup or mustard, which are on the list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Popular hit, but too recent to determine film industry impact, especially when we remain 300+ topics over the 10,000 limit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Like the LOTR, got just one critic's vote in the 2012 Sight & Sound poll. I think it has a better case for its cultural impact than LOTR, what with being an original story, but still not enough of a case, and its artistic merit is weak.Rsm77 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Titanic (1997 film), Add RMS Titanic
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Archived - redundant thread - Titanic (1997 movie) removed in separate thread

Remove West Side Story (film)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Musicals are over-represented. We have The Wizard of Oz, Singin in the Rain and The Sound of Music. Even Mary Poppins is a more obvious candidate than this film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cue sports are over represented Carlwev (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Agree musicals are over-represented. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This is a tricky one. We have both West Side Story under films and music.  West Side Story won the Best Picture Oscar, but it didn't win the Best Musical Tony (it lost to The Music Man, IMHO, justifiably).  We obviously don't need both the musical and the motion picture  p  b  p  02:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To take the AFI musicals list as a guide, the top 4 are: Singin in the rain, West Side Story, The Wizard of Oz and The Sound of Music. All those are currently on the list, but if you want to get this list down to 30-40 films, then currently you have 10% of the places going to Hollywood musicals. It breaks down like this: Singin in the Rain tops the AFI chart, and placed in the Sight and Sound decennial poll on two occasions (only 18 films in total have achieved this over 60 years, and only 9 of them American films); West Side Story and The Sound of Music both won the Academy Award, but The Sound of Music also became the highest grossing film of all-time; The Wizard of Oz in many ways has become more iconic than all of them despite not enjoying critical reverence and being a contemporary flop. The American musical should be represented and if you were to pick just one I think it should be Singin' in the Rain given its position in the AFI and S&S lists, but if you want to cut the size at least one of the others is going to have to go. The next one I would keep would be The Wizard of Oz, since it is one of those films that have become imprinted on the American psyche. That leaves West Side Story and The Sound of Music: both won the Academy Award, but while West Side Story was ranked a place higher by the AFI The Sound of Music became the biggest film of all-time (a feat only achieved by 9 other films since records began in 1915). I nixed West Side Story because it's the only one of the four that didn't achieve anything outstanding. Betty Logan (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Betty, given the importance and popularity of the film medium as an art form over the last 100 years, I think a "vital" list of 40+ films is okay. We only need to cut the total list about three percent, and we don't need to cut films disproportionately.  (Actors, musicians and other pop culture lists are far more bloated.)  I think we had already identified the weak sisters and your proposed changes will refine the list further.  I think any of the four musicals under discussion are fine examples of both movie musicals and American films, but if we're going to cut one, West Side Story is probably the least remembered of the four.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you know what numbers you want I guess. The mix is still wrong though, since there are four musicals and not one single Western for instance, which was a genre that produced more classics than the musical. Let's see what goes, and if we get the list down to 40 then we can propose some swaps to get the balance right. I think swaps are easier, because given a straight choice between West Side Story and The Searchers for example, I don't even need to think about it. There are several foreign films that are on at the expense of more influential ones, like we could swap Mon Oncle for Breathless, and L'Avventura probably shades La Dolce Vita. Let's just chip it down to the right size and then work on its pedigree. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Betty, I would swap The Searchers for West Side Story in a heartbeat. And, yes, you're right: we do need a representative of the western genre on the list, and The Searchers has John Ford, John Wayne and critical acclaim all wrapped in one package.  If not a swap, it needs to be added later when we get the numbers under control.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would happily lose The Sound of Music too, as per Betty's reasoning. Responding to other points, The Searchers should be in, and I also agree with Breathless for Mon Oncle. I'm not so convinced about L'Avventura for La Dolce Vita, though it might be an argument that we already have one Fellini film in 8 1/2. (FWIW I also think there should be a Scorsese film, probably Taxi Driver, which I seem to remember used to be in the list).Rsm77 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I look again I can see three Fellini films including La Strada. I could support replacing La Strada with L'Avventura. One other stray thought here is do we really need both Birth of a Nation and Intolerance from D. W. Griffith?--Rsm77 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

