Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 17

Comedian-Actor overlap, and comparison
We need some comedians and comedy actors obviously. But I see some odd things occurring. A large proportion of the Comedian list are people primarily known for acting, whom are also comedians, but would not be anywhere near as well known as they are, if they were not actors. Some have acted a little, some have acted loads. In this light if a person who has been in comedy movies/TV is listed in the comedian list instead of actors they appear to have a lot better chance at staying with lower credentials/impact/talent than people in the actor list. (Over half the comedians also have a huge overlap into actors, Billy Crystal, Chevy Chase, Eddie Murphy, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Martin, Lucille Ball, Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Robin Williams, John Belushi, Jerry Seinfeld, Woody Allen and maybe more have all acted in movies, and/or TV some a little some a lot). If Billy Crystal, primarily an actor, was listed in actors, he would be compared to Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne and would be removed very quickly. Whoopi Goldberg owes a lot of her notability to acting roles. If she were listed among actresses she would be compared to Hepburn and others and wouldn't last long. We are voting on removing Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts but they probably are more notable than Goldberg, but Goldberg has more chance at staying as she's under comedians, not actresses. This is difficult I know, some comedians are primarily comedians some are half comedians half actor, some are really just actors who do comedy films, we aren't listing Action movie stars in there own list, or Western cowboy actors, or Romance actresses in a separate list, so why comedy actors. Bottom line I think many of the comedians are in fact just actors and are even lower notability than actors we are now voting on for removal. Thoughts any one? Carlwev (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with your points, and this probably means there are too many comedians. In your list above, Woody Allen is the only obvious keep I can see if compared with actors/directors (Allen should maybe be in with the directors). --Rsm77 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of topic area: U.S. presidents

 * In general I think US presidents are important, even so when say compared to many journalists, ice hockey players or jockeys. But to say we should have every US president even the least notable as they have been the head of state for over 250'000 people may be awkward territory. They change every 4-8 years, other leaders may be much longer, like Elizabeth II and Victoria over 60 years rule. Head of state of over 250'000 people? Well china and India each have over 4 times USA's population. So by that logic we should have all their leaders too right? Need to look at their impact on their country, the world, on history and policies. Comments from other users suggest some leaders are kind of regarded as caretakers, that looked after things OK, for 4 or 8 years, didn't mess up, didn't change a lot, then left. Carlwev (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily argue with your point about China and India. In any case, I think being even just a caretaker over hundreds of millions of people is very significant in itself; certainly one of the top 2000+ people. Besides, I'm not sure that Carter looked after things OK. Ypnypn (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Ypnypn, for the record, we've already deleted removed Grover Cleveland and George H.W. Bush from the VA/E list, and moved U.S. Grant to the military leaders subsection. The only common thread we could find among the U.S. presidents listed was they were all two-termers, which is a pretty shallow measure of historical significance.  I see no reason why Adams II, van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson I, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison II, McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, ford, Carter or Bush I should be included.  I would bet 90% of the current discussion participants could not provide the first name of the foregoing, let alone name a single major accomplishment of their administrations.  Viewed through the retrospective lens of the last 2,000 years of history, not every U.S. president, UK prime minister or monarch, Chinese emperor, Russian czar or president or Soviet chairman, Roman or Byzantine emperor, French king or president, etc. is a major historical figure.  We currently have 21 of 44 U.S. presidents listed, and that is arguably disproportionate any way you slice it.  By the same token we could list most Roman emperor, UK monarchs and prime ministers, Russian czars, etc., and if we did so on an even-handed basis, the persons sublist would double in size.  Even allowing for a certain disproportionate influence of the United States over the last 100 years, we still must prioritize and make choices.  Sure, he was the president and a heck of a nice guy, but do we really want Gerry Ford on this list?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also note the following:
 * The U.S. having 250, 300 million people is a relatively new development. There were 3 million when the Revolution was fought; 32 million at the time of the American Civil War
 * Until the Spanish-American War, the United States was a relative non-entity in foreign policy
 * Until the early 20th century (thanks to the actions of FDR, Teddy and Wilson), there was no such thing as the "Imperial Presidency". Presidents really didn't do that much.  Heck, the government really didn't do that much: we didn't have either the Military Industrial Complex or the safety net.  As such, all of the Gilded Age presidents are out (Grant is in as a general only); so are all the presidents between Jackson and Lincoln save Polk.
 * In addition, we have people who died in office (Garfield, W.H. Harrison) and VPs who finished off terms (Ford) who really didn't do much of anything
 * As such, I think we should cut the presidents down to 18, plus Franklin and Hamilton. Monroe would probably be my most likely target for cutting at this stage.  And, FWIW, I can give you the first names of those forgettable presidents, as well as their running mates and the men who both Prez and VP defeated.  I can't give you legislative achievements for all of them, because, frankly, many of them had none  p  b  p  23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None of your four points relate to Ford Carter . You're right that Harrison (and a few others) doesn't belong, but most of the presidents do. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, #3 mentions Ford by name. There are also some arguments to be made that pertain to Ford and only Ford, such as being the only President who was never elected Prez or VP.  p  b  p  04:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant Carter; corrected. - Ypnypn (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * However you try and argue the point, there's still waaaaay too many US presidents on the list. This is supposed to be a global resource, not US-Wiki and a stack of these should be cut from the list to ensure both a global and historic balance (there's also more than a touch of Recentism mixed in here). At the end of the day, are you really telling me that Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford are two of the 10,000 most important things to have happened on the planet? There are far more important things, and indeed people, than those two. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove George W. Bush, Add Henry Clay
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Dubya's term was too recent for us to assess properly. Cobblet (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose - In a word, vital. Jus  da  fax   11:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bias, liberal or conservative, doesn't belong in Wikipedia and that's what appears to be at play here. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The Bush article gets far more views . AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In his place, I'm advocating the Whig legislative leader Henry Clay. The Whigs and National Republicans are as of yet unrepresented on this list. Clay was behind nearly every important legislative effort between 1812 and 1850, most notably the American System, the Missouri Compromise, the Corrupt Bargain and the Compromise of 1850. Clay is #31 on the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Most Influential Americans, Bush is unranked p  b  p  15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * George W. Bush is a) too recent, and b) didn't really make any positive contributions to American or world society.
 * Including Bush is the essence of "recentism" on the list. We are trying to cut another 100 or so individual persons from the overall VA/E list.  Virtually everyone agrees that the political leaders and pop culture figures are disproportionately American, even allowing for America's outsize roles in 20th Century world political affairs, economics and pop culture.  Adding Clay and removing Bush
 * I resent Joe from Rand B's assertion that this is biased. There are a lot of reasons other than Dubya's incompetence that he shouldn't be on this list, and Henry Clay is a very important figure in American history.  This also doesn't alter the makeup of the list ideologically, as neither Dubya nor Clay were Democrats  p  b  p  14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An unbiased person wouldn't be arguing "reasons other than incompetence". An unbiased person wouldn't mention incompetence or would say "incompetence, or lack thereof, has no bearing on my proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Unbiased observers all over the world know that Dubya was incompetent. It's only biased observers. both Democrat and Republican, inside the US who get hung up over that reality. And it's his incompetence that makes him notable enough for this listing. I hope nobody wants him removed to hide that fact from the world. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that comment. Your soapboxing makes me feel much stronger about my position. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm glad you haven't voted because wanting him in because of bias- pro or con- is every bit as reprehensible as wanting him out for similar reasons. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I expected, an American has failed to understand my point. They are hung up on the view that to support or oppose a President involves being a supporter or opponent of the party he's from. My point is that THAT is a biased position. To see this objectively one is better off being a non-American, as I am, and not part of American party politics. There are many surveys taken outside America showing that Dubya made the US a laughing stock. (Apart from the fact that he went to war with people he didn't like, That wasn't funny.) It's not a biased or POV position for me to say so. It's a fact. Bush IS notable, explicitly because he made a mess of things. That's not a party political statement. Can Americans understand that? Oh, and I decided months ago to not vote in this nonsensical process. But some of the nonsense just MUST be highlighted for what it is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim that Bush made a mess of things is your opinion and is biased. Furthermore, I trust that the purpose of this page is not to engage in a discussion of the merits of various politicians. AutomaticStrikeout ? 13:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the purpose of this page. And to attempt to use this page for such purposes is...wait for it...SOAPBOXING. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Joe, you've gotta stop these spurious accusations of bias and soapboxing. They're inaccurate, not germane, and uncivil.  All I've heard out of you are these spurious accusations; I've heard nothing as to the merits of George W. Bush being on this list or Henry Clay not being on it  p  b  p  15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I can understand your argument, but I personally don't believe that this list should do in the direction of having a great many notorious but incompetent/ignominous people, which is what you appear to be arguing for. I've said the same thing of Bloody Mary, Mary Queen of Scots, Charles I and Caligula.  When you couple Bush's ignominity with his recentism and the notability of Henry Clay, it seems like an open-and-shut case for Clay, who I will again point out is of the same political persuasion as Bush  p  b  p  15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "*George W. Bush ... didn't really make any positive contributions to American or world society." That's what you said, PBP. You also state above that Bush is incompetent. If you're going to make such remarks, then any claim that you are biased in not spurious. AutomaticStrikeout ?  18:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that only a biased person would say that, and what unbiased people believe is the opposite? We'll set that aside (although I am reasonably certain that that is the mainstream worldwide view), because one or two other points you and Joe make really really trouble me.  This list is about making judgment calls, and if people make judgment calls on a particular topic, they shouldn't be chastised for doing so (i.e. be accused of bias or soapboxing).  Likewise, an argument that is simply a chastisement of another editor (which is what Joe's oppose vote above is, and nothing more) is unproductive and shouldn't carry much weight, just as it wouldn't in an AfD or RfA.  Another thing is you and Joe posing the question as to whether this page is about discussing the merits of politicians, to which the answer is, "yes it is!", because we a) have to compare politicians' merits to each other (and this discussion is supposed to be about comparing the merits of George Bush and Henry Clay), and b) compare them to a hypothetical minimum standard of what is important enough to be on this list.  And it works the same way for any other topic.  Also, I must ask, why is everybody talking about Bush?  There is another guy in this discussion, and why is nobody except me commenting on his merits  p  b  p  19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are we all commenting on Bush? Probably in part because you asserted that he "didn't really make any positive contributions to American or world society." By making that statement, you opened up a huge Pandora's box here. If you want to say that including Bush is recentism, fine. I don't agree, but I can see why you might say that. However, since you want to discuss Clay's merits, let's ask this question: Does Clay's article get more hits than Bush's? No, and it isn't even close . AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...And that's relevant why? Lady Gaga gets more hits than either of them.  How hit an article is is hardly a measure of what a person contributed to society.  Bush didn't negotiate the Missouri Compromise, a fact that is not in dispute.  And recentism was always part of the equation; my nominating rationale always included both recentism and incompetence  p  b  p  19:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Jimmy Carter, add Eleanor Roosevelt

