Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 16

=People=

Comedians
See Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete sublist of related topics.

Swap Add George Burns, Remove Burns and Allen

 * support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom, see discussion Carlwev (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Per Carl.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose !votes

We list Burns and Allen duo but not George Burns, I am not very familiar with George Burns, I know who he was, I had not heard of Allen nor the Burns and Allen duo, before my time. Based in a biased way, purely on the quality of the articles and the number of languages the articles appear in, wikipedia users have put more work into George Burns. George alone is in 24 languages, the duo in 3. George also out lived his wife by more than 30 years so was around for longer, but the duo was also around for along time too. Again not too familiar here, but my instincts say George Burns in Burns and Allen out. Other views? Burns and Allen is also almost half written as an article about the radio and tv show, rather than the duo. Carlwev (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "George Burns" — 146,000.
 * "Burns and Allen" — 25,900. --Igrek (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Swap Add Louis de Funès, Remove, Sid Caesar

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support see discussion at Louis de Funes above Carlwev (talk)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Jus  da  fax   10:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Inventors
See Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete list of related topics.

Remove Joseph Marie Jacquard
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support As nom. He played an important role in the development of the earliest programmable loom, but several others were decades ahead of him, including  Basile Bouchon (1725), Jean-Baptiste Falcon (1728) and Jacques Vaucanson (1740), none of which are included on this list.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support john k (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Isambard Kingdom Brunel
Support !votes
 * 1) Support As nom. It would seem he was a brilliant engineer, but what exactly did he invent? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Setting any question of notability aside, 1) We just added him, 2) Inventors are right-sized p  b  p  21:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose On the grounds of, main reason for removal didn't really invent anything, which although true, he is among the more important engineers, not the lesser. Although not a tip top rock solid "inventor/scientist" like Edison, far from bottom too. He Revolutionized the transport industry, influencing both rail and shipping. Even the nom says he was a great engineer. Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Cyrus McCormick
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. As nom. He didn't really invent the mechanical reaper so much as he marketed it. John Deere (inventor) isn't on here.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose John Deere didn't invent the reaper, and he probably should be on here, but so should Cyrus, if not as an inventor, than as a businessman. He made the Atlantic Monthly's list of Influential Americans.  p  b  p  21:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose mccormick gave us the reaper. john deere gave us a pretty cool plough. Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Politicians and leaders
See Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove American Politicians Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B Johnson, Henry Kissinger, James Monroe, James K. Polk, George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support No other country has 18 20th century leaders mentioned. Only the truly globally important should be included. This will be a good step towards rducing US bias and shortening the list at a quicker pace.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carter, Kissinger and Monroe LBJ, Polk and Wilson should stay; neutral on Bush. The three I mentioned are too marginal for this list  p  b  p  00:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose removal of LBJ, Polk and Wilson see comments above and below. Am well aware that I have !voted in both the support and oppose sections  p  b  p  16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose on procedural grounds: we consider individual topics individually. Cluster proposals are completely contrary to our established procedure of giving careful consideration to every topic.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4)  Oppose - per DL1. Jus  da  fax   01:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * First of, it's worth clarifying that "Modern world leaders" emcompasses 1815 to the present; Monroe and Polk were dead before the American Civil War even started. I'm wondering why LBJ, Wilson and Polk are not considered "globally important".  LBJ is the president most associated with getting us mired in Vietnam, to say nothing of the massive domestic agenda that he took on.  It's flummoxing to me that you're advocating removal of LBJ, but keeping JFK, who didn't really do anything; as such, I've nommed JFK below (I've also divorced the Monroe nomination from the others, I think you can get that one to pass without much trouble).  We added Polk only recently, and he is one of the more significant Presidents of the 19th century due to his successfully implemented agenda of Manifest Destiny.  And he also was also active in foreign policy (Mexican-American War).  As for Woodrow Wilson, consider the 14 Points, not to mention that he reformed American monetary policy (with the implementation of the Fed, among other things, he's also the President most associated with the 16th and 17th Amendments).  LBJ, Polk and Wilson all were in the Top 50 of the Atlantic Monthly 100 Most Influential Americans list.  p  b  p  16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be best if there is a separate vote for each president. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For those of you who are new to the VA/E discussion page, Bush, Carter and Kissinger were recently proposed for removal but no consensus was achieved; these discussions have only been closed in the last two or three weeks. Polk has only been recently added after several weeks of discussion.  We do not usually consider topics as a group for removal (or addition), least of all topics such as world leaders who really deserve topic-specific consideration.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Bill Clinton
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Vital. This does not improve the list. Jus  da  fax   11:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Clinton was neither transformational domestically nor particularly important internationally. If we, as a group of reasonable people, believe that the VA/E 20th Century political leaders sublist is disproportionately American, then we have to be willing to make some tough choices.  Having already removed George H. W. Bush (I), the obvious remaining candidates for removal are Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush (II), and Kissinger.  The other remaining Americans were significantly more important domestically and internationally (Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan); there aren't any others to cut.  We can't bitch about there being too many Americans on the list if we're not willing to cut a few of the lesser ones.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, though somewhat trivial, there is no Bush II, there is Bush 41 and Bush 43. Bush 43 is not a junior since he does not share an identical name as his father. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Charles the Bald, Add Charles Martel
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Charles Martel ushered in the Middle Ages by winning the Battle of Tours, and began the Carolingian dynasty. His great-grandson was folically challenged  p  b  p  16:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gabe, I'd like a vital reason for this oppose. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that your latest spate of opposing proposals, including changing your votes at James Monroe and others, is some sort of retribution for the comments I made at Carlwev's talk page. I am ashamed of your actions, and I am not even sure you are familiar with the two particular people in question in this.  p  b  p  03:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By swapping the more important Carolingian/Frankish ruler (Charles the Hammer) for the lesser one (Charles the Bald), we are improving the list. Pretty simple upgrade.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Dorgon
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support, doesn't seem that notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support We can probably find a helluvalot better Chinese leaders p  b  p  23:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove John F. Kennedy
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support p  b  p  16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This will, of course, be controversial, but Kennedy accomplished very little in two and a half years as president, and is mostly remembered in a hazy, romantic fashion as the young, idealistic president with lots of potential whose life was cut short in his prime.  That's the hagiographic retelling by Theodore H. White, Pierre Salinger, Arthur Schlesinger and William Manchester.  It's also not historic reality.  In fact, his real world influence was short-lived and his objective list of accomplishments practically non-existent, and his 1964 re-election campaign would have been hotly contested.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - I have to disagree. JFK was arguably the single most integral person regarding the prevention of a nuclear WWIII thus saving the world by de-escalating the Cuban missile crisis, which to me is a pretty darn good accomplishment. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per Gabe. Jus  da  fax   01:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Northamerica1000(talk) 23:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * What did he accomplish as President, exactly? Sure, he advocated civil rights, the safety net, and a man on the moon.  Armstrong didn't make it up there 'till the Nixon Administration; the other two things happened under LBJ.  Oh, and the USA and USSR almost blew up the world on his watch.  Aside of the symbolic value of a loss of innocence (and the affair with Marilyn Monroe), he adds little value to this list.  If we're talking about dumping Wilson, LBJ and Polk, we should look at JFK too.  JFK didn't make the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Most Influential Americans list.  p  b  p  16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont think accomplishments is the right standard, but how well known they are outside of their own country and JFK is clearly one of the better known American presidents. But at this point I am willing to support, just to work against the US centric bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Kennedy vs. Polk perfectly encapsulates the difference between me and others in the way this list is viewed. Polk did a lot, but isn't well-known, JFK is well-known, but didn't do a lot  p  b  p  19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see that difference and appreciate both. I can also see that that difference in evaluation is consistently manipulated in favor of including Americans so that an American musician can be included because they are well known but have had little influence, whereas an influential non-American Musician will be excluded because they are not well known (in America). I find this hypocritical. Again a problem with the process of voiting that is not based on arguments or on a single agreed upon standard for inclusion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That PBP said: my personal standard is real world significance. Kennedy was once romanticized as the young, handsome, idealistic leader of a modern "Camelot."  In reality, he was perceived as weak by the Soviets, and accomplished virtually nothing legislatively in his 1,000 days as president.  Polk, on the other hand, changed the geographic destiny of the United States and Mexico.  One hundred years from now, Kennedy will be forgotten and Texas and California will still be part of the United States.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, in all likelihood it was JFK who prevented the Cuban missile crisis from turning into a full-on global nuclear holocaust. He was surrounded by hawks that advocated war with Russia, yet he stayed true to his principles and did not fall into the group-think that a lesser leader might have. DL1, a reading of Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero just might change your mind a bit. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not likely to change my opinion, Gabe. Chris Matthews is a partisan political analyst, and an amateur historian at best.  I've been a student, avid reader of political science and presidential history, and amateur historian for 30+ years, and I have studied the Missile Crisis in multiple poli sci and foreign policy classes.  I am completely comfortable asserting that JFK is the most over-rated U.S. president of the 20th Century.  Most serious American modern historians, with the benefit of 50 years of hindsight, will back that position.  Yes, he and his ExCom advisers narrowly averted a nuclear war in 1962, but rather than some sort of military/diplomatic triumph, the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis was more in the nature of backroom compromise that papered over his own earlier mistakes (e.g., Bay of Pigs) and mixed signals sent to the Soviets (e.g., Jupiter missiles in Turkey, 1961 Berlin crisis) in the first 18 months of his administration.  In the absence of an inept foreign policy and perceived weakness, the Soviets would never have attempted to insert missiles into Cuba in the first instance; they would never have dared to do such a thing when Eisenhower was president.  Kennedy was tested early and often, and often found wanting.  His assassination created the closest thing to an American martyr's cult since Lincoln, and most of his early acclaim was derivative of that huge outpouring of sympathy at home and abroad.  That we could seriously consider removing Woodrow Wilson, one of the most consequential U.S. presidents on the world stage, while keeping Kennedy, is indicative of just how little knowledge, critical thought and analysis form the basis of some VA/E list decisions and proposals.