= Philosophy and religion =

Swap: Remove Great Spirit, Add Abrahamic religions
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. We already have the three specific Abrahamic relgions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) listed; we don't need the generic parent category, too.  FYI, I am not opposed to deleting "Great Spirit."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose We have the abrahamic religions - we don't need an article about how they fit together also. Also what is up with wanting to remove everything related to native america?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - Per Maunus. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Surprised we don't have Abrahamic religions, it is an over encompassing term/topic, but one which does get a lot of attention in its own right both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, it is an important topic. It's definitely not a meaningless generic term. Great Spirit? A lot is missing from Indigenous Americans. We don't even have Indigenous peoples of the Americas (I am proposing to swap it in, in another thread), nor tribes like Cherokee, Apache or Souix (might look at these soon). I think we can do without Great Spirit in the grand scheme of things. Someone proposed adding Abrahamic religions to the vital 100 over 3 years ago, see here, that never happened but the vital 10,000 surely has room. Carlwev (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have Judaism, Christianity and Islam as well as Abraham. The new addition doesn't cover new territory and we have no room for redundant articles. Also, native American culture seems underrepresented. So I would not want to see Great Spirit removed. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK well thanks for the comment. I thought it was a pretty vital and well documented topic of interest. In the 10'000 list and even in the 1000 list we have huge overlapping that we are not removing things for in religion. Even in the 1000 we have big overlaps Deity with God and Goddess, Christianity with Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, plus Theism, Deism, Polytheism, Pantheism, etc. With potential redundancy like that in the 1000, I thought there would surely be room for an article like Abrahamic religions within the 10'000. I think Native Americans are under represented, I'm trying to get Indigenous Americans and some tribes and other things added. In my opinion Great Spirit is a poor article in itself and a poor choice of article to attempt to represent Native Americans in general, considering the number of important articles about them that exist but are missing. But thank you for your opposing view, we'll have to agree to disagree and wait and see what others think. Carlwev (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK this one didn't work that surprised me. No matter, shows I'm not always right and that this voting is a good idea to find consensus. Wrestling anyone? Carlwev (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Church (building)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  Was really surprised it wasn't already  p  b  p  01:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - We are trying to trim, but this is vital, and consensus is forming up to add it. Jus  da  fax   07:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I propose adding Add church (building) to religion. Churches are very important buildings in their community, important to religion, community, history and architecture. They are very important topic to religion, and quite prominent examples of architecture. We have Synagogue and Mosque within the Jewish and Muslim religion, it only figures the Christian building should be here too. Chistianity probably the biggest faith and there are estimated to be over 3 million churches world wide; was it kind of forgotten when the list was made? Carlwev (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking of proposing cathedral too. It is important by itself, I think there should be room in 10000 for it, so long as we keep deleting here and there. Both church and Cathedral are probably more worthy of a place than many other Christian topics already listed. We already have at least one, maybe more, individual cathedrals listed in Arts Architecture if I recall. I may start the thread soon. Thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * SWAP? Maybe we could make this a swap with college of pontiffs removal posted below, as that really isn't a vital article and so this is not just an add? Carlwev (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Carl, you don't get to take "credit" for an already proposed and pending removal; the idea behind a swap is to force the identification of a lower priority topic for removal. It's about forcing participants to make choices, not creative accounting.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove College of Pontiffs
I propose to remove College of Pontiffs, body of priests of the Roman Empire, not linked to the Roman Catholic Church at all

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  15:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I suggest removing College of Pontiffs from religion. It is the body of high ranking Roman priests, doesn't seem very vital to me. Carlwev (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Extremely important to more than 1 billion Catholics (one 7th the global population). GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gabe: Have you reviewed the article in question? The article is not about the Catholic Church's College of Cardinals or the Pope; the subject is about the state-sponsored body that included the head priests and other leading members of ancient Rome's various pagan cults.  Christians were not invited, and it had nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, please review the article. This topic has no business being on a 21st Century "vital" topics list.  The college of Pontiffs may been "vital" in AD 113, but not 2013.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to move someone elses comment, but I fear the incorrect fact may be influencing others peoples choice to vote or not, they can still read the post, it's still there, it. Carlwev (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove De doctrina christiana
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Augustin's City of God should be on the list; De doctrina christiana is far too specialized and obscure for non-specialists.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Dirtlawyer1. --Igrek (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