 * Support votes
 * 1) As nom  p  b  p  00:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes
 * 1) Oppose - Carter is vital in my book. Jus  da  fax   11:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. He continues to be a thought leader and to offer moral leadership. Eleanor Roosevelt is worthy, but not at the expense of Carter. Binksternet (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per Binksternet. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - support removal, oppose addition. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

While he's had a successful postpresidency, Carter's presidency was rather ineffectual. Meanwhile, there are no American First Ladies, actually no American female political leaders of any stripe. To remedy this, I propose First Lady and UN Delegate Eleanor Roosevelt. Roosevelt was #42 on The Atlantic's 100 Most Influential Americans, Carter was unranked. p b  p  00:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Discussion: Indigenous American leaders
A year and a half ago, the bios list had six indigenous political leaders (Atahualpa, Huayna Capac, Moctezuma II, Sitting Bull, Tupac Amaru and Tupac Amaru II). Since then, seven more have been added (Black Hawk, Eight Deer Jaguar Claw, Metacomet, Pachacuti, Popé, Tecumseh and Spearthrower Owl. I question the addition of some of the second batch, particularly Black Hawk and Jaguar Claw.  Does anyone else?  Anybody think ten would be a more appropriate number?  p  b  p  01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I need to look into this in more detail. Many of the articles you listed are stubs, are not present in many languages and do not at first glance look like vital articles. My instincts would say remove most of them. I think the native american tribes/peoples are more vital than most of their leaders. Articles like Cherokee, Souix and Apache would probably be covered by an encyclopedia before most of the leaders you listed. In fact we don't even have Indigenous peoples of the Americas, pretty vital article to leave out, when we're presently including stubs like Spearthrower Owl. I recon a few swaps plus a few lone removals are in order here. Carlwev (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Native America accounts for the history of two continents and its people during most of recorded history. The fact that this area of history is not widely known does not mean that it should not have a reasonable degree of representation relative to the geographic area and historical span. The idea of having a list of vital articles is not just descriptive, i.e. based on what topics have articles in most encyclopedias, but prescriptive, i.e. a suggestion for which topics should have articles in most encyclopedias. If a goal of an encyclopedia is to provide a set of knowledge that is globally representative then we must work to increase the representation of traditionally underrepresented topics and areas. That is what I am working for with my participation here, which I see as a part of countering the systemic bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused as to how this jibes with your feelings on Polk, because you seem to be using a similar rationale for including these Native Americans (i.e. not well known, but important) as I am for including Polk at the expense of JFL. Maybe it does jibe, but I'm just not seeing it.  p  b  p  19:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right that if I were required to be consistent I would have to go with removing either Polk or JFK but not both. But I am not under such a requirement. We don't have a stable criterion for whether to prioritize being well known in the general public or being historically influential and important. My priority is to remove some US presidents because they are extremely overrepresented as US related topics are in general. That is why I support both with contradictory rationales. I also prioritize including underrepresented related topics (such as indigenous leaders) that fit either of the criteria of well-known or ifluential for the same reason. I see plenty of other people here using the ambiguity of the inclusion criterion to consistently include Americans if either of the rationales apply (including Baez because she's well known and Les Paul because he was an influential inventor lets say, while excluding non-US topics with for the same reasons "not well known only influential (Buffy Sainte-Marie)" or "just very well known but not influential" (Shakira)), and I don't feel bad about using the same strategy to increase the diversity and decrese the parochialism of this list. If we wanted to avoid this kind of strategic voting we should 1. not vote but present arguments. 2. have an established standard. or 3. let the wikiprojects decide. and 4. decide on closed quotas for each subsection of the list to make sure there is a reasonable balance between different subtopics and then alot slots for anglophone vs. global interest articles within each subsection to ameliorate the extensive systemic bias in favor of US interests. As the system works now I have no reason to vote differently than what I am doing, I am just playing the game.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove King Porus, Semiramis, Add Darius I, Xerxes I
Darius and Xerxes are tremendously important in history. Porus is less important as an opponent of Alexander than Darius III, who is himself clearly less important than these predecessors. Semiramis is a semi-legendary figure; certainly, if we're not going to include the actually important Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian rulers, there is no reason to include her.