 * The key U.S. presidents of the 20th Century are Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan; they either changed the world or the United States' place in it. Not so much William McKinley, William H. Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Gerry Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush or Bill Clinton.  Barack Obama is clearly important as a symbol -- the first non-white elected president -- but his presence on the VA/E list in the absence of any substantial accomplishments (okay, maybe healthcare reform, but the verdict is still out) is the definition of "recentism."  Likewise, I would also suggest that George W. Bush's current place on the list deserves serious discussion, as does Lyndon Johnson.  If we want to cut the list of U.S. presidents to those that are most "vital," as suggested by Maunus, then we must consider deeper cuts, greater critical prioritization, and tougher choices.  No one should complain about the list of 20th Century leaders being dominated by Americans who is also unwilling to make tough choices.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on most of these, but not on LBJ. I'd put him in the second tier of people, behind the Roosevelts and maybe Reagan, but in a class with Wilson, Truman and Ike.  Remember, this is a guy who actually implemented all the stuff we associate with JFK: Medicare, Civil Rights, Space Race (and of course, he's the guy you gotta associate with 'Nam more than any other President). I also believe that if we're cutting American political figures too quickly, and other areas not quickly enough.  I think 19 is the number (it was 20, but we moved Grant), and IMO, the American list should consist of the following 17 presidents and two others: Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama (I can tier those if you want). We have more American actors, athletes or musicians than political leaders; that's not right.  Monroe and JFK notwithstanding, we need to get the three subsections I mentioned under control before we cut political leaders much more.  p  b  p  18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can be talked into Lyndon Johnson. What's your rationale for keeping Clinton?  He failed in all of his major policy initiatives, and his successes were either accidents (balanced budget) or trivial (school uniforms, etc.).  With the benefit of 13 years of perspective, there's not much in the way that was transformative or influential nationally or internationally.  Looks like a placeholder.  Also, beyond the symbolism, what's the logic for keeping Obama?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit that the rationale for keeping them is weak, but the rationale for keeping (enough bios to get us to ~1950, where we need to be) is weaker. Largely, I believe the politicians and leaders section to be right-sized.  And if U.S. since 1815 is bloated, Europe since 1815 is worse, and athletes, actors, and musicians are even worse.  Sure, the case for Clinton is weak, the case for Obama is uncertain.  But they're hardly the first Americans I'd cut  p  b  p  05:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Google Books search results:


 * "John Kennedy" - 4,850,000
 * "John F. Kennedy" — 3,530,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Henry Kissinger, Add John Marshall
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Good swap, trading presidential aide for single most important U.S. Supreme Court justice and American jurist in 224 years under the Constitution.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Igrek (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - Henry Kissinger, with Zbigniew Brzezinski, was arguably the most influential political advisor of the last 40 years. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Again, I have to agree with Gabe on this political removal thread. Jus  da  fax   11:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I continue to believe that having both Kissinger and Nixon is overkill. So Kissinger was an American who won a Nobel Peace Prize? So was Elihu Root.  So was Ralph Bunche.  So was Jane Addams.  And none of them are on here.


 * In his place, I propose American jurist John Marshall, who introduced judicial review. We have a lot of American politicians.  Marshall clocks in at #7 on the Atlantic Monthly's 100 most influental Americans (the highest-ranked guy we don't have on this list), Kissinger isn't in the top 100.  p  b  p  15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, we need to decide something should Marshall make it on. His career straddled 1815...do we put him as early modern (Marbury) or modern (McCulloch, Charles River, Gibbons, Cohens)  p  b  p  05:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove James Monroe
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Obviously.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per PBP's discussion comment below, which perfectly encapsulates my own logic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - For the sake of compromise and consensus building.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * See Maunus' rationale above in his multi-politican nomination. I agree that he is one of the more marginal Presidents on the list.  Practically by definition, the Era of Good Feelings was a period when precious little happened in American politics.  Sure, you have the Monroe Doctrine, but that was a) mostly the work of John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun (both of whom are more influential American political figures than he and neither of whom are on this list), and b) was largely a dead letter for much of the 19th century; America really had no power to enforce it until the Theodore Roosevelt administration.  Monroe didn't make the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Most Influential Americans list (Adams and Calhoun did).  p  b  p  16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Gabe, you can point out at least one policy of every U.S. president that is still influencing U.S. policy. Everyone agrees that we have too many Americans on this sublist, and Monroe is among the two or three weakest remaining.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Books search results:


 * "James Monroe" — 824,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove James K. Polk
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per my discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose mostly per DL's rationale. especially the part about Mary's weave p  b  p  22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion:
 * Polk has been described as the "least known [but] consequential President of the US." I think that is a good sign that he isn't Vital. Johnson, Wilson, Monroe and Bush are just not that vital - Bush is probably the only one of them that is widely known outside of the US, and that is because of his recency and reputation for stupidity. Inclusion should not be based on being important to Americans, but on being important to the world. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Polk was only added to the VA/E list in the past 90 days, after careful consideration and extended discussion. Polk is the most influential U.S. president most Americans have never heard of, and had a dramatic impact on the destiny of the United States and Mexico.  IMO, what is "vital" is not the popularity of a subject, the number of Wikipedia page views, or the number of Google search hits.  The VA/E list is, in effect, recommending important topics to readers who might not otherwise have considered reading about particular subjects.  By comparison, we have argued about Mary, Queen of Scots, who ruled briefly and ineptly, was a pawn in the dynastic machinations of others, and exercised virtually no impact on the important historical outcomes of her time.  But, hey, everyone has heard of Mary, her wig, her red corset, her little dog, and her missing head, thanks to a couple of Hollywood movies and a BBC production or two.  The irony is rich when we complain of American bias in the selection of VA/E topics, and then we include topics based on the false/misleading histories/legends recounted by the American movie industry.  All I can say is "wow," I guess Polk should have gotten a better Hollywood agent.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Books search results:


 * "James Polk" - 349,000.
 * "James K. Polk" — 279,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actors
See Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Klaus Kinski
Support !votes Oppose !votes So, are we !voting to keep Kinski because he is German, or because his article is vital to this English speaking Wikipedia? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  18:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Kinski is a unique actor known worldwide, though in North America perhaps more for his daughter. Bad cut. Jus  da  fax   01:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bad idea to cut the only German on a list overstuffed with English speakers.--Rsm77 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * It is vital to this English speaking wikipedia, which is read by people all over the world, wikipedia to have a reasonable distribution of topics related to Anglophone culture and other cultures. I vote not to remove him because he is among the most vital non-American actors, and because American actors are over-represented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So, is there a German language Vital Article list that includes Kinski? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I don't edit the German wikipedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If we must include a German actor, then are we certain that Kinski is the best choice? IMDb has him on a rather long list at #30, though to be fair, its not ordered in importance. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think there is a better choice feel free to propose a swap. I will not support the removal of non-American topics while there is an pro-American bias in a particular section, but I will be happy to support a swap of one non-American topic for another more vital one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you and respect your viewpoint. Since we are 400+ articles over our pre-set limit, I would much rather propose straight cuts than swaps, which I think far too much effort is currently being devoted to. FTR, Kinski isn't the only native German speaking actor on the list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Kinski is the best choice for the list mainly for his collaborations with Werner Herzog in several major films. There are no major obstacles for people in the English-speaking world to see his films. --Rsm77 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Harold Lloyd
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - A huge force in the founding of modern cinema. Terrible idea. Jus  da  fax   01:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Jusdafax.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Randolph Scott
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support The list of films he was in is seriously unimpressive. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per my discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * This is a tougher call than some of the non-American editors presume. Randolph Scott was a cinematic icon to his generation, much in the same way that John Wayne was/is.  Wayne appeared in a lot of bad movies, too, but ultimately he appeared in far more great ones than Scott.  And that's my logic for keeping Wayne, and dropping Scott.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought it went without saying that we should decide who to include based on the great films they were in. Most actors have appeared in a lot of bad and mediocre movies. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Sinclair Lewis add Robert Burns
Support !votes
 * 1) Support Lewis, although a Nobel winner, is not widely read today, even in his home country. The poetry of Burns, though never a Nobel winner for obvious chronological reasons, is much better known in the US today than Lewis' work. A completely essential anglophone poet swapped for a non-essential one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - perhaps would have searched for someone of even lower importance for removing, but it matters not, one still more vital than the other, Lewis not massively vital, agree with nom. The list probably should have Burns, and Lewis probably won't be missed. Carlwev (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Robert Burns needs to be in. Perhaps I should have nominated him earlier instead of either Shelley or Coleridge. Maybe would have been better to have chosen someone from the UK&Ireland to replace, as this is one part of the list where UK&Ireland is well-represented, but nonetheless I support the change. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support There's worse offenders than Sinclair Lewis (see Pearl S. Buck, below), but this seems like a clear upgrade. john k (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose - He's vital, as even a cursory read of his article shows. Jus  da  fax   11:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Musicians and composers
See Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete sublist of related topics.

Swap Joan Baez for Buffy Sainte-Marie
Support !votes
 * 1) Support: More influential as composer her songs has been covered by everyone from Elvis to Chet Atkins and Janis Joplin, she's won an Oscar and Bafta and a Gemini Award. She is Canadian and Indigenous so gets globalization points. She was just as much of a cultural icon as Joan Baez was.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -  Jus  da  fax   09:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Why oppose? Anyone?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a significant soft-spot for Baez here, IMO, but if you propose an add thread for Buffy Sainte-Marie I would support. FTR, do you support the inclusion of Simon and Garfunkel, because you havn't weighed-in there yet? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I cannot support the inclusion of any more American musicians to the folk section before there is at least a nominal representation of non-American folk artists. Baez is known for playing other people's songs, Sainte-Marie is known for writing songs made famous by others. I think the other is more influential.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you and I think there is a less than zero chance of getting Sainte-Marie added, but not Baez removed. Perhaps you would consider !voting in the Garth Brooks/S&G thread so we can put that one to bed. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Silvio Rodriguez
Support !votes
 * 1) Support For Globalization of the folk section. Basically the Latin American Bob Dylan. Much more influential in the Spanish speaking world than Joan Baez or Hank Williams in the English speaking world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - We need to trim more before we start adding again.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * We are trimming plenty and we have 3 (THREE) representatives for the entire Spanish speaking world. This is a truly vital artist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Planxty
Support !votes
 * 1) Support For globalization of the folk section. Probably the second best known Irish folk orchestra after the Dubliners - but considered more innovative and vital to the folk revival movement. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - We need to trim more before we start adding again.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Chief O'Neill
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support The essential collector of Irish folk music in the 19th century. The tunes he collected are the best known irish traditional music. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - We need to trim more before we start adding again.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Mercedes Sosa
Support !votes
 * 1) Support The Latin American equivalent of someone like Joan Baez or Nina Simone. Hugely influential singer and songwriterin the Latin world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - I think more effort should be expended cutting the list. After we get back to 10,000 or less we can start talking about adds and swaps.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Django Reinhardt
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support World renowned style creating Jazz musician. + Globalization User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per my discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Glaring omission. Jus  da  fax   11:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I support adding Reinhardt because he was a great performer whose significant and lasting artistic influence within the jazz genre continues. Frankly, it's a good add that improves the list, and was an easy one to support.  However, I caution other editors citing the need for "globalization" as the sole reason for adding new topics to the VA/E pop culture sublists.  Sorry, but I will not support the addition of topics of clearly secondary importance/significance simply because they fulfill someone's overly simplistic notions of diversity/globalization.  Every individual topic should be considered and discussed on its own merits, and I will not support mass adds of Latin American or Chinese musicians simply because they fulfill some poorly conceived geographic quota.  Nor will I support gutting categories such as English language operettas/musicals/musical comedies that have formed for the basis of the English language musical canon with standards of wide-ranging and lasting popularity (e.g. Gilbert & Sullivan, Cole Porter, Rogers & Hammerstein, Lerner & Lowe).  Such topics are vital to the English language Wikipedia and its English language readers, and I make no apologies for opposing their removal in order to make room for obscure performers based on geographic diversity.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing simplistic about wanting a list of vital articles on the worlds largest and most widely used encyclopedia to represent the entire world and not just the parochial interests of two particular countries that happen to have a majority of people speaking English natively. Wikipedia is the world's encyclopedia - not just the native English speaking world. You have your right not to support or oppose anything you like, but I have mine as well and currently there is nothing in the criteria of inclusion that makes your arguments have more weight than mine. I will continue to work doggedly to counter the systematic bias in favor of US and English language interests, by wrking to removing as many of the narrowest Anglo-centric interest topic as possible and adding the global vital topics that have been left out. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Maunus, yes, you are entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine. But notice is being served that simply citing "globalization" without further discussion of the importance/significance of popular culture topics is going to start drawing "oppose" !votes.  While I support balancing the VA/E list with worldwide topics, I also believe we do our readers a great disservice by removing vital English language topics to make room for obscure non-English language topics of minimal interest.  For better or worse, the VA/E pop culture sublists will always include disproportionately English language topics because (1) this is the English language Wikipedia, (2) English language pop culture was the first entertainment mass-produced to be marketed to the common man, and (3) English language pop culture continues to have a disproportionate market share across geographic borders and languages.  No one is exporting Iranian movies to China, Germany, Japan, Australia or Canada; the film industry is still dominated by the United States, Britain and Europe, with India beginning to produce for export.  Worldwide artistic influence, popularity and lasting significance should be considerations, but denigrating English language topics such as musicals and country music display an almost willful ignorance of the popularity and lasting influence of those genres within the English language.  You're going to have to make better arguments for and against individual topics.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not too worried about "drawing opposes", people have already been opposing international topics for a wide variety of equally invalid reasons (such as your "this is the English encyclopedia"). You guys don't seem to be in any shortage of excuses to oppose inclusion of international topics. In fact trying to include an international topic seems to be a catch 22: If they are truly significant but not widely known in American media then that is a reason, if they are widely known in American pop-culture then they are not truly significant or vital because there is always an American who got more grammys or medals or Nobel prizes or sold more copies or influenced history more or whatever random criterion you (pl.) choose to pick at any given time. Narrow minded parochialism seems to always find a way to prevail on this list. At least by my proposals maybe I am providing a bit of education about the fact that vital culture also exists outside of Anglophone pop culture. I'll keep doing my work and you can keep doing yours.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove The Velvet Underground