 * I propose to remove De doctrina christiana a text of four books by Augustine of Hippo, from arts, literature, non-fiction from antiquity. My thoughts are, 1) it's quite short rated a stub but probably a start or C. 2) It only appears in English and Suomi, suggesting it's not world wide important. 3)The only Wikiproject it is in (Christianity), it is rated Low importance. There are many other articles and writings of higher importance and more vital we don't have, such as the Old and New Testament. Carlwev (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Grave (burial)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Burial covers the religious/ritualistic aspects of inhumation; Grave (burial) covers the physical process (mostly).  We don't need both--see discussion comment below.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Agree that this is covered by 'Burial.' Delete it from the list. Jus  da  fax   06:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Burial covers the religious and ritualistic aspects of inhumation; Grave (burial) covers the physical process (mostly). We clearly don't need both articles on the VA/E religion sublist; in fact, I'm a little fuzzy on why Wikipedia needs two intimately related articles on what is effectively the same subject, but that's somebody else's problem.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Kashrut
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Much more important than some other religion articles, like College of Pontiffs Carlwev (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Halal is already listed but within Religion under Islam "here". Although we could discus to move it to food I think it's OK in religion. Kashrut is not there however. Carlwev (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is Eucharist? Is that also under Religion?  Eucharist, Halal and Kashrut all should probably be on the same page  p  b  p  02:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

=Anthropology, psychology and everyday life=

Swap: Remove Cross-cultural studies, Add Aggression
Support votes Oppose votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, this swap improves the list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Agree that this swap is a nice improvement. Jus  da  fax   05:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - Per Carl. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
I propose to remove Cross-cultural studies from the culture sublist. The article says it's a "specialization in anthropology and sister sciences (sociology, psychology, economics, political science)". Those sciences are important and we have most of them all anyway, so do we need a term that encompasses them. I believe the term/science is not very well used or documented in itself and I wouldn't really expect an encyclopedia to have an entry specifically for it. The article is also very short and appears in 2 other languages. I propose to replace it with aggression in psychology, Interpersonal relations. It's pretty vital concept, vaguely covered by included articles anger, bullying and possibly war? but not completely, I think it's a distinct enough topic for an encyclopedia with 10,000 articles, and much more vital than many other articles including cross cultural studies. There are currently 19 articles in the "interpersonal relations" list including Egocentrism and Distrust. I believe aggression to be more vital than these, and think it belongs within the sublist. Carlwev (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoever put cross-cultural studies on the list was probably trying to add Intercultural learning, which might be a valid topic for the vital/e list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Bourbon whiskey
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Whisky are already included. --Igrek (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, ditto. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Per above. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Having one for Whiskey is fine we don't need three.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. One of the ten most prominent/popular distilled liquors.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Agree with Dirtlawyer1. And it should be Bourbon whiskey. It ain't from Scotland.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Drop generic term whisky; keep the two most prominent examples. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Google Book search results: whisky - 7 060 000, "Scotch whisky" - 262 000, "Bourbon whisky" - 25 700. --Igrek (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Igrek, your Google search numbers reflect some confusion over the spelling of whisky/whiskey in English. The normal spelling of the spirit in American English is "whiskey," hence "Bourbon whiskey" (Wikipedia article title) is correct, not "Bourbon whisky" (Wikipedia redirect).  Google searches using the correct spellings reveal the following: whisky, 74,800,000 hits; whiskey, 56,000,000 hits; Scotch whisky, 3,760,000 hits; Bourbon whiskey, 962,000 hits.  Wikipedia article views for the past month reflect the following: Whisky, 111,519 views; Scotch whisky 92,400 views; Bourbon whiskey, 84,527 views.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Fortified wine
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - brandy is appropriately vital, same with port, but the generic term isn't vital.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - not vital. List too long. Jus  da  fax   10:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Brandy is the best-known example; we don't need the generic term, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure, One might probably have Brandy and/or port wine before fortified wine Carlwev (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Mixed drink

 * 1) Support removal. --Igrek (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I don't understand why we have articles for both cocktail and mixed drink.  One should be a redirect to the other.  We certainly don't need two descriptions of the same concept on the list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