 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support, a nominator. john k (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, I've added two proposals for Assyrian and Akkadian rulers. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support p  b  p  14:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Antoninus Pius, Add Caligula
Caligula is a must have. Of all the Roman leaders on the list, Antoninus Pius seems the least vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This is a no-brainer. john k (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, and also add Hadrian. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose see below  p  b  p  23:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Yes, Caligula is well-heard of...and completely ineffectual. We're removing one of the "Five Good Emperors" for a (and I have no shame in saying this) pervert.  I am also concerned that the early days of the Empire (first three, four of the first five emperors, and that's not counting Julius; if Caligula is added, we'll have five guys from less than 100 years of Roman history) would be over-represented, and the age of the Five Good Emperors is under-represented.  For example, we don't have Hadrian.  I consider Hadrian to be a more important emperor than Caligula.  Hadrian was a great builder (Panthenon, Hadrian's Wall), whereas Caligula was more of a great boffer.  Also, Caligula was only the head honcho for four years  p  b  p  23:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Hadrian is a better add, and note that we also have Nero. Cobblet (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree we should have Hadrian, but I think we should have Caligula too. As for the Nerva–Antonine dynasty, we have the article on the History list, so it isn't that underrepresented. I was thinking about adding Hadrian's Wall, but I can't think of a good swap. Any suggestions? --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hadrian is also more deserving than Antoninus, but I don't think that "actually being a good emperor" should be in any way a criterion for inclusion. Hadrian vs. Caligula is a tough choice, I think, although I'd also be narrowly inclined to go with Hadrian. How on earth did Antoninus Pius, he of what is probably quite literally the most boring reign in Roman history, get included over Hadrian in the first place? john k (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that one factor the original creators of this list considered was length of term of office p  b  p  19:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Hadrian

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. p  b  p  16:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I support adding both Hadrian and Caligula (probably Claudius deserves to be added as well). john k (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, now that Caligula has been added, I see no problem in supporting this. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Since the swap of Antoninus Pius for Caligula went through and everyone so far seems to agree that Hadrian should be on the list regardless, I changed this proposal to a straight add. Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Psamtik I, Add Ashurbanipal
We have too many Egyptian leaders and no Assyrian.


 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support, as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Absolutely. john k (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support p  b  p  23:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Necho II, Add Sargon of Akkad
We have too many Egyptian leaders.


 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support, as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. There's probably more Mesopotamian rulers who deserve inclusion (Sennacherib and Nebuchadrezzar II, most prominently). john k (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Temür Khan, Emperor Chengzong of Yuan, Add Wu Zetian
Wu Zetian is an important Chinese empress. Temur Khan doesn't seem that vital


 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support, as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Zhao Tuo, Add Emperor Wu of Han
Zhao Tuo was the founder of Nanyue, which was an independent kingdom for ~30 years but reverted to being a vassal state of the Han Dynasty before his rule ended. Emperor Wu of Han was one of China's most notable emperors, with a legacy of territorial expansion as well as social and cultural reform; probably the most significant emperor between Qin Shi Huang and Emperor Taizong of Tang, who are on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Looks like a good swap --Rsm77 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Alfred von Schlieffen, add Erich Ludendorff
Ludendorff was the most prominent German commander in World War I, and more or less ruled Germany for the last two years of the war. The Schlieffen Plan itself is important, but there's not nearly as much need for an article on Schlieffen himself as there is for Ludendorff (and probably Hindenburg, too). john k (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support !votes
 * 1) as nom john k (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove G. H. Hardy, Add Srinivasa Ramanujan
Hardy, Ramanujan's mentor, himself acknowledged that not only was Ramanujan the more gifted mathematician, but that he was one of the greatest who ever lived.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Shakira
Support !votes
 * 1) Support: I shouldn't need a rationale here. Again: the Latin music section consists of 3 people. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Too recent/non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. we can easily find latin artists of more note than shakira (though obviously not as marketed), such as possibly Juan García Esquivel, Vicente Fernández, Antônio Carlos Jobim (whoops hes in jazz), Tito Puente, Carlos Gardel, Benny Moré, Pérez Prado, Gloria Estefan.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, recentism. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Guan Hanqing, Add Heinrich Heine
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support, Guan Hanqing doesn't seem vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support john k (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Pearl S. Buck, add Raymond Chandler
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Buck is no longer highly regarded or widely read; Chandler is certainly as important as Hammett, already on the list. john k (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I'll add that whether or not one wants to add Chandler, Buck should clearly be removed. john k (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Philip Marlowe is included under Fictional characters. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, although I'd say that with a few very rare exceptions (maybe Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes), an author is almost always going to be more vital to have an encyclopedia article about than his or her fictional creation. john k (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why people have so much beef against Buck. She wrote a novel that was highly regarded in her day  p  b  p  16:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against her, but tons of people have written one novel that was highly regarded in their day. That doesn't put them among the 250 or so most important writers of all time. We just removed Sinclair Lewis, who wrote four or five novels that were highly regarded in his day (which was also more or less Buck's day), and who likewise won a Nobel Prize. He is more deserving than Buck in virtually every respect, and yet he is still gone, and probably rightly so. Writers who wrote one novel that is highly regarded now generally aren't on the list: how can Buck deserve to be on this list more than Harper Lee or Joseph Heller or William Golding, each of whom wrote a major novel that is today much more widely read than The Good Earth? If we're keeping the writers section roughly the same size, Buck clearly has to go. john k (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Just as a bit of an aside, William Golding has a lot more going for him than just Lord of the Flies. Novels like The Inheritors, Pincher Martin, and The Spire are well-regarded and it could be argued that he has a stronger case to be on the list than contemporaries like Kingsley Amis and Anthony Burgess. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove John Grisham, add Wallace Stevens
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Stevens is one of the most important American poets of the 20th century. Grisham is a popular novelist, but no more important than numerous other popular novelists not included on this list. john k (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Per nom. Nice suggestion! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - Per nom. Someone could argue that Stevens wouldnt make the final list, but he is definitely more important than grisham.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Mario Puzo, add Edith Wharton
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) What applies to Grisham applies even more strongly to Puzo, in that he's basically famous for writing one novel, that itself is mostly famous because a very good movie was made of it. Wharton was probably the most important American novelist of the first two decades of the twentieth century. john k (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose john k, while you're right about Wharton, you couldn't be more wrong about Puzo. I'm not going to list his myriad works and accolades here, but suffice it to say that "famous for writing one novel because a good movie was made about it" is utterly preposterous. Wharton certainly belongs, but not at the expense of Puzo. Bad idea for a swap. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I'd be interested to here from Joefromrandb what Puzo's other supposed accomplishments are. Virtually everything I've read about The Godfather says "the movie is way better than the book, which isn't all that well-written." None of his other novels is particularly well known at all. I suppose he was a screenwriter for some well known movies, but none of this is enough to make his inclusion "vital". He's one of several dozen popular novelists who've sold a lot of books without attracting any particular claim to literary importance. Why Puzo and not Allen Drury or James A. Michener or Ira Levin or Leon Uris or James Clavell or Herman Wouk or William Peter Blatty or James Jones or Irving Stone? Do you think all of those people should be vital? What makes Puzo more vital than them? john k (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Virtually everything I've read about The Godfather says the book isn't well-written"? I'd love to see what it is that you have read. Puzo was largely responsible for creating a genre of literary fiction. His famous works include The Sicilian, The Last Don, and The Fourth K. With the exception of Omerta, most of his works have received critical acclaim. In addition, he is a two-time Academy Award winner who had no small part in creating the movie you like so much. As to your putting words in my mouth with false analogies ("why is Puzo more vital than Michener, Uris, et.al."), I never said any such fucking thing and you know goddamned well I didn't. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be civil, User:Joefromrandb. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to worry about yourself and not stick your nose into a discussion unless you have something to add to it. Attempting to insist I respond to incivility with civility is not going to bode well. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant that Puzo certainly isn't known as a prose stylist. He's a good writer in the sense that J. K. Rowling is a good writer, and not in the sense that William Faulkner or John Updike is a good writer. I don't think The Last Don or The Sicilian is significant enough to make much of a case for inclusion. As to my false analogy, I named a number of peers of Puzo who are not included in this list. Given that none of those other writers on the list, it seem to me that if you want Puzo included, you either need to make a case that Puzo is more "vital" than they are (that is, that he is more deserving of being included), or to alternately argue that all of those writers (or some of them, at least) deserve to be listed as well. john k (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of them do deserve to be listed. Michener is a no-brainer; a good case could be made for Uris and Wouk. I was addressing the proposal as it was written. Comparing Puzo to J.K. Rowling is just silly. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Eugenio Montale, add Stendhal
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) A well-regarded mid-20th century lyric poet in a language that is not English is almost certainly less vital for an English language encyclopedia than Stendhal, whose two major novels are widely read in translation. john k (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Discussion about topic: Popes
Where should popes actually be listed anyway? I want to bring this up, and I'll do it here as people are talking about popes here already. We have several popes listed and as far as I can see they are listed in at least 4 separate places. They are split between Religious people under Eastern Christianity, and also Western Christianity/Catholic Church, and also in Politicians and leaders under, Medieval European leaders, and Early modern European leaders. I know it's not an easy thing to fix as popes in some form have been around for 2000 years of history and had varying levels of power, been in different places, mostly Rome, and Christianity itself has evolved over the time period that popes have been around. It seems normal at the moment to split leaders of one nation into time periods before country, as in all the medieval leaders are together, Monarchs of England are not all together, some are medieval, some are early modern, and some modern. So popes would follow if they were in leaders. But should popes be split between leaders and religious figures? When looking at the case for pope Francis, I wanted to look at which popes were already included, and which one weren't, and it took me a while to actually find them all, I had to use the "Edit, find in this page" function of my browser and search for the word "pope" to be sure I found them all. I know the lists quite well by now, I feel if I had to use that function to find all the popes, they cannot be listed that well. What do people think? Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, could we get a list of all popes on here and which sections they're in? Secondly, the nature of the office is both religious (head of the Roman Catholic Church) and political (ruler of the Papal States, which used to include a lot more than the Vatican)  p  b  p  22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK it's a bit long winded but I tried some creative cut and pasting to show how popes are distributed the best I can see below, is where all popes can be found as I can see it. (What makes things worse to search is people considered to be early popes like saint Peter don't have pope in their name, making them harder to search for using the word pope in ones browser.) Carlwev (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Religious figures, Abrahamic religions
 * Christianity
 * Saint Peter (r. ca. 29-67)