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  22:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove all Country musicians: Les Paul, Hank Williams, Dolly Parton, Garth Brooks, Johnny Cash, Bill Monroe, Patsy Cline
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Country is a local US tradition and should have the same representation as other national music traditions, which currently is none for all other nations. Has no global significance whatsoever. Cutting the list down is currently going much too slow. This will both make the list more balanced and remove five entries in one go. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - While country music might not be all that global, it is quite popular in North America, and since this is the English speaking Wikipedia I think at least some belong.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose too broad a proposal.  There should be at least one from this category on this list  p  b  p  01:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Deleting all American and Canadian country and western music artists is an ill-conceived proposal.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Les Paul is an important inventor. Johnny Cash is known internationally.--V3n0M93 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * If there is one or two truly notable and vital country artists that have had influence outside of their own little genre then they can be added as a general entry in popular music. We don't need a separate section on Country and Folk. Cash and Bob Dylan would probably be vital enough to make it in the general pop section. Les Paul is not vital as a musician in spite of having made a couple of hits. His fame is as an inventor of a popular instrument. We don't need genre specific sub-lists within pop music as this greatly favorizes the particular genres standing out so that less vital names are included than what would be included if they were considered in relation to overall 20th century popular music. My point is that if you truly mean to prune the list down to only the most vital entries and not your personal pet interests then it makes sense to remove the entire folk/country list. Any truly vital artists should be able to gain inclusion in the general pop list subsequently. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove all the section "Musical comedy and lyricists"
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Musical comedy is an exclusively anglophone tradition mostly appreciated by Urban Americans and Brits. Has no global significance whatsoever. Cutting the list down is currently going much too slow. This will both make the list more balanced and remove 11 entries in one go. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose too broad a proposal. There should be at least two from this category on this list  p  b  p  01:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per DL1 and PbP.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * @Maunus, I appreciate the fresh ideas you have brought to the discussion, but this is not one of your better ones. Sure, musical comedy is largely an Anglophone phenomenon, but that does not in any way minimize its importance.  Examining solely the works and lasting popularity of Gilbert & Sullivan, Rogers & Hammerstein and Cole Porter should suggest to you that deleting every so-called musical comedy composer and/or lyricist is very bad idea.  This is the English Wikipedia, and we should not have to apologize for including topics that are of principal importance within the Agnlosphere, even as we strive to balance that unavoidable bias with world-wide topics of importance that did not originate within the United States, the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the former British Empire.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If there should be one or two truly vital musical comedy lyricists they can be included on equal footing with other popular musicians. They don't need a specific section anymore than "Heavy Metal" or "Electronica" do. Neither does country music.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sports figures
See Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Seve Ballesteros
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Only won five majors, which is less than several people who are not on the list. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Marco van Basten
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Did not achieve as much as other footballers on the list in a career cut short by injury.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  01:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The association football list needs to be cut, but there are many players of a similar level of distinction, so it's difficult to know who to suggest. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Just take all of them, then we'll see who there as consensus for removing!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Iker Casillas
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Questionable whether he's the outstanding player of Spain's recent tournament-winning sides. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Peggy Fleming
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Figure skating is bloated and she only has one Olympic gold. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Dorothy Hamill
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: One olympic gold and one world champion. Not impressive enough to be vital compared with other skaters like Henie and Fleming.
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: Figure skating is really bloated p  b  p  20:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Sentimental American favorite.  If we were being objective, there should be more Russian and German greats in this category.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Jack Hobbs
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Grace and Bradman are already there to represent the early days of cricket. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Ingemar Johansson
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: A good boxer and all but we need to cut this section. Not that vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  13:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Stanley Matthews
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support This is a tough one (for an Englishman), but there are cuts needed and he didn't have the success in European competition and for England that Bobby Charlton had. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove John McEnroe
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Only won seven Grand Slam singles titles, which is less than others on the list (not including Pancho Gonzales who was ineligible to compete in Grand Slams for most of his career as a professional) and less than others not on the list. I don't think his colourful personality makes up for that. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. McEnroe, like Jimmy Connors and Ilie Nastase before him, is better remembered for his personality than his win-loss record and Grand Slam championships.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Se-Ri Pak and Karrie Webb
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Women's golf doesn't have much of a history and having three female golfers seems like serious overkill. Deleting these two would still leave Annika Sörenstam. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Note that women's golf also has Babe Didrikson Zaharias under "multiple sports", she taught herself golf because she couldn't make any money running track p  b  p  15:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not propose two or more topics for deletion at the same time. Every topic deserves individual discussion and consideration.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Axel Paulsen
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Seems like a minor figure - even in Norwegian his article is not very long. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Because he is one of very few sportsfigures included from before the 20th century.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Paulo Radmilovic
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Sócrates
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. Not vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - per Gabe. I think we can cut a bit here. Jus  da  fax   09:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support There are lots of good footballers, we can't have them all Carlwev (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Roberto Clemente
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Doesn't appear to have achieved as much as other baseball players on the list, and started playing eight years after Jackie Robinson broke the colour line, so the cultural aspect doesn't appear sufficient justification for inclusion either. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Bedrieger (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per PBP's comment. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Clemente was a breakthrough athlete in a slightly different way in that he was one of the first international superstars in MLB. He was the first international player to 3,000 hits p  b  p  22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I will admit I don't know that much about American sports, but I have been looking at a couple of lists that look quite reliable. An ESPN 100 and a list from the Sporting News. I have also been thinking about how to cut all team sports totals in half (as the general feeling seems to be there are too many athletes). So, let's imagine that you have 6 baseball players. Looking at the two lists, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays are obvious first picks and then Hank Aaron and Ty Cobb. I would include Jackie Robinson as a cultural phenomenon, even though he is not that highly-rated on these lists. After that, I would put in Lou Gehrig, I think. Although in place of Gehrig, I would consider one of Roberto Clemente, Sadaharu Oh, and Satchel Paige. I would see no reason to include Mickey Mantle and Cy Young. What do others think about all this?
 * Reducing all team sports totals by half would leave 11 for association football, 6 for baseball, 5 for basketball, 5 for cricket, 3 for American football, and 3 for ice hockey. How does that sound? Actually, I think for American football, just Jim Brown and Jerry Rice would be enough based on what I see in lists and discussions about the best AF players of all time. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to further massive reductions in the sports personalities list. Some swaps may still be appropriate.  One hundred fifty articles strikes me as more or less right-sized.  We have reached the point where we are cutting truly great athletes who are/were representative of popular sports.  Prioritization has worked, and in several cases, I think we may have already cut too deeply.  Whether some editors like it or not, popular sports have a long and important history in western culture, starting with the Greeks and continuing with the Romans, and with the revival of large-scale spectacle sports in the late 19th Century.  We can argue about their place in society, but to disregard their importance in the larger popular culture borders on wilful ignorance.  It's not a fluke that star professional athletes in major sports are paid millions of dollars per year.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Brian Lara
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Not as good as other cricketers on list. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Don Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar should be on the list for batting, W. G. Grace for historical importance, Garfield Sobers as an all-rounder, and (with a target of five in mind) I'd keep one of Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan for bowling, probably cutting Warne. This means I may suggest cutting Viv Richards. But Brian Lara is below all these in importance. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar should be on the list for batting, W. G. Grace for historical importance, Garfield Sobers as an all-rounder, and (with a target of five in mind) I'd keep one of Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan for bowling, probably cutting Warne. This means I may suggest cutting Viv Richards. But Brian Lara is below all these in importance. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Mary Lou Retton
Support' !votes
 * 1) Support Only won one Olympic gold medal. Not significant enough. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion
 * One of the most high-profile and celebrated American athletes of the past 25 years; her name is still almost universally recognized in the United States. Yes, she only participated in one Olympiad, but that's true of most elite gymnasts because their bodies change in their late teens.  This tells me that we have really reached the tough choices, and some of the commenting editors who are unfamiliar with sports topics need to slow down on the mass deletion proposals.  IMO, there are damn few obvious deletion candidates left.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Georges Vézina
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support There is already Howie Morenz representing the early days of ice hockey. On the List of 100 greatest hockey players by The Hockey News Vézina is at 75, compared with 15 for Morenz. Even if you consider there might be a bias against early players that's a huge difference. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I was thinking to cut one of the Soviets and looking at the IIHF Centennial All-Star Team it's hard to cut Viacheslav Fetisov but maybe we could cut Vladislav Tretiak.--Rsm77 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove George Weah
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Significantly less successful than other football players on the list. Should not be included just because he's from Africa, as this has not been an obstacle to his success in the game. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Williams sisters, Add Serena Williams
Support' !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Serena Williams is now significantly more successful than her sister with 16 Grand Slam single wins to Venus' 7. As such Venus is not really strong enough for the list. Also, as you might expect, the Serena Williams article is better and available in more language than the Williams sisters article. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support this crossed my mind a while back Carlwev (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, not about sports feats only. They are both widely known. By having the article about both of them we get two Tennis stars for the price of one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Remarkable rarity of two sisters playing any sport at this level; Venus was first, Serena followed and surpassed.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

General discussion about subject area: Horse racing
If we are trying to trim biographies, and sports people has been suggested to go down 100 entries. Do Jockeys deserve to be in? I am not sure if a list of the most vital or important 2000 people ever should have 4 jockeys. We have so many sports with no people listed. Other than boxers there are no martial artists listed at all apart from Bruce Lee but he's listed in actors anyway. There are no snooker players like Steve Davis or Stephen Hendry, probably slightly more vital than jockeys? If we had an extra horse racing article I would list Grand National before 4 horse racing biographies, although I'm not suggesting to add it at this time. The Jockeys do not appear in many other languages either only 4 or 5 suggesting they are not of particular world wide notability or fame.