 * I would like to ask for opinions on Mixed drink that is included. I have never proposed it for removal, yet, but I've always thought of it with a negative feel. Although it is rated as top importance in the food and drink wiki project, it is a short article, much of it is a list. We include cocktail, which is what is meant much of the time, but not all the time. It appears in only 3 other languages other than English; and one of those is Simple English. Is it a term about which a good article can actually be written? Is there a common recognized term/concept in other languages for "Mixed drink"?. Why only mixed drink? is it more important than other mixed things? "mixed veg?" Carlwev (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Scotch whisky
'''Support ! votes''' Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Whisky are already included. --Igrek (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Whiskey in general is enough. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Again, one of the top ten most common distilled liquors/spirits.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Dirtlawyer1--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Given the wide prominence of bourbon and scotch, I would delete the generic "whisky" before the two most prominent examples. Obviously, this proposal stands as an alternative to removing Bourbon and Scotch, as proposed above.  Again, we need to balance whether we include a generic parent topic against including more prominent examples that have a more vital meaning to the reader.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Google Book search results: whisky - 7 060 000, "Scotch whisky" - 262 000, "Bourbon whisky" - 25 700. --Igrek (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Whisky
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support per discussion below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Dirtlawyer1--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose see below Carlwev (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: always go general before specific p  b  p  13:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Personally, I believe that it is better to keep the vital examples of Bourbon and Scotch than the generic "whisky" parent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot support removing whisky, I feel quite strongly it should stay. While some of the ideas put forward I can see making sense, like Brandy before fortified wine, I think removing Whisky because we have scotch and bourbon is not a good idea, they do not cover all whisky, and whisky is a pretty well known drink and word and a pretty good article in many languages, it is more than just a generic umbrella term like some other articles. Carlwev (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Google Book search results: whisky - 7 060 000, "Scotch whisky" - 262 000, "Bourbon whisky" - 25 700. --Igrek (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Cuisine of the United States
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: as nom p  b  p  21:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Per comment below.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, Not in the same league as french, italian, chinese, indian cuisine, not as old. If we allow a handful of national/regional cuisines I don't think this should be one of them. Carlwev (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Dirtlawyer. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, per DL --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * American cuisine, at its best, is really an amalgamation, and sometimes a fusion, of the national cuisines American immigrants brought with them to their new country. Even all-American items like hotdogs and barbecue originated elsewhere.  When we are making vital article choices for national cuisines, this one is much harder to justify than Chinese, Japanese, French and Italian.  If we are going to include American cuisine, why not Australian, British, Canadian or Irish cuisine, too?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

Add Cannibalism
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Carlwev (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- vital global phenomenon.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. Yes, this probably should on the VA/E list somewhere, but I cannot support adding "cannibalism" until we remove enough lower-priority VA/E list items to return the total to fewer than the VA/E limit of 10,000 articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Chef
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Carlwev (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: p  b  p  20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Cannot support adding "chef" until we remove enough lower-priority VA/E list items to return the total to fewer than the VA/E limit of 10,000 articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -- not vital.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --Igrek (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - Not vital. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Trampoline
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Per the same logic expressed above regarding Floor exercise, Somersault and (3) vault.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support yeah well even for equipment or venue we don't have diving board, golf course, tennis court etc Carlwev (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - not vital 10k-worthy. Jus  da  fax   07:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --Igrek (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Not necessary to include another subcategory or event of gymnastics parent topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Time trial, Add Tour de France
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Carl's reasoning. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Igrek (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

 * The Tour de France is a time trial but I believe specific is better than generic in this case. The Tour de France is probably more of a vital article to cycling and sport than any individual cyclist. (Also, if I wanted a generic term for this concept I would have chosen Racing not time trial.) Carlwev (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Tour de France is the world's best known and most prestigious annual cycling event. This is a perfect case of a specific example being more "vital" than broad, generic categories.  Also, in present circumstances, where we are mostly cutting topics, we need to contemplate cutting "subevents" of major sports -- we cannot keep cycling time trials, as well as different subevents in gymnastics, swimming, track and field, etc.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ethnology
=Society and social sciences=