 * Eastern Christianity, Orthodox Church
 * Athanasius of Alexandria kind of a pope?
 * Cyril of Alexandria kind of a pope?


 * Western Christianity, Catholic Church
 * Popes
 * Pope Gregory I (r. 590-604)
 * Pope John Paul II (r. 1978-2005)
 * Pope Leo I (r. 440-461)
 * Pope Paul VI (r. 1963-1978)
 * Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878)


 * Politicians and leader, Middle Ages, Europe
 * Southern Europe
 * Papal states
 * Pope Alexander VI (r. 1492-1503)
 * Pope Boniface VIII (r. 1294-1303)
 * Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085)
 * Pope Innocent III (r. 1198-1216)


 * Politicians and leaders, Early modern period, Europe
 * Southern Europe, 3
 * Italia and Papal States
 * Pope Julius II (r. 1503-1513)
 * Pope Clement VII (r. 1523-1534)

Religious figures needs to be balanced
There are currently 18 entries representing Hinduism (13.26% globally) and 17 entries representing Buddhism (5.84% globally). I would suggest a few Buddhist entries for removal if I knew more about the topic. I think about 5-7 should be cut from Buddhism, but I don't know which. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  23:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:GabeMc, and everyone else too. I believe every religion should have it's most vital topics, and there should be some balance loosely based on how big the religion is. (Eg probably more topics for Chistian Muslim Hindu, a bit less for Jainism, Bahá'í Faith, etc) say the 40?? most vital topics for Christianity and the same for Hinduism perhaps, However If I remember rightly from school, Hinduism is so old it has no founder, none that we of any way, and there aren't really Hindu prophets or popes either. So where vital christian/Jewish topics might be Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Mary. Hinduism may have some people but maybe less and more other topics like Brahma, Shiva, Nirvana and Reincarnation. We may end up with the same number of topics for each major religion, but some may have more people and less concepts. Others more concepts less people. I might be wrong, but do you see my point? I'm not an expert in the field, I wouldn't want to say "we have to have 20 most vital people to Hinduism" then list 16 vital people, then have to list 4 more fairly obscure hindu people just to make the number of hindu people match the number of christian, whilst at the same time miss topics like Nirvana or Reincarnation, which I've noticed we don't have. Carlwev (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Carlwev, are you agreeing with me that Buddhism is currently overrepresented? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For my opinion, Buddhism is underrepresented. Buddhism was main religion at China, India, South Eastern Asia, Central Asia (>50% of the world). --Igrek (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For my opinion, Buddhism is underrepresented. Buddhism was main religion at China, India, South Eastern Asia, Central Asia (>50% of world population now). And I agree with User:Carlwev: "Hinduism is so old it has no founder, none that we of any way, and there aren't really Hindu prophets or popes either. So where vital christian/Jewish topics might be Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Mary. Hinduism may have some people but maybe less and more other topics like Brahma, Shiva, Nirvana and Reincarnation. We may end up with the same number of topics for each major religion, but some may have more people and less concepts. Others more concepts less people. " We have more Greek and Roman deities than Buddhist teachers. Why? --Igrek (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but the religion that's overrepresented is Judaism. At the present day only about 1 in every 400-500 people in the world are Jewish, though several centuries ago it may have been higher, but it'd have to have been fairly significant if we're judging things proportionally and whatnot.  All in all, I'm not sure this particular discussion makes as much sense as others to have in the abstract.  There are Christian people who are important that we've left off (Pope Gregory XIII of the Gregorian calendar, for example, or the early American theologian Johnathan Edwards).  By contrast, we may be scraping the bottom of the barrel in the Eastern religions.  p  b  p  04:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with pbp last few sentences above. Other comments that are confusing me, Igreks comment alludes that half the entire planet is Buddhist. Figured out from the cut and paste below, including extreme minimum and maximum estimates, Buddhism is estimated to be anywhere from 5% to 24% of present world population. Thought I'd just add that. Carlwev (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

''While Buddhism remains most popular within Asia, both branches are now found throughout the world. Estimates of Buddhists worldwide vary significantly depending on the way Buddhist adherence is defined. Conservative estimates are between 350 and 750 million. Higher estimates are between 1.2 and 1.7 billion. It is also recognized as one of the fastest growing religions in the world.''