Oh and by the way one of the 4 "people" listed in horse racing one of them isn't a person at all it's actually a HORSE. Although that make sense I mean it's them that do the running not the jockey, which is also why I kind of personally think of Jockeys as not the greatest examples of athletes. There was discussion and action a long time ago to remove all famous horses from the list including Alexander the Great's horse Bucephalus potentially the most famous horse? I'm sure Secretariat was a great horse, but do we need him? also he not in this list either: List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses so is he the greatest horse ever? I post the 3 jockeys and one horse separately for voting below. Carlwev (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like this discussion could be removed now. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Fictional characters
See Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete sublist of related topics.

General discussion of topic area: Fictional characters

 * More of an open question. at the moment. If we are trying to trim movies do we need Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader when we already have Star Wars. We are voting for some movies/franchises to have or not have one space on the list, Star Wars technically has 3 spaces on the whole list. I say the same for Gandalf and Frodo when we already have LOTR, and Kirk and Spock when we already have Star Trek. Basically some franchises/fictions are getting 3 slots when some influential movies/franchises/shows/books are getting none. Captain Kirk himself could be removed, as him and his fiction are still covered by Star Trek. My favourite kind of character to have are ones where the character and franchise/fiction are almost one and the same. Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Batman, James Bond. We probably wouldn't have Sherlock Holmes the character AND the book series. All vital information is in one article why would we need 2 or 3 to cover one fiction? Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carl opened this as a discussion. I agree with his premise. and move that we move to topic-specific discussion and !voting.  All of the listed fictional characters are already covered by virtue of the inclusion of their parent work or series, or in several cases by coverage of the author (e.g. Dr. Seuss).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another point to add people to ponder on... If you were told you were allowed 2 spaces to represent the work of George Lucas and his studio, would you choose Star Wars and Indiana Jones, or would you choose Stars Wars and Darth Vader, having some overlapping/duplication of one franchise but completely forgetting the other altogether. (This isn't a proposal to add Indiana Jones, who is not listed at the moment by the way). If you had 2 spaces for the work of Tolkien, would it be LOTR and Frodo Baggins, or LOTR and The Hobbit? (We don't have the hobbit at the moment) Carlwev (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point Carl! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Thor Heyerdahl
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Another glaring omission. Jus  da  fax   12:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Business people
Vital articles/Expanded/People

Add Alfred P. Sloan, remove ________
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom  p  b  p  15:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the head of GM in the mid-20th century should be on this list. Feel free to peg this to a removal p  b  p  15:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Leland Stanford, remove ________
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom  p  b  p  15:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the head of the Central Pacific Railroad and the founder of Stanford University should be on this list. Feel free to peg this to a removal p  b  p  15:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

=History=

Remove History of Central America
Already covered by History of the Americas

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I would support adding History of Mesoamerica instead. That is the historically important subregion within central America.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * User:Maunus we already have Mesoamerica or did you have another article in mind. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Roman civil wars, Add Crisis of the Roman Republic
Roman civil wars has a disambiguation feel. Crisis of the Roman Republic covers a big part of the period in Roman civil wars.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Persia
It redirects to Iran, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Anyone wondering like I did, Achaemenid Empire (Persian Empire) is also included already. Carlwev (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Ancient China
It redirects to History of China, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Jus  da  fax   12:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Egyptian Dynasties
It redirects to a list article, which is not vital

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Jus  da  fax   12:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Knossos
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support john k (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Carthage, Add Ancient Carthage
Carthage is about the city, Ancient Carthage is about the historical empire.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, although that's a terrible way of disambiguating the two things. john k (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa
It redirects to List of historical states in Africa, which is a list that I don't think is vital.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support see discussion Carlwev (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In theory we shouldn't have lists. If we start having lists, especially of geography it opens up a whole new area of articles that could flood in, list of sovereign states is one of the most viewed and in most languages articles, how about list of US states, list of longest rivers. I was trying to think if there was another article that represents the title closely, I didn't check extensively but all things I thought of like Pre-colonial Africa, Medieval Africa, and Ancient Africa all redirect to History of Africa. I think we should lose it, if anyone could find an appropriate vital article that covers pre-colonial Africa, I would consider a swap but I don't think there is, History of Africa seems to cover it. Carlwev (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Ottoman–Venetian Wars, Add Cretan War (1645–69)
Ottoman–Venetian Wars is a disambiguation page. Cretan War (1645–69) is one of the more famous Ottoman–Venetian Wars.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support john k (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Atlantic slave trade
History is still under quota, and this is a vital article.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is just as vital an historical topic as the holocaust or WW@ with just as much subsequent influence on global history. Entirely vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support By far the largest forced migration in history? Cobblet (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Slavery is about the concept this is about the trading practice that transformed the cultural and political history of the world to what we know now. For example none of the American rhythmic music that we are so fond of including would exist if it were not for the Atlantic slave trade. This is not just another chapter. This is the main one. Absolutely essential.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Russo-Turkish War
It's a disambiguation page. We already have Crimean War and Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878).

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  p  b  p  15:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Easy support. --Rsm77 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Obviously. One might make an argument for some of the earlier Russo-Turkish Wars to be included (the 1768, 1787, and 1828 wars, in particular), but they'd be low on my list. john k (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Burmese–Siamese wars
The page is mainly a list of wars.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Cobblet (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Possibly the most important event in that area and time period, the Sino-Burmese War (1765–69), is already on the list. Cobblet (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Great Chinese Famine
Covered in Great Leap Forward.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Cuban Revolution
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support john k (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

=Geography=
 * Vital articles/Expanded/Geography

Basics

 * Please see here for the current sub-list.

Remove Circle of latitude
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. Subsumptive with latitude.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, per GabeMc --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove North, East, South, West
Covered by Cardinal direction. I doubt they can become anything more than stubs/start-class.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Per nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. We already have Kurdistan --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Per nom. Good catch, and again, this is what I was talking about a couple of months ago. We have so much redundant overlap that we should trim that out first before expending energy on contentious removals.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Kurdistan is fine, or even just "kurdish people".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Carlwev. --Igrek (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

My only thought is Iraqi Kurdistan, is still less vital than Kurdistan, but seems a level above Turkish an Iranian, it's a fairly independent autonomous region, a real political entity with 5 million people, where the other 2 are only unofficial regions, and Iraqi one is a much better article in many more languages, just stands out as being above the other 2. Carlwev (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Philippine Islands
It redirects to Philippines, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Bodies of water

 * For the current sub-list, please see here.

Remove Ligurian Sea

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital marginal sea subsumed by the Mediterranean Sea, which is already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support One of the smaller and less noteworthy subdivisions of the Mediterranean. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Ligurian Sea" — 36 100. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Molucca Sea

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support The neighbouring Banda Sea would be more worthy of inclusion. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Molucca Sea" — 11 100. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Cities
Please see Cities for a complete sublist of related topics.

Swap, Remove British Antarctic Territory, Add Bristol
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, support removing. --Igrek (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  09:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose oppose add, support remove.Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

See also remove regions
 * Discussion

Swap, Remove Argentine Antarctica, Add Jericho
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes See also remove regions
 * 1) Oppose, support removing. --Igrek (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  09:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

The case for Jericho is more of a historical one, although not a megacity today, it was one of the first real cities, important centre for a long time. But can we put it in history, as it still populated today in the same place with the same name? Carlwev (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sovereign Military Order of Malta
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove The Holy See
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Catholicism overrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, this appears a classic topic that people look up in an encyclopedia. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, widely used term --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

=Arts=

Music
See Vital articles/Expanded/Arts for a complete sublist of related topics.