Remove Hunting
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Very Strong Oppose It needs moving but not removing. Carlwev (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose p  b  p
 * 4) Oppose - No, this is vital. Historic value alone makes it so, as I see it. Jus  da  fax   17:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Hunting has no economic significance whatsoever. It might be considered an important historic activity, or maybe it's a vital issue in biology, or an addition as sports could be considered. I would not support the idea that it is a vital topic in any context, least of all in the Business and Economics section. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good grief, no. Hunting is an important cultural, historical, and evolutionary concept--it was how humans fed themselves in whole or in part for most of our species' existence, and it remains an important sport and means of supplementing our diet in many areas of the world and among many cultures.  Whether it belongs among economic and business sublist is another question, separate and apart from whether it belongs somewhere on the VA/E list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You say it yourself, it may be an important cultural concept, but it has no business being in our business-section and taking up vital space in that area. It is ridiculous that we are omitting GDP and all the above mentioned vital topics, articles that are vital to business and economy. Accounting is another one of these obvious, blatant omissions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it should cater towards intellectuals. Hunting today is no more than an exclusive hobby for a few people. We should move hunting out of business or better yet, cut it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody Lavender (talk • contribs)
 * "Hunting today is no more than an exclusive hobby for a few people". So much is wrong with that sentence.  It smacks of recentism; most places around the world had subsistence huunting until recently.  It's also inaccurate; there continues to be subsistence hunting in the Third World.  Even in the United States, it's hardly only done by the rich and famous.  Finally, if we have golf and polo, we can have hunting  p  b  p  05:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a recent development. This section is about economy, not history. I know that there is still subsistence hunting in the US, in Alaska, for example. Those are just a few cases, they do not make hunting meaningful as an economic branch. Should we have golf and polo on the list? I don't think so. We have game on the list as a food, that could account for the fact that the byproducts of forestry are actually eaten. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I should also mention that we have fishing and farming on the list, these topics are not included in hunting. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm to blame for this, I added this, to the 1000 and 10,000 lists about a year ago, I Believe hunting to be a very very vital topic. I very strongly feel it belongs in both 1000 and 10,000 lists. My idea at the time was for it to be with agriculture, and fishing, as they are all a means of humans getting food. But It does not belong in economics. Cutting something because it is not used much today is completely ridiculous. You may as well remove all history and geology articles and dinosaurs, as they are not around today, all biographies of deceased people and historical inventions like chariot, trireme, water well, and musket. Whether an article should be moved, is a completely different issue to whether it should be removed. In the long run the whole list needs restructuring if we want it closer to being "correct". Certain topics are literally all over the place, agriculture, is one of them split between economics, industry, technology, this and all dodgy areas need addressing at some point. Vegetables and spices are split between, food and drink and organisms, Movies and TV shows are split. I'm trying to gradually propose restructuring it better at the bottom of this talk page but it's very slow progress with votes down there at the bottom.....And I probably would support adding those economic terms, pretty important ones, but need to be a swap paired up with a good deletion. Everyone can find good additions, I'm very good at it. We need to find good removals, that is harder. Hunting should not be removed it's how most of humans fed themselves for most of history, it's the universal way of living before farming was developed, we've been hunting for maybe 100 times as long as farming. We also have poaching in crime, and I think we have hunter gatherer somewhere too. And while I'm here I was thinking of the correct swap to get Nomad in too. Carlwev (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are confirming what I am saying. It has no economic significance, and the topic should be dealt with mainly in the history-section. The argument you are giving here is for Hunter-gatherer to be added, not Hunting. As a sport or cultural activity (it's described as such in the article on hunting) it's not notable enough for the list. We have to draw the line somewhere. I would support the additon of Hunter-gatherer however.--Melody Lavender (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider this a bad removal proposal, if we can't have 2 articles about the way of life of the whole human race at one point, whilst we have had 20 tennis players, 50 movies, 30 journalists. Both hunting and hunting gatherer are included already, but in different places, hunter gatherer is in culture, in anthropology and everyday life. Maybe they should be together. I think both hunting and hunter gatherer belong in the 10'000 list. The article on hunting describes historic hunting for food and modern hunting for recreation, as it should, it is weighted to more content about modern sport hunting than older types, but that is an issue for that article not here. Although the 2 main types of hunting are quite different they are both dealt with in one article and overlap, they are both referred to as hunting. Historic hunting for food most definitely deserves a place in a 10'000 list, and even modern sport hunting by itself probably is worthy enough as well, but lucky for us, we only need to give it one space as they are in one article. Hunter gatherer is a way of life, a type of society, hunting is an activity carried out by hunter gatherers and others for food or other reasons. They are both commonly used terms in many languages and both have a lot of useful content, although there is some overlap I believe it is OK here as I consider the topic to be hugely important, and the list is supposed to have 10'000 topics. I mean it's not like we're listing overlapping genres of music or several leagues of the same sport like rugby, this is at one point in history the survival of the whole human race, if that isn't allowed 2 slightly overlapping articles I don't know what is. If your looking for overlapping redundancy how about the fact we have both Brewing and brewery in food and drink, is that needed? And although I disagree with this individual proposal, I still want to thank you for helping with this project, you have had some very good ideas. Carlwev (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Chevron Corporation
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per DL Carlwev (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I don't see a firm rationale behind putting individual companies on the list, this seems to be one of the least important. And we have to cut somewhere. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlike Melody, I am not yet convinced that example of individual companies have no place on the VA/E list, and I am still contemplating how we should handle the issue generally. That having been said, Chevron is an easy cut -- if I were to list the most "vital" oil companies, Chevron would not be among them.  Exxon/Mobil, the original Standard Oil Co., British Petroleum, Aramco?  Sure.  Chevron?  Not so much.  I'll keep thinking about the general problem of whether we should include corporations/companies, and I will share them when my thoughts are more coherent.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