 * " Igreks comment alludes that half the entire planet is Buddhist." ??? My words: " Buddhism was main religion at China, India, South Eastern Asia, Central Asia (>50% of world population now)." Wikipedia: "The religion evolved as it spread from the northeastern region of the Indian subcontinent through Central, East, and Southeast Asia. At one time or another, it influenced most of the Asian continent." (History of Buddhism). --Igrek (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I see you're point, I just didn't find it clear at first, but now it is, I didn't wanna sound mean. Buddhism has influenced the culture and history of the region, a region that presently contains almost half of all living humans. Kind of How Judaism has an influence far greater than the number of total present followers, which is actually not that high. Same kind of thing huh? (and yes Buddhism is obviously more followed more than Judaism in official numbers today as well anyway). Carlwev (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Am I looking at the wrong page? On the Philosophy and Religion page Buddhism has eight topics including Buddhism itself. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, religion articles were mentioned, but the main part of the thread is about religious people in biographies, not topics in the actual religion and philosophy page. see here for buddhist people Vital_articles/Expanded/People, it does stand out has having a lot of start class articles, not a science but often an indicator of un-vital articles, those icons are handy. Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry my mistake.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, with the comments above...Buddhism is severely underrepresented (as are eastern traditions in general). Even Judaism is underrepresented. I'll be glad to take a deeper look at it in the next week or so and how we can better address this area. The key question that hasn't been asked...how many articles, in your view, is enough? how many can we spare? --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove George Best
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose I withdraw this nomination. I thought there was a general feeling sports figures needed to be cut but it seems there isn't. Nominations to cut athletes playing US sports are being blocked, so I think it will make the list unbalanced if we cut too many association football players. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Rsm77. Bios are now "right-sized". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

American bias?
One-third of all rebels, revolutionaries and activists listed are Americans from the last 200 years. This is biased in a number of ways. The 15 Americans may be the wrong ones (For example, Jane Addams, Cesar Chavez and Harvey Milk ain't on there, and maybe they should be). Thoughts? I think we eventually need to get it down to 10 p  b  p  17:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that 10 articles is too few, but we do need to trim the Americans. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just reviewing the list, maybe feminism needs a bit more of a worldwide spread. Although I can only think of Anglophones as replacements, like Emmeline Pankhurst for Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Germaine Greer for Betty Friedan. I did also think of Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir who are listed elsewhere. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about Brits, one prominent omission is William Wilberforce p  b  p  01:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Fanny Blankers-Koen
Support' !votes Oppose !votes I thought about a swap for Pat Summitt but decided against it. Athletics should have more people compared with other sports (given multiple disciplines and a long history of male and female participation) but there seems little inclination to cut further. --Rsm77 (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support We've had some removals in sport so why not add the woman voted "Female Athlete of the Century" by the International Association of Athletics Federations? Athletics is a sport with a long history of high-quality female competition, but there are only two female athletes on the list at the moment. Despite not having a chance to compete in an Olympics till the age of 30 in 1948, Blankers-Koen won 4 gold medals at that Olympics. --Rsm77 (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Pat Summitt and John Wooden
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Three of the basketball representatives are most famous as coaches. I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to have coaches on this list at all, but certainly not college-level coaches. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  18:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per my discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per DL1. If Wooden isn't the greatest b-ball coach who ever lived then Summitt likely is. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Doesn't get much more vital than these two. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I had been mulling proposing this for several weeks now. I think there are too many American basketball figures on this list.  The list should be truncated to 4-5 American players, 1 coach, and maybe an international player  p  b  p  18:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not combine two or more topics for deletion at a time. Let's focus the discussion.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wooden and Summitt are arguably the two greatest coaches in the history of college basketball (if not in the history of the sport at any level). This list looks right-sized to me already.  It's time to consider giving up the quest to cut sports personalities substantially below 150 articles.  It's a pretty damn solid sublist after previous cuts (and those pending).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with DL1. Sports Personalities seems "right-sized" to me also and I don't see any need for further cuts from this section. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * College basketball has an extremely limited following outside the US. Besides, there are 9 people on the list and all of them are American. If it's a world sport, put someone in who's not American. If it's essentially a US-only sport I don't think it should have 9 people. --Rsm77 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Greg Louganis
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support: In spite of a couple of olympic gold medals (in a minor field of competition) not a vital amateur athlete.
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * "Minor field of competition"? Good grief.  Louganis is recognized as one of the two or three greatest athletes in the history of Olympic diving.  Minor sport compared to what?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Jan Železný
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Besides being triple Olympic champion, he has a world record that is far away from any mark of any other existing competitor. He holds the top 5 javelin performances of all time, and he is widely considered to be the greatest javelin thrower ever.Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete list of sports figures
From what I saw the list of athletes, it was not very well prepared. Is somewhat "Americanized" in excess. We have 9 cricketers and 9 figure skaters (sports that dozens of countries do not practice or even might not even know) and none of volleyball or handball, for example (sports widely practiced in the world). 15 people in athletics is not sufficient, we have legends like Bob Beamon, Serguey Bubka, Yelena Isinbayeva, Jan Zelezny, Javier Sotomayor and Jonathan Edwards out. I understand that two swimmers is not enough (and has no legendary female swimmer? Mary T.Meagher? Shane Gould? Kristin Otto?). 10 golfers is very much, it's a elite sport. Baseball may be the biggest sport in the U.S., but in much of the world is also little practiced, you could slightly reduce the list of 11 players. Ice Hockey is practiced only in cold countries, I think it could also be reduced from 10 to 8 or 7. In general the list leans favorite sports in the U.S. and not the most important sports in the world. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the list is also grossly bloated...there are ~170 athletes on this list, when 100 would be a better number. If you believe that baseball or hockey could/should be reduced, I'd recommend proposing some specific people who should be cut  p  b  p  05:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I really have almost no knowledge of cricket, baseball, ice hockey or figure skating, so it's hard for me to make a good indication in these cases. But it is clear disproportionality to have 9 people from cricket, 9 from figure skating, 10 from golf, 11 from baseball and 10 from ice hockey (all sports that do not have complete global coverage) and only 2 from swimming, and 0 from volleyball, handball, table tennis, beach volleyball, fencing, judo, taekwondo, weightlifting, rowing, sailing... If it is not possible to reduce some of these lists, I would say it is impossible to summarize Sports in only 100 articles. 150 or 200 would be a more realistic number. Rauzaruku (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No list is perfect our sports definitely needs a good going through, too many of one sport and none in others. Some add ideas are odd, some are OK. I'm not liking the idea of adding many more people especially to sports at this time. I don't really want to propose adds however one I thought about for a while was Sir Alex Ferguson, I was thinking about proposing a swap with Giggs or Beckham but they are both up for removal voting now anyway. I don't think Alex is hugely vital, but a lot more important than many existing names on the list such as some skaters tennis players or jockeys. It was only a mild thought though, and I'm thinking much more about possible removals anyway. Carlwev (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ferguson ranks higher than Gibbs in terms of traffic, maybe we could swap him for one of the ice hockey players. It's true what you say, Rauzaruku, ice hockey may seem terribly important if you live in the north and is probably unknown in the rest of the world. Soccer is known and popular everywhere in the world (I think), maybe we should cut elsewhere. I can't imagine eliminating Beckham because it is a name even I know. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Beckham have only name, that is the problem. At soccer we have 25, 30 legendary names that have a huge name AND won extremely important titles. So, Beckham is not a good name to the 10,000 vital articles. He is famous, but not legendary enough to this list. As I said, names like Cristiano Ronaldo, Romário, Roger Milla are more important than him. Gordon Banks, english goalkeeper, is more legendary than Beckham too. Being Brazilian, I understand about soccer, and could take 10 more big names to the list, but you are wondering how to reduce, so I will not do it. But honestly, I never include Beckham in the list of the biggest in history, he is still a level below. Rauzaruku (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're right about Beckham - particularly not in your comparison with Milla who was only known for his playing in one single tournament. Beckham was among the greatest three players in Europe in the late nineties and early 2000s. It is a shame he ruined his reputation by becoming a supermodel, but save Ronaldo and Romario none of the people you mention compare to Beckham. On the other hand we do need Michael Laudrup on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It was brought up we should have NHL, as it is more vital to hockey than any one player. The National Hockey League is listed already here under sports you're right that that probably belongs before any players. I was also considering proposals for swapping in the 4 tennis grand slams for 4 or more tennis players, not completely sure on that, haven't done it yet. Sports teams have been brought up too. A long time ago there were some sports teams in here I believe the Chicago Blackhawks was here plus another ice hockey team. If I remember correctly someone removed them on the premise that sports teams should never ever be considered vital articles no matter how good or important they are? I wasn't active here back then I only found it looking about the history archives of the project, curious as to what had been discussed before. I don't know if we should have sports teams or not? I can see it both ways, like companies, teams can exist for longer than one person's career and include numerous people's achievements not just one. One could argue Man U football team is more vital than half the listed players, or not? I have a feeling sports teams would not get enough support to get in, but I'm not saying it shouldn't be brought up, otherwise we'll never know for sure what everyone thinks. Carlwev (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think its about time to trim dancers. Many types of dance, like ballet and maybe flamenco are vital, but few actual dancers are. Who comes to mind? Nijinsky, Astaire (in actors i think), Pavlova, my wife says Baryshnikov, and scanning the list, Fonteyn, Nureyev, Duncan jump out (not literally:).