Add Irish folk music
Support !votes
 * 1) supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per Carl.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We had discussion to add regions music, they all failed, if we start adding regional music there are several we should think about. Irish Folk music should not be the first and only one, also as we have Folk Music itself. Not the worst idea though, but what regions do we want and which do we not. Cuisine can be represented well by region, music better represented by genre and less by region. I don't hate the idea but needs more discussion and deciding which regions get in. Carlwev (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * It is perplexing and extremely frustrating to me that all initiatives to add as much as a single non-American folk musician or folk tradition is being opposed without anyone at all addressing the fact that the folk list currently includes only American artists. First I thought people opposed adding Irish musicians because you are unfamiliar with the artists and then thought it was better to add the entire tradition which is familiar to almost everyone in the Western world. But no you are opposing that as well with no rationale apart from no other folk traditions being represented. That is not an argument! American folk traditions (e.g. Country, Blues) are represented. And over represented. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IME, Carl dislikes music articles in general and his !votes tend to reflect his personal tastes more than an objective analysis of the vitality of an entry. Start a couple add threads for Christian holidays and he'll be all about the support. No offense Carl, but IME, this is a true statement. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks are never civil, I don't want to clog up this talk page with arguments anymore I think they are off putting, I wrote some stuff, when I was grumpy, but saved it on my own talk page instead of here, can we not all just get along? If anyone wants to read my view it's here, User_talk:Carlwev if you don't then don't  Carlwev (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Add British folk revival
Support !votes
 * 1) supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose It also appears in NO other languages. Carlwev (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per Carl.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove The Velvet Underground & Nico

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Per Carl.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support p  b  p  01:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove When You Wish upon a Star

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support had my eye on this one Carlwev (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Concepts and Forms
See Vital articles/Expanded/Arts for complete sublist of related topics.

Swap: Remove Commercial art, Add Calligraphy
Support !votes Oppose !votes Has someone opposed this but forgot to sign here I can't tell? Excellent choice, Commercial art is a terrible article, may even get deleted or merged into graphic design, we don't even have articles in existence for similar terms like "commercial music". Calligraphy, not as important as "painting" but more vital many articles about individual paintings and albums etc, much more vital than com. art. Important across Middle East and Asia. Carlwev (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Commercial art is a poorly-defined badly-written article. Calligraphy is a major art form around the world, of central importance in the Islamic world and East Asia. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * 2) Oppose I believe commercial art to be important enough to be on here. Calligraphy should be too, I thought it was already  p  b  p  17:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * WOW 2 opposes for this really, that surprised me I thought this would go with flying colours, have you even read the article it's terrible, redundant, mostly a list almost a disambiguation page, and only in 3 other languages, and has suggested to be merged, so may not even exist as an article in the future. Anyway each to their own, the dreaded AWKWARD SWAP methed strikes again. Carlwev (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Films
See Vital articles/Expanded/Arts for complete sublist of related topics.

Swap: Add Movie Theater, Remove Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series)
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Apples and oranges. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, would support it if it replaces a movie article. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If we are having a large number of articles listed dedicated to film, over 100 actors, many directors, 40 movies and more, I think we should have movie theater. Wheat Fields? We already have Van Gogh's more well known Sunflowers here. The Wheat Fields does not appear in any other language Wiki which cannot be a good sign. In English Wheat Fields is a very long article, but if one thinks this gives it extra points it is flawed, looking at the article history it was created by and the vast majority of all content was written by one dedicated user. Well done for that, more patience than me, but I don't think it belongs in the vital articles though. Carlwev (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Gabe are you even reviewing the articles in question? Do you truly believe, Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series) to be more important than movie theater? Sometimes if a list has too many of one thing and not enough of another we really do need to adjust and start swapping "apples and oranges" Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Carl, I think your vision for this page is far too broad and generic. If I was educating someone, I would much sooner teach them about Vincent Van Gogh than I would about chewing gum, which you've supported adding in favour of this particular series of paintings. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Psycho
Psycho is currently a disambiguation page. There are two choice for replacement.

Replace with Psycho (1960 film)
 * 1) V3n0M93 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Rsm77 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  p  b  p  16:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Per Betty.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Replace with Psycho (franchise)

Remove Psycho, which is currently a disambiguation page.


 * Discussion
 * Can't we just straight-up remove the excess listing instead of trying to find a place for it? Doesn's Alfred Hitchcock already have at least one work on here? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Psycho is the only horror film on the list and the genre should be represented. John Carpenter regards it as the "grandaddy" of the horror film, and to be fair there are few films as good, revered, and as influential as Psycho. If we limited the list to 20 movies it would still make the cut IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

=Anthropology, psychology and everyday life=

Alcoholic beverages
See Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life for a complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Alcohol proof
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. Alcohol proof is subsumed by Alcoholic beverage, which is already included in the same sub-list.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support May or may not look better in measurement? no matter, if food is to be trimmed, I would prefer to lose an article about measuring drink before another actual drink...or food, not hugely vital. Being interested in the food list, if I had created a whole food and drink list alone, I probably wouldn't have put this in it. Carlwev (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Igrek (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

National cuisines
See Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life for a complete sublist of related topics.

Add Mexican cuisine
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  21:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support I'm less sure but still support this one I think. Carlwev (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. While I consider this to be good addition to the list, I cannot support adding Mexican cuisine until we get the VA/E list under 10,000 topics again.  It is simply a matter of forcing the process of prioritization and making choices.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Chinese cuisine
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) If for no other reasons than that 1) this list is bloated and 2) there is no way we could possibly be fair and do justice to all the significant types of cuisine around the world (remember globalization). This smacks of ranking and I think we should just remove all the individual types of cuisine and move cuisine into the sub-list Basic, in Cooking, food and drink.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Carlwev (talk)
 * 2) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Food: Miscellaneous
See Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life for a complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Coca-cola
Support !votes Oppose !votes Most recognizable soda brand? I'd say it might be the most recognizable brand of any kind. If it's not it must be close. Not to mention the most expensive brand, and about 125 years old. More important than Amazon.com, Willie Mays, or I wanna hold you hand. Only my opinion of course. Although not rock solid article, not the worst. Not sure leaning to keep. Carlwev (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Not vital. Also, why favour this one soda type over the dozens of others?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Coca-Cola is the only one of those sodas traded on the Dow, it's the most recognizable brand of soda in the world  p  b  p  13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Actually I think that if the list should only contain one American brand name this should be it - simpy based on global impact and recognizability. Not just the most recognizable soda brand, but probably the most recognizable brand globally. Its not about sales or popularity, but about impact over a century and across the globe. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * I find it strange that popularity is now a rationale for keeping. Should we add Justin Bieber? Weren't you guys telling me two months ago that popularity and hits are not factors in vitality? There are dozens of cola brands, why should Wikipedia play commercial for a cola giant? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cardamom
Support !votes

Oppose !votes Yeah, unsure, not top but not bottom either. Much more obscure plants in biology. Article says it's 3rd most expensive spice, other plants and herbs should maybe go before this goes. Carlwev (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support What?  p  b  p  13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose- it's one of the most widely used spices in the arab world and can be bought in any supermarket here in Europe. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose see discussion, if in plants wouldn't stand out as least notable plant. Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per Melody Lavender. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Potato chips and French fries
Support !votes
 * 1) Not vital and out-of-place with the other meals listed. These are snack-foods, not food types, which is in actuality the Potato, one of the most common food types in the world.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC) see discussion
 * 2) Oppose p  b  p  13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, would support removal of chips. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * potato is with organism with the majority of plants and veg. But we need to address the layout of edible plants they're split and it's a mess. Carlwev (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but potatoes and corn are present in about 80% of all foods globally. I assume cattle might also be on the list as well as beef? At any rate, I'll remove Potato for now. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although not the oldest or top in the 20 most vital foods topics our limit is about 160 at the moment and, I believe they are within the top 160 most vital food topics. Although not old old they are both over 150 years old. They are widely eaten and although maybe not eaten in every corner of the world, they are not regional either, a large propartion of the western world eats them I believe. Many people buy and eat potato chips regularly. In a supermarket they take up a whole aisle. You never have a whole aisle dedicated to mustard, jam, casserole, vinegar or even ham, but potato chips you do. I know they are a snack and not a meal food, but so is chocolate and candy and we need to cover all eating habits not just cooked meals. Then french fries, again quite widely eaten I'm not sure on removing it, probably more widely eaten than half the foods we have here, 160 food topics, it probably gets in. (In actual fact most edible fruit veg herbs and spices are in biology anyway, meaning the true food article limit is probably well over 300, meaning I'm sure they get in in that case) There are loads of more obscure foods under fruit in biology like Podophyllum peltatum and Actinidia arguta, in my opinion this is trying to trim the wrong area now. Carlwev (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Carl, feel free to add threads as you see fit (I wouldn't dream of telling you where you were allowed to), but please don't try to tell me or anyone else where we can and cannot propose changes. I know you support nearly all food entries, its obvious to anyone who is watching, but I don't care what you think about the section's relative length or your arbitrary pre-set limits/goals. Back-off a little bit, and stop acting like an owner of this list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupery GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Hot dog
Support !votes Oppose !votes I am going to oppose the removal of hot dog, hamburger, bacon, and steak all for the same reasons: I think that they are more important than many of the topics in everyday sections. If we can have 100 articles on recent actors or athletes, we can have 100 articles on food p  b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) As nom. Hot dog is either a) not a type of meat per se or, b) its a type of sausage, which is already included in the same sub-list.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, it is still food. --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  p  b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Bacon
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. Bacon is but one cut of several from a pig and pork is already included. We don't include the two most popular cuts of chicken or beef, so why include only these two specific cuts of pork? Why not spare ribs, tenderloin, shoulder, rump, ribs, etcetera. Also, a goodly percentage of the world's population does not even eat pork, so this is quite Anglo-centric.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, it is still food. --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  p  b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Ham
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. Ham is but one cut of several from a pig and pork is already included. We don't include the two most popular cuts of chicken or beef, so why include only these two specific cuts of pork? Why not spare ribs, tenderloin, shoulder, rump, ribs, etcetera. Also, a goodly percentage of the world's population does not even eat pork, so this is quite Anglo-centric.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, it is still food. --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  p  b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Hamburger
Support !votes Oppose !votes Why can't we have prepared foods? p b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) As nom. Hamburger is not really a foodstuff per se, its one way in which we prepare various types of meats, e.g. turkey, beef, bison, chicken, vegan patty etcetera.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, it is still food. --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  p  b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I would prefer to keep this and hotdog, they are widely eaten, I wouldn't remove a food only because it contains more than one thing, bread and meat etc sandwich and pie are here too. Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Household items
See Vital_articles/Expanded/Anthropology,_psychology_and_everyday_life for the sublist of related topics.