= Biology and health sciences =

Remove German Cockroach
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Yes, not vital. Jus  da  fax   17:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124contribs)  21:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Here are three instances where I think the generic parent article serves the list better than the specific examples.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Oriental cockroach
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jus  da  fax   17:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove American Cockroach
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jus  da  fax   17:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about topic, Cockroaches

 * The main article on Cockroach is already included. The subarticles on different varieties (they hardly vary) are all start-class and are not ranked among the 10.000 most frequently viewed articles. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there are worse topics in biology, but I still these cockroaches are not within the 10'000 most vital topics. I found biology to be one of the worst sections, huge lists of 160 or more birds, insects, fish, plants, but was missing basic well studied topics universal to many species like hibernation, carnivore, herbivore, predation, parasite, bird migration, I added those last year, there are still more missing. Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow with 7 sup no opp I'm doing this now, there's no way these are staying. Carlwev (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Grylloblattidae (insect) out Plastic surgery in
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Per Carl's logic. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - also per nom. Good reasoning. Jus  da  fax   18:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Another weird contrast of subjects, but again it looks like a good swap from the standpoint of adding a "vital" topic and removing a far less vital one in exchange.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I suggest removing Grylloblattidae, a less important insect of over 100 insects included to replace it with Plastic surgery a fairly important medical topic, in medicine, both within Biology and health sciences. Carlwev (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Merlucciidae (fish)?

 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- per nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Not vital. Jus  da  fax   08:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Notacanthiformes (fish)?

 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- per nom.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Not vital. Jus  da  fax   08:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
= Physical sciences =

Remove Grus
'''Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jus  da  fax   02:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Lupus
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Another late addition to the "pantheon" of constellations.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Not vital at all. Jus  da  fax   08:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Per Jusdafax. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Lynx
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Late addition to the "pantheon" of constellations.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Created relatively recently to "fill a gap" between 2 other constellations. Very faint and not very well known, cannot have much cultural history like some constellations considering it was made up by a guy in whenever. Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - per DL and Carl. I have been supporting cutting some movie and music stars, and now I'm helping cut real ones! Jus  da  fax   21:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

=Technology=

Add Forestry
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) support as nom Melody Lavender (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
This topic is nowhere to be found. It's vital. We do have Forest and we have Wood. The article on wood is mostly about the material and listed in the Anatomy section. Both belong on the technology-subpage. Wood is still an essential building material and used as firewood, forests and their conservation are important for the environment and the climate. Many forests need to be taken care of, because centuries of human intervention have changed the eco-systems to a degree that they cannot function without human management and repair. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Forestry, is listed already, see below, in Social sciences, under buisiness?, We should probably have it somewhere, whether this is the right place?: Carlwev (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vital_articles/Expanded/Society_and_social_sciences