 * Ballet, 16
 * 1) Mikhail Baryshnikov Keep
 * 2) Margot Fonteyn Keep
 * 3) Vaslav Nijinsky Keep
 * 4) Rudolf Nureyev Keep
 * 5) Anna Pavlova Keep
 * 6) Marius Petipa   Remove
 * 7) Maria Tallchief Remove
 * 8) Frederick Ashton Remove
 * 9) Maurice Béjart Remove
 * 10) Michel Fokine Remove
 * 11) Galina Ulanova Remove
 * 12) Marie Taglioni Remove
 * 13) Pierina Legnani Remove
 * 14) Tamara Karsavina Remove
 * 15) Natalia Makarova Remove
 * 16) Maya Plisetskaya Remove


 * Support
 * 1) Anyone else want to join in?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support this proposal as is. Cobblet (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dancers are hideously bloated p  b  p  23:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the ballet removals, which seem sensible. I'm less certain of the moderns - leaving only Duncan seems extreme, but besides the fact that most of the names are familiar, I'm not sure which of the others ought to be kept. john k (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove 6 modern dancers

 * Modern, 8
 * 1) Alvin Ailey Remove
 * 2) Cyd Charisse Remove
 * 3) Isadora Duncan Keep
 * 4) Gregory Hines Remove
 * 5) Robert Joffrey Remove Already removed for flamenco in an archived proposal. Cobblet (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Rudolf Laban Remove
 * 7) Jerome Robbins Remove
 * 8) Twyla Tharp Remove


 * Support
 * 1) Anyone else want to join in?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support this proposal as is. Cobblet (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dancers are hideously bloated p  b  p  23:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, so long as we also add Martha Graham, who is, I think, more significant than any of the proposed removals. john k (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, no arguments have been provided for this peculiar removal spree. At least Cyd Charisse, Gregory Hines, Robert Joffrey (Joffrey's dance company had a movie made about it by Robert Altmann), Rudolf von Laban (Laban school of dance), Jerome Robbins (directed the dancing in West Side Story) should stay.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm less certain of the moderns - leaving only Duncan seems extreme, but besides the fact that most of the names are familiar, I'm not sure which of the others ought to be kept. john k (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * For modern dancers, I think Martha Graham might be worth adding in. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I Support Kljohn's and Cobblet's inclusion of Graham, after the removal of those i suggested. they are right, she is more important than them.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I split up the proposal so that discussion can continue on the modern dancers. Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Melody Lavender, it seems to me that Charisse, Hines and Robbins are more notable as actors, directors or producers than as dancers. Perhaps you could propose re-adding them through swaps in those categories? Joffrey and Laban seem less notable than people currently not on the list like Martha Graham (who we're trying to add) and Sergei Diaghilev. Cobblet (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove Davy Crockett
Support !votes Oppose !votes FWIW, the real Davy Crockett and the frontiersman/TV show Davy Crockett were completely different. This stems from an NYC caricature that began while Crockett was still alive p  b  p  17:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Not vital as explorer. Too many American frontiersmen already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw. --Igrek (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Pretty absurd to include him and not any members of the Great Triumvirate, all of whom were incredibly famous in their day and who were much more actually important to American history than Crockett. john k (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Hero for nearly two centuries. Died at the Alamo. Had own Disney TV show and millions of kids wore his hat. Crockett was and is iconic, and vital to understanding the legend of the West, for better or worse. Fremont can go and maybe Bowie as well, but for me the bright line is drawn right here. Jus  da  fax   09:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Jusdafax.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose As one of the best known American folk-heroes. Iconic. --Rsm77 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * User:John K, there is a proposal to add Henry Clay above. While I personally would be in favor adding Calhoun and Webster as well, the recency biases of some of the guys who comment here won't let that happen  p  b  p  16:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Amelia Earhart

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  20:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Supporting Earhart as well as Crockett as an American icon who is also known around the world (notably in the rest of the English-speaking world). --Rsm77 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Per my comments below.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per User:GabeMc. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. List has too many American icons already. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This list needs a female. Earhart is as good as any p  b  p  20:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I agree that we could use more females in VA, but did she actually explore anything? Seems like Sacagawea might be a better choice because she is both a non-European and non-US citizen, and she was an actual explorer, versus an aviator. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * She explored the limits of aviation, not necessarily new areas. I think she falls under a broad definition of "explorer". I think Sacagawea is a good choice also. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What "limits of aviation" did she discover? She is notable not as an explorer, but as an aviator, and other than some quite commendable feats regarding the gender-gap, I'm not aware of any particular innovations or discoveries credited to Earhart. Also, this is yet another add thread by PbP that contributes to what he calls the list's American-centric bias, and to bios no less! If we are to add another American to the explorers list, then I think that they should have actually discovered something new. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Vis-a-vis the American bias, I just this morning closed discussions removing FOUR Americans (Fremont, Carson, Boone, Glenn) from the list. Even adding Earhart, that's still a net of three.  I'm not going to comment on whether Earhart or Sacagewea is more deserving.  p  b  p  00:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My point here is quite simple; I don't think you should be regularly using the "globalization/American bias" strawman to block the proposals of others while continuing to suggest the addition of Americans. If you really think that we currently have both too many Americans and too many bios, then you shouldn't be trying to add American bios, thereby contributing to a problem that you often cite while opposing other swap/add threads or supporting other removals. Also, you recently suggested adding Alfred P. Sloan and Leland Stanford. FTR, if not for Sacagewea the Lewis and Clark expedition would be remembered as a failed attempt, not the resounding success that it was. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As with this one, I nominated Sloan and Stanford in an area where a) we had just removed some Americans, and b) we had some Americans of lesser importance to they already listed. Since you mention the Sloan and Stanford ones, the point was to couple them with removing other Americans, but no one filled in the blanks.  Historians are divided as to whether Sacagewea was a guide or an interpreter, by the by  p  b  p  03:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Add David Livingstone
Now that a little space has opened up on the list of people, it seems a good time for me to point out that explorers as a whole seem seriously shortchanged. Folks like Dr. Livingstone ought to be included, I presume?
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  23:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

=History=

Remove Germanic Wars
One half list, one half chronology. Not vital.

Support !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) 04:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Basically just a list. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Magna Graecia
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Fall of the Western Roman Empire
Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I believe we should have both Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on this list p  b  p  18:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to point out Migration Period is on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Alternative swap: Remove Decline of the Roman Empire, Add Fall of the Western Roman Empire
Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. The 'Fall' is the factual article, and covers the decline as well (100 years or so). The 'Decline' article is full of various theories about what might have caused the decline, some of them pretty weird. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Dacia, Add Dacians
Dacia covers only a part of the history of the Dacians.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dacians definitely looks like the better article. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap:Add Pechenegs ,Remove West Francia and East Francia
West Francia and East Francia are not that notable. They can be covered by Francia. Pechenegs are a notable medieval nation.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Besides Francia, Carolingian Empire also covers the East & West Francias in the aftermath section. I think that might a better choice than Carolingian dynasty. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose oppose add, support remove. Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Polish–Russian War, Add Polish–Muscovite War (1605–18)
Polish–Russian War is a list. The Polish–Muscovite War (1605–18) is also referred to as the Polish–Russian War.