Remove Dishware
It redirects to Tableware, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - have to support, if it redirects to an existing entry Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Chair
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. We already include Furniture on the same sub-list.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, this article might have some potential. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose p  b  p  22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose see table discussion. Carlwev (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Carpet
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. Not vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose p  b  p  22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Language
See Vital_articles/Expanded/Anthropology,_psychology_and_everyday_life for the sublist of related topics.

Swap: Remove Accent (linguistics), Add Accent (sociolinguistics)
It redirects to Accent, which is a disambiguation page. Accent (sociolinguistics) is an actual page.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) this shouldnt even need a proposal - it's just housekeeping.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There are other "Accent" articles, that why I started the vote. Otherwise I would have directly changed it. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * It was me who added this some time ago. It was the title back then, the page was moved in Januuary. This new title contains most of the content that was at the old title, so best target I think. There is also Accent (phonetics), which may or may be needed...probably not. Carlwev (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Stages of life
See Vital_articles/Expanded/Anthropology,_psychology_and_everyday_life for the sublist of related topics.

Remove Newborn
It redirects to Infant, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Nice catch once again! It makes me wonder how many redirects are currently listed as vital articles!  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Unlike others this redirect wasn't recently made into one; Newborn hasn't been an article since before 2003, it appears some people were adding topics here without even looking at the articles? Or maybe they thought a good article could be written about this topic later? Carlwev (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Sports
See Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life for a complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Billiards
It redirects to Cue sports, which is already on the list.

Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  22:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

=Society and social sciences=

Remove Natural history museum
It's mainly a list of museums.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I would have thought the one in London, doesn't matter, I'd probably vote to remove that too Carlwev (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Defense (military)
It redirects to Military, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Yet another nice catch! Well done and keep up the great work!  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Military education and training

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes

Do we have any other specific types of education or training? I would like more weapons, but Military education as distinct from just military, I don't think we really need it.
 * Discussion

Remove Military Ranks
I don't see a reason for all of these articles. We already have Military rank, which can cover all of them.

Remove Colonel

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Corporal

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Lieutenant

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Major

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Marshal

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Private (rank)

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Sergeant

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Seaman

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

= Biology and health sciences =

Remove Deep sea communities
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support No other ecological niches get an entry.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, agree, we have desert, but not desert animal etc, we have sea bed, we don't need sea bed life also, Carlwev (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Mark and recapture
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support One of many method of wildlife management, not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, I thought of this a while back but never brought it up. Carlwev (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Horses: Hackney horse, American quarter horse, Morgan horse, Palomino
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: we have 13 horse breeds, but only 4 breeds of Cow and no breeds of Pig and no breeds of hen all of which are more globally, culturally and economically important than horses. The "Animal breeding" section is extremely biased in favor of horse interests - probably because more people on wikipedia are horse fanatics. That does not mean Horse breeds should get that many spots though. Ideally I wouls say it should include Horse, Pony, Wild horse, Thoroughbred and Draft horse - perhaps Arabian horse and Appaloosa. The once I have mentioned here I consider to be only of interest of professional breeders and racers - mostly in America. Palomino is a kind of coat, and the only one on the list. A specialist term for a kind of coat doesn't belong on the vital list that already is biased towards American horsebreeding.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jus  da  fax   04:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Illness
Redirects to Disease, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Nice catch!  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support no brainer. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support pull this. Jus  da  fax   06:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Antibiotic
Redirects to Antibacterial, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Nice catch!  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - let's do this. Jus  da  fax   06:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

= Physical sciences =

Science
See Vital articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Laboratory equipment
Redirects to Laboratory, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Per nom. Nice catch, and again, this is exactly what I was talking about a couple of months ago; we've expended far too much energy on contentious removals when there are still redirects listed as vital articles.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - yes absolutely. Jus  da  fax   04:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Physics
See Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Atomic spectral line
Redirects to Spectroscopy, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Nice catch!  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jus  da  fax   06:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Have to support all redirects to the already listed Carlwev (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Faraday's law of induction
Redirects to Electromagnetic induction, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Nice catch!  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Jus  da  fax   06:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Electrical current
Redirects to Electric current, which is already on the list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Redirects must go. Jus  da  fax   06:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

=Technology=

Construction
See Vital articles/Expanded/Technology for a complete sublist of related topics.

Discussion about topic Bridges

 * Things are getting tight, we are over 10'000 and there are still important topics missing from technology like water wheel plus more above. I propose removing Hangzhou Bay Bridge and Bang Na Expressway from technology, bridges. They are big but individual bridges like these are just not that well known or important, when basic technology machines, buildings and topics are still missing in tech section. Transport things like Heathrow Airport are more important and vital than these bridges we don't have that. Carlwev (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Carl, I commend you for your continued efforts to critically review various Vital Article sublists and reduce them to their most "vital" topics. In this case, I don't dispute the objective merits of these massive Chinese civil and structural engineering projects.  When we discuss such classes of topics, I believe we risk falling into a trap of arguing the merit equivalence of such topics, which leads to adding ever more topics, even as we are struggling to reduce the numbers of the expanded list back to a total of 10,000.  In such cases where there are many topics, such as these, which are of equivalent of merit to others on the sublist, I think the operative question should become which topic is the most representative or mostly widely known example of the particular class of topics.  In the case of this sublist, we could probably double the size of the list if we were not limited by numbers, so "most widely known examples" is my suggested criteria for culling the list.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to hydropower and the others as well. I do agree with you in general, that we don't want lots of the same content under slightly different but redundant articles; some topics with several good possible articles, should have the best one or two articles to represent them. I'm not sure if 4 water power articles is too many, I can see the water mill and water wheel overlapping, one is a wheel, and one is a building containing that wheel, but they are different articles, I didn't think it that bad, but perhaps it is. There are many parts of the project that have too many things listed, and some have been brought up before, especially bios like 25 footballers, over 100 modern musicians, over 100 actors and actresses, 34 journalists, 19 tennis players. When I look at things like this, 19 tennis players?! I don't think having 4 different but slightly overlapping articles on how humans all over the world, from ancient times to modern day have harnessed the power of water is all that bad, Yes there is slight overlap, but it's quite an important topic, and by far not the worst of the list. I don't think we would be targeting Hydroelectricity for deletion if it was already in the list. And there are too many bridges, we don't even have the bridge types, suspension, cantilever, etc. But thank you for your views, we are getting somewhere slowly. I will try to find more to propose for deleting. Carlwev (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Campus
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: Not a vital aspect of urban planning or design. Particularly not outside of the US. We already have University. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Maunus. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Weapons
See Vital articles/Expanded/Technology for a complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Knife
Support !votes Oppose !votes PbP, this section is called Weapons. If a knife used for eating is vital IYO, then shouldn't it be listed with cutlery, fork and spoon? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  23:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) We already have Dagger, which is a knife intended to be used as a weapon, whereas a knife is not necessarily intended to be used as a weapon.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose No, Knife is in the 1000 list. Vital weapon/tool. More vital than Epee, sabre, dagger, tomohawk, even katana. Carlwev (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Knives that are used for eating rather than combat are not vital how exactly? p  b  p  22:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * A knife can be used for both p  b  p  23:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So can a spoon and a fork, not? I am sure one could use a plate as a weapon as well, were they so inclined; broken porcelain can be almost razor or obsidian sharp, IME. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cannon
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) We already have Artillery.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose If we can have various types of small arms, we can have various types of large arms p  b  p  22:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * PbP, IMO your above "logic" sounds a bit like two wrongs make a right. Why should we include various forms of anything that are subsumed by an overarching-topic? You seem to almost randomly waffle back and forth between a preference for particularizing and a preference for generalizing. Really, you want cannon, artillery and howitzer and you cannot support the removal of even one of them, but we are supposed to think that you actually want to reduce the size of a list that you repeatedly remind people is over-sized? Since you've questioned me more than once I'll ask you this: Where are your priorities? Do you really want the list at 10,000 or would you rather control the content of the list? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of ownership every time I disagree with one of your proposals. Not that I am neither the only one to oppose this, nor did I even vote on the howitzer proposal.  There is a disagreement between you and I as to where the cuts should come to get this back to 10,000: I believe that most should come from bios, and you believe most should come from elsewhere.  It's nothing more than that  p  b  p  16:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If i may interject, if you look at the Geography list you can easily spot 100/200 articles that can be removed. The priority should be to remove the articles which everybody can agree that they don't belong on the list, and then we can discuss the other. If we put some more activity we can easily cut down the list to 10 000 as early as August.--V3n0M93 (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Howitzer
Support !votes Oppose !votes I'm not as opposed to removing this as cannon, but still want to keep it. Artillery is in the 1000 and so naturally it's not odd for it to be expanded upon in the 10'000. Artillery is such a wide term it can include ancient catapults and modern nuclear artillery, within a list as big as 10,000 I think we need more specific examples. I feel better having 5 examples of artillery used throughout human history, than having 8 figure skaters, 16 tennis players or 23 footballers 30 rock musicians or even dare I say 100+ writers from within the last 75 years. Carlwev (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This is really just a specific type of artillery, which is already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * Howitzer — 803,000. --Igrek (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap, Add Naval mine, Remove Molotov cocktail