Remove Bang Na Expressway
Support !votes
 * 1) Support a nom Carlwev (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Carl's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Not vital. Jus  da  fax   04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - Per Carl. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Closet
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Not vital.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Another one like 'office supplies.' Jus  da  fax   17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - How was this ever added? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

 * An American phenomenon, although it has found some reception in the rest of the world its importance is likely to decrease due to overpopulation. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "An American phenomenon," Melody? Seriously, where do they put their brooms and coats in Europe and South America?  Okay, I'm just teasing; this is not a "vital" topic.  Next.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Hangzhou Bay Bridge
Support !votes
 * 1) Support a nom Carlwev (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Carl's rationale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - It's not vital. Jus  da  fax   04:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, not vital, second longest bridge, and like Carl mentions below, we are missing large airports that may be more vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Per Carl. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Great house
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Redundant category of large dwelling (i.e. mansion).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - We gotta keep cutting. Jus  da  fax   04:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, the article is start-class with little potential for development, only four other languages have similar articles. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Apartment, barracks, house, hut, igloo and villa are already listed. We can't afford the redundancy when we are 300+ articles over the VA/E limit.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sunshine Skyway Bridge
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per my discussion comment under Lake Pontchartrain Causeway above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support A bridge too far for the 10k list. Jus  da  fax   04:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, I don't see what the original reasoning for the listing was. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Office supplies
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Seriously?  Office supplies?  Whack!  LOL  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Enough said Carlwev (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Got a good laugh out of me. Jus  da  fax   20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, this is fun! --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, --Rsm77 (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Hopefully we're not going to spend a lot of time discussing this topic. Apparently some WikiProject was stumped for the last two or three topics to fill their quota when the original list was compiled.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we get a fifth vote for cutting "office supplies?" Does anyone think this is a "vital" topic?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Great Observatories program
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. The Space sublist already includes all four of the individual telescope-satellites under the umbrella program.  We don't need to include the obscure NASA umbrella program name, too.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support pretty sensible suggestion. Carlwev (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  19:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I have been reluctant but we gotta cut. Jus  da  fax   04:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Airplane, Remove Spectrometer (listed twice)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom see discussion Carlwev (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: p  b  p  22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Per discussion comment below.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - easy call. Jus  da  fax   04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * We have aircraft, we don't have airplane, probably the most common aircraft. If it is redundant to aircraft, so too would helicopter, glider, balloon etc. Spectrometer is listed twice, once in technology and once again in (measurement.) Carlwev (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, I figured out why we didn't. Until 2-3 months ago, airplane was a redirect to Fixed-wing aircraft  p  b  p  22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am supporting this proposal, but we need to carefully examine the obvious overlap and redundancy among Aircraft, Airplane, and Fixed-wing aircraft. Part of the problem is that scope of these articles is poorly conceived and the current content is largely redundant.  Of course, this is one of the unavoidable flaws of a volunteer-based encyclopedia, where there is no top-down editorial control.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Motorcycling
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Odd redundancy listed immediately under Motorcycle.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. per DL. Jus  da  fax   04:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Redundant listing. We cannot afford such odd redundancies when we are trying to remove 300+ articles from the VA/E list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Driving, maybe has a place. I've no desire to protect motorcycling from getting the boot, I'll be number 5 to get rid of it. Carlwev (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove AK-47
Support !votes
 * 1) Support. This is the only firearm listed by manufacturer and model number.  All other firearms listed are a type--assault rifle, handgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, etc.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: We have assault rifle. Any article on assault rifles worth its salt would devote space to the AK47   p  b  p  23:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Agree with Dirtlawyer1 --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Per DL1 and PbP. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose -- most ubiquitous firearm in modern combat history. would support adding M-16 too.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Sole example of any firearm, in fact, of any kind of weapon, listed by manufacturer and model number. Far too specific for our purposes, and inconsistent with all other weapons listed.  Apparently added because someone wanted their former Feature Article to also be listed as a Vital Article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
 * I'm not sure on this one, it is the most used fire arm I believe. Millions are in use. A specific rifle like this may be slightly more worthy than say, a specific cocktail. I am on the fence leaning slightly towards a keep, I will wait for others to vote. Carlwev (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I too am reluctant. AK's are mentioned a lot in rap tunes, for example, and they are often mentioned in war articles. Just off the top of my head, Colt 45 should be listed if AK's are the only one. Like Carl I am leaning keep and waiting for more input. Jus  da  fax   21:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed and posted above, we don't have pistol or revolver, pretty important firearms too, more important than AK-47? covered enough by handgun? Carlwev (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal, Merge measurement into Physical sciences or mathmatics