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) 05:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. These obvious mistakes should be fixable without this bureaucracy being required. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Petra
Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Add Pompeii
Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support john k (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  01:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Neustria
It makes little sense to include Neustria but not Austrasia. I think Merovingian dynasty is probably sufficient for both sub-kingdoms.

Support !votes
 * 1) Support Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Add Early modern period
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support john k (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove French and Indian Wars
Page is mostly a list. Already have French and Indian War.

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 --Rsm77 (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Chernobyl disaster
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Hungarian Revolution of 1956
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:08, 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

Add Prague Spring
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:09, 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=

Remove Boxing the compass

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: subsumed by cardinal direction and compass, both of which are included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Add Elevation

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom. Third essential component of a geographic coordinate system along with latitude and longitude. Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  04:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Great circle
Support !votes Oppose !votes We need to add distance under geometry in mathematics, since that's really what this one's about. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) As nom. We already have equator.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add International Date Line
Support !votes
 * 1) As nom.  We have Prime meridian, but not the thing on the other side of the globe  p  b  p  22:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Sovereign state

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. Subsumed by/redundant with country, which is already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion

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

General discussion about topic: cities
I don't like the way the cities are listed, I would like to change the lay out but will ask opinions first. Look at the list. At the moment the loose rule is countries with many cities have their cities under their own sub header eg Poland and Ukraine. But countries with few cities are included under a region sub header eg Eastern Europe header has Athens and Budapest etc. But there are nations with only one entry, North Korea and Taiwan. Africa is split between some nations then north south east west and central, OK, then with Europe there are nations then only east west, no north, south or central Europe all recognised terms albeit overlapping? is Helsinki and Finland in Western Europe? usually northern Europe, but if it had to be east or west? they're kind of the same longitude as Poland and other nations listed as eastern Europe. Why is it Great Britain not listed as UK? all cities listed there are UK. If we listed by islands we should list it as British Isles and include Irish city of Dublin, at the moment Dublin is listed under western Europe? Hypothetically if we were to add Belfast now it would be listed with Dublin in Western Europe, as it is not on the Island of Great Britain, it would be apart from the other UK cities. I think we should have British Isles as a sub-header not Great Britain and include Dublin. I can understand listing rivers eg per region or continent as they flow through several countries, but part of me thinks we should have all cities listed under country specific sub-headers as all cities are within one nation. But then I don't think having potentially 100-200 sub-headers many with only one entry is good either. I will move Dublin as I said and rename the sub header, I believe it would be an improvement, and I believe a real atlas or Encyclopedia would have British Isles, or UK and Ireland as a section in such a list, it's not removing or adding any entries, anyone tell me if you oppose. Movies was rearranged more without discussion, I believe this to be non-controversial. What are others views on the east west Europe and other issues I spoke of? Carlwev (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the name "British Isles" is contentious. It would probably be better to put them under UK & Ireland if you want to use this area. On your other question, might it be an idea to use the United Nations geoscheme for Europe for divisions? --Rsm77 (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK you're right, crossed my mind already, but I didn't think much of it, now someone else has mentioned it I should listen to the voices. There is a chance some people may dislike British Isles. UK and Ireland is less likely to upset anyone, is more neutral, and is breaking down by country like the other sublists do, I'll alter that. Carlwev (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for 375 cities
A reduction in the number of articles for the Geography section has been proposed. I am suggesting a net cull of 51 cities from the list of 426 we currently have. The ones to be removed from the present list are:


 * Africa - Oran, Constantine, Giza, Damietta, Asyut, Aswan, Fes, Omdurman, Port Sudan, Mbuji-Mayi, Dire Dawa, Mombasa, Beira, Dodoma, Port Elizabeth, Zaria


 * Americas - Mexicali, Merida, Acapulco, Veracruz, Charlotte, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Portland, San Antonio, Cordoba, Rosario, Belem, Goiania, Natal, Santos, Sao Luis, Vitoria, Valparaiso, Barranquilla, Cartagena, Arequipa, Cusco, Maracaibo, Valencia


 * Asia - Dongguan, Guiyang, Hefei, Nanchang, Nanning, Shijiazhuang, Yinchuan, Daejeon, Gwangju, Khulna, Sylhet, Allahabad, Aurangabad, Bhubaneswar, Guwahati, Gwalior, Jabalpur, Madurai, Mysore, Raipur, Ranchi, Srinagar, Padang, Samarinda, Johor Bahru, Quezon City, Kandahar, Herat, Ahvaz, Qom, Kermanshah, Gaziantep, Konya, Antalya, Eskisehir, Aden


 * Europe - Poznan, Gdansk, Wroclaw, Dnipropetrovsk, Perm, Vladivostok, Sochi, Monte Carlo, Hanover, Nuremberg


 * Oceania - Perth

And the ones I'm suggesting to add are:


 * Africa - Bujumbura, Bissau, Nouakchott, Bangui, Juba, Windhoek, Libreville, Gaborone


 * Americas - Kingston (Jamaica)


 * Asia - Kaifeng, Luoyang, Suzhou, Macau, Ashgabat, Bishkek, Nagasaki, Kaohsiung, Yogyakarta, Denpasar, George Town, Angeles, Huế, Abu Dhabi, Gaza, Medina, Doha, Manama, Kuwait City


 * Europe - Riga, Skopje, Chisinau, Tirana, Zurich, Lodz, Lille, Dortmund


 * Oceania - Canberra

The result of these cuts and adds is the following list.