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, support add, oppose removal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Support Add, Oppose removal. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We do have land mine already, there is not one article for explosive mine in general, I think land and naval mine is split into 2 articles in most if not all other languages also. I believe naval mine to be important weapon and factor of war, I believe it has had a larger impact on warfare and history. Carlwev (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

=Mathematics=

Swap, Add Decimal, Remove Eight Deer Jaguar Claw
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom
 * 2) Support Ypnypn (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) oppose' math is hugely overrepresented in the lists already - native american history is underrepresented. Comparing importasnce between decimals and a historical figure is like comparing the importance of apples and the color orange.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Another cross section swap, Decimals are important, this guy not as much. Biographies are bloated, maths not so much. Carlwev (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The whole process how this list is created is very weird and unsystematic. Why include decimal numeral system as specific article if we do not have numeral system as the general article? It is true, that sometimes the less general term is better known, is more important and gets more hits. In the cloud of terms surrounding numeral system binary number has exactly that status: it's more important than decimal. If we cannot include all vital topics binary number is the most important one, that's the priority term we should be adding first. As I have said previously, the computing and information section is lacking in all areas, anyway, so I'm happy with the suggested topic, but not the specific term. Radix btw, another term for the base (that is ten or two respectively for the articles mentioned) is also not on the list (this term could replace the general term (numeral system), imo).--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am surprised anyone thinks maths is bloated. From the topics in the vital 10 maths has only 255 topics within the 10'000, the smallest I think. Maths is a fundemental topic. The vast majority of the world has used decimal for 100s or 1000s of years, I can't see how it's not vital. The list probably has a place for numeral system, and binary number and decimal. I may suggest swaps for those as well, if you thought them vital you could have suggested swaps for them yourself. Just because there are few examples in a list, does not make articles in a list more vital, these leaders are just not vital topics. The 1000 list has 14 male musicians but no female, is this sexist? I don't know, but that doesn't make Madonna more important than Mozart. I would like to add articles on Indigenous people of the Americas and maybe some tribes/peoples like Souix, Cherokee, Iroquois and Apache, these are much better articles to represent, Native Americans. For Eurasian tribes/peoples we have Celts, Saxons, Anglo-saxons, Goths, Cimmerians but apart from Boudicca we don't have any leaders of them, these peoples or tribes are mentioned in encyclopedias but these leaders not so much, we should be trying to follow suit. But that's just my view, thank you for trying to improve the project all the same, we're making great progress. Carlwev (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

= General discussions =

Merge all art media and entertainment into Art and rename
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ypnypn (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  10:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * 1) I propose the art section should have a name like "Art, Media and Entertainment" or something similar like "Art, Media and Recreation".
 * 2) I propose this new section should include TV shows. Movies and TV shows are so similar they have to be on the same page. (TV shows are currently under society and social sciences)
 * 3) I propose the list should include all games, video games, board games, toys, and sports. Regardless of how artistic or not one thinks they are, toys, video games and board games are artistic creations designed, published then bought by people in shops for entertainment, very similar to the artforms of movies on DVD, books and music albums. Sport has to be included although not a published work they are still games and also still entertainment, whether to play or watch, a sports game is entertainment people watch in a stadium or on TV similar to watching a music concert, or a play, or a comedian. Sport and games are currently on the same page with colors, food, language, family, sexuality, psychology, it would be much better in art and entertainment. Comics should also be near books they are so similar.
 * 4) In this merge, no articles would actually get removed or added to the whole project in the process, just moved. Although voting for individual articles to add or remove is still ongoing. Carlwev (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Why not use a system already in place and simply apply the main categories used at WP:GA to this list? A few of them have clear and obvious counterparts here, but simply sticking to that should rule out major confusion and disagreement over how and where to list things. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

–

Merge Actors and Actresses
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support The only section divided into male and female. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - If they are mixed together it will be too difficult to see how many of each gender we include and I could see actresses getting cut down too low because of this.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per Gabe.  Jus  da  fax   06:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Current sublist totals
I request that the keepers of the list (Carl and Purplebackpack) update the VA/E sublist totals as provided on the main VA/E introduction page and in Igrek's target numbers table above. I believe that it is very important to our process and our current focus that we maintain current running totals for each of the VA/E sublists, especially when we are discussing the addition of new topics. I believe that we are still well over 300 topics beyond the VA/E list's permitted total of 10,000 articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Can we get the current total and sublist numbers in the two tables updated, please? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion mark-up
I suggest that instead of using level 4 headers for Discussion sections lets use a semi-colon. When you add a comment to a Discussion section set-off with headers it brings you back to the first Discussion on the page and since this page is already a bit much to handle this would help to improve the ease of !voting. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

At first I didn't have a clue what you meant. But now see what you mean. will someone be bothered to change them all, or just wait for them to phase out. I only used the other method as everyone else was. I bet half the users won't even see this and do it the old way anyway. I would probably use this then so it stands out:


 * Discussion

Carlwev (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the Discussion mark-up.--V3n0M93 (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Snail's pace
FWIW, if my math is correct, then it would seem that this list is only about 21 articles less than it was when I last counted several months ago. We are currently reducing the overall size of the list by less than 2 articles per week. At this rate we will achieve our goal of 10,000 entries in about 3 years. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * An accurate count on May 31, 2013 revealed there were actually 10,413 articles on the VA/E list (the previous count of approximately 10,300 +/- was wrong). As of July 2, 2013, there are 10,297 topics on the VA/E list.  We have deleted a net of 116 articles (including offsetting new adds and swaps) in the past 60 days or so.  That means we're deleting a net of 55 to 60 articles per month.  I think that represents admirable progress, especially in light of our considered discussion process; IMO, those changes represent improvements to the VA/E list.  The current system is working, but we need to stay focused on prioritization, i.e., removing less "vital" topics, and swapping some less vital articles for more vital ones.  Every stand-alone new addition, without an offsetting removal, means we are not prioritizing, which is the primary purpose of this list and our current exercise.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
 * Okay, great. Thanks for the clarification DL1 and sorry for the inaccurate count (there is a lot of room for error when counting 10,000+ entries). Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FTR, I misspoke. I've never counted the VA/E list (10,000), I counted the VA3 list (1,000). GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)