 * Support votes
 * 1) Support as nom, (Prefer Physics, but support either) Carlwev (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Merge Measurement into Technology. --Igrek (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose votes

Discussion
Does Measurement with only 104 entries (soon to be less) warrant its own whole page? Would it not go better with physical science or perhaps maths? They are not exactly the same but it is related to them close enough to be on the same page but still a sub header of it's own within that page. We have a lot weirder combinations of things lumped together some of which have more entries than measurement's 104 on their own. On the page Vital_articles/Expanded/Anthropology,_psychology_and_everyday_life for example we have food with 159 enries, on the same page with language 174 articles and sports and games, 185 entries, in addition to colors and emotions these are odd to have together. Compared to that mish mash, Measurement would fit neatly and sensibly with Physical science. Even if the title of the page is changed to physical science and measurement. And the size of the new page wouldn't really be an issue as Biographies are over 2000, Biology with health science 1485. Measurement into Physics would be under 1200 entries total. Measurement into maths would still be under 500 articles total. Another point, Measurement is not in the vital 10, it is in the vital 100. Life is in the vital 10, animal is under the vital 100, but animals or even organisms do not have a page of their own at the vital 10,000 despite having over 700 animals, they come under biology. I think measurement can be merged Carlwev (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I prefer tech to standing alone. Who said technology? the thread was for physics, or secondarily maths, only one user said tech? I have started a separate thread for the placement of this now in measurement section above. Carlwev (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Move fictional characters, out of people
Support !votes oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, but see my comment below. Ypnypn (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Confusing as is. Should go to their own section. Jus  da  fax   03:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --Igrek (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * 1) I propose to remove all fictional characters out of "people" as they are not people that are born and interact with the real world, then die, the are artistic creations, part of literature, comics or movies, created by writers, comic artists, or filmmakers etc. Or they are part of mythology.
 * 2) Fictional characters to be moved to arts, so list of book and movie characters, is at least on the same page as the lists of books and movies, eg James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Count Dracula.
 * 3) Mythology characters to be moved to the mythology section of Philosophy and religion. There is already lists of different cultures' Gods there like Mars, Thor and Athena, characters from mythology that are often considered demi-gods like Hercules definitely belong near Gods, they even appear in some of the same myths.
 * 4) For now probably move whole lists from one page to another but keeping articles in them intact. In the long run however we may need to address the exact cut off point from mythology to history in old texts, like Adam to Noah to Moses to Jesus. Adam not normally regarded as historical, Jesus is, but those in between may be a bit fuzzy. Carlwev (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who millions of people believe can not be considered fictional. Ypnypn (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Religion, History and Fiction are different things. I presume you mean Adam and Eve cannot go in fiction, which they cannot. Things/people/entities that people believe in now or historically are part of religion (or possibly mythology) by definition, so belong there. Not History, science nor fiction. Carlwev (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * At first I thought you meant they belong in people, but now I presume you are not saying Adam and Eve belong in biographies as historical people. I got carried away and wrote too much. I will keep it to show my point it but shrink it. Billions of people believe in God but we cannot put God, Thor or Adam in people. Augustine of Hippo is a historical person important to religion. Adam and Eve are not generally regarded as historical people, they are, dare I say characters/figures from religious texts. If the primary source says Adam was made from mud by God and was the first and only man in existence at one point, one cannot really place the Adam article as a historic person any more than placing God, Athena or Thor as real people. Same as one cannot put Ghost, Angel, Deity or Demon in organisms, nor Heaven and Garden of Eden in Geography, neither afterlife and soul anywhere other than under religion and philosophy. The main definition of religion is it a "belief" not a historical or scientific fact. Carlwev (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)