Proposed list of cities

 * Africa, 60
 * Nigeria, 8
 * 1) Lagos
 * 2) Kano
 * 3) Ibadan
 * 4) Abuja
 * 5) Kaduna
 * 6) Benin City
 * 7) Port Harcourt
 * 8) Maiduguri
 * South Africa, 4
 * 1) Johannesburg
 * 2) Cape Town
 * 3) Durban
 * 4) Pretoria
 * Egypt, 3
 * 1) Cairo
 * 2) Alexandria
 * 3) Luxor
 * Morocco, 3
 * 1) Rabat
 * 2) Casablanca
 * 3) Marrakesh
 * Dem. Rep. of the Congo, 2
 * 1) Kinshasa
 * 2) Lubumbashi
 * Cameroon, 2
 * 1) Douala
 * 2) Yaounde
 * Ghana, 2
 * 1) Accra
 * 2) Kumasi
 * Other countries, 1 each
 * 1) Algiers
 * 2) Tunis
 * 3) Tripoli
 * 4) Khartoum
 * 5) Brazzaville
 * 6) Luanda
 * 7) N'Djamena
 * 8) Antananarivo
 * 9) Asmara
 * 10) Harare
 * 11) Kampala
 * 12) Kigali
 * 13) Lilongwe
 * 14) Lusaka
 * 15) Mogadishu
 * 16) Bujumbura
 * 17) Addis Ababa
 * 18) Nairobi
 * 19) Maputo
 * 20) Dar Es Salaam
 * 21) Abidjan
 * 22) Dakar
 * 23) Bamako
 * 24) Ouagadougou
 * 25) Conakry
 * 26) Freetown
 * 27) Cotonou
 * 28) Monrovia
 * 29) Niamey
 * 30) Nouakchott
 * 31) Bissau
 * 32) Bangui
 * 33) Juba
 * 34) Windhoek
 * 35) Libreville
 * 36) Gaborone
 * Americas, 67
 * USA, 21
 * 1) Atlanta
 * 2) Boston
 * 3) Chicago
 * 4) Cleveland
 * 5) Dallas
 * 6) Denver
 * 7) Detroit
 * 8) Houston
 * 9) Las Vegas
 * 10) Los Angeles
 * 11) Miami
 * 12) Minneapolis
 * 13) New York City
 * 14) Philadelphia
 * 15) Phoenix
 * 16) San Diego
 * 17) San Francisco
 * 18) San Jose, California
 * 19) Seattle
 * 20) St. Louis
 * 21) Washington
 * Mexico, 7
 * 1) Mexico City
 * 2) Guadalajara
 * 3) Monterrey
 * 4) Puebla
 * 5) Tijuana
 * 6) Ciudad Juarez
 * 7) Leon
 * Canada, 4
 * 1) Toronto
 * 2) Montreal
 * 3) Vancouver
 * 4) Ottawa
 * Brazil, 11
 * 1) Belo Horizonte
 * 2) Brasilia
 * 3) Campinas
 * 4) Curitiba
 * 5) Fortaleza
 * 6) Manaus
 * 7) Porto Alegre
 * 8) Recife
 * 9) Rio de Janeiro
 * 10) Salvador
 * 11) Sao Paulo
 * Colombia, 3
 * 1) Bogota
 * 2) Medellin
 * 3) Cali
 * Bolivia, 2
 * 1) La Paz
 * 2) Santa Cruz
 * Ecuador, 2
 * 1) Guayaquil
 * 2) Quito
 * Other countries, 1 each
 * 1) Asuncion
 * 2) Buenos Aires
 * 3) Montevideo
 * 4) Santiago
 * 5) Lima
 * 6) Caracas
 * 7) Havana
 * 8) Santo Domingo
 * 9) Port-Au-Prince
 * 10) San Juan
 * 11) Kingston, Jamaica
 * 12) Guatemala City
 * 13) San Salvador
 * 14) Tegucigalpa
 * 15) Managua
 * 16) San Jose, Costa Rica
 * 17) Panama City
 * Asia, 155
 * China, 30
 * 1) Beijing
 * 2) Changchun
 * 3) Changsha
 * 4) Chengdu
 * 5) Chongqing
 * 6) Dalian
 * 7) Fuzhou
 * 8) Guangzhou
 * 9) Hangzhou
 * 10) Harbin
 * 11) Hong Kong
 * 12) Jinan
 * 13) Kaifeng
 * 14) Kunming
 * 15) Lanzhou
 * 16) Lhasa
 * 17) Luoyang
 * 18) Macau
 * 19) Nanjing
 * 20) Qingdao
 * 21) Shanghai
 * 22) Shantou
 * 23) Shenyang
 * 24) Shenzhen
 * 25) Suzhou
 * 26) Taiyuan
 * 27) Tianjin
 * 28) Ürümqi
 * 29) Wuhan
 * 30) Xi'an
 * 31) Zhengzhou
 * India, 27
 * 1) Agra
 * 2) Ahmedabad
 * 3) Amritsar
 * 4) Bangalore
 * 5) Bhopal
 * 6) Chandigarh
 * 7) Chennai
 * 8) Coimbatore
 * 9) Delhi
 * 10) Hyderabad, India
 * 11) Indore
 * 12) Jaipur
 * 13) Jodhpur
 * 14) Kanpur
 * 15) Kolkata
 * 16) Lucknow
 * 17) Ludhiana
 * 18) Mumbai
 * 19) Nagpur
 * 20) New Delhi
 * 21) Patna
 * 22) Pune
 * 23) Surat
 * 24) Thiruvananthapuram
 * 25) Vadodara
 * 26) Varanasi
 * 27) Visakhapatnam
 * Japan, 11
 * 1) Tokyo
 * 2) Osaka
 * 3) Nagoya
 * 4) Yokohama
 * 5) Sapporo
 * 6) Kōbe
 * 7) Kyōto
 * 8) Fukuoka
 * 9) Hiroshima
 * 10) Kitakyushu
 * 11) Nagasaki
 * Indonesia, 10
 * 1) Jakarta
 * 2) Bandung
 * 3) Surabaya
 * 4) Medan
 * 5) Palembang
 * 6) Makassar
 * 7) Semarang
 * 8) Malang
 * 9) Denpasar
 * 10) Yogyakarta
 * Pakistan, 9
 * 1)  Karachi
 * 2)  Lahore
 * 3)  Faisalabad
 * 4)  Rawalpindi
 * 5)  Multan
 * 6)  Hyderabad, Sindh
 * 7)  Gujranwala
 * 8)  Peshawar
 * 9)  Islamabad
 * Iran, 5
 * 1)  Tehran
 * 2)  Mashhad
 * 3)  Isfahan
 * 4)  Tabriz
 * 5)  Shiraz
 * Turkey, 5
 * 1)  Istanbul
 * 2)  Ankara
 * 3)  Izmir
 * 4)  Bursa
 * 5)  Adana
 * South Korea, 4
 * 1)  Seoul
 * 2)  Busan
 * 3)  Incheon
 * 4)  Daegu
 * Philippines, 4
 * 1)  Manila
 * 2)  Angeles
 * 3)  Cebu City
 * 4)  Davao City
 * Saudi Arabia, 4
 * 1)  Mecca
 * 2)  Riyadh
 * 3)  Jeddah
 * 4) Medina
 * Iraq, 3
 * 1)  Baghdad
 * 2)  Basra
 * 3)  Mosul
 * Vietnam, 3
 * 1)  Ho Chi Minh City
 * 2)  Hanoi
 * 3) Huế
 * Bangladesh, 2
 * 1)  Dhaka
 * 2)  Chittagong
 * Burma, 2
 * 1)  Yangon
 * 2)  Mandalay
 * Israel, 2
 * 1)  Jerusalem
 * 2)  Tel Aviv
 * Kazakhstan, 2
 * 1)  Almaty
 * 2)  Astana
 * Malaysia, 2
 * 1)  Kuala Lumpur
 * 2)  George Town
 * Syria, 2
 * 1)  Damascus
 * 2)  Aleppo
 * Taiwan, 2
 * 1)  Taipei
 * 2) Kaohsiung
 * Thailand, 2
 * 1)  Bangkok
 * 2)  Chiang Mai
 * United Arab Emirates, 2
 * 1) Dubai
 * 2) Abu Dhabi
 * Uzbekistan, 2
 * 1)  Tashkent
 * 2)  Samarkand
 * All other countries, 1 each
 * 1)  Dushanbe
 * 2) Bishkek
 * 3) Ashgabat
 * 4) Pyongyang
 * 5) Colombo
 * 6) Kathmandu
 * 7) Phnom Penh
 * 8) Vientiane
 * 9)  Amman
 * 10)  Baku
 * 11)  Beirut
 * 12) Doha
 * 13) Gaza
 * 14) Kabul
 * 15) Kuwait City
 * 16) Manama
 * 17)  Muscat
 * 18) Sana'a
 * 19)  Tbilisi
 * 20)  Yerevan
 * Europe, 86
 * Russia, 12
 * 1)  Moscow
 * 2)  Saint Petersburg
 * 3)  Novosibirsk
 * 4)  Nizhny Novgorod
 * 5)  Yekaterinburg
 * 6)  Samara
 * 7)  Omsk
 * 8)  Kazan
 * 9)  Chelyabinsk
 * 10)  Rostov-on-Don
 * 11)  Ufa
 * 12)  Volgograd
 * Germany, 9
 * 1)  Berlin
 * 2)  Hamburg
 * 3)  Munich
 * 4)  Cologne
 * 5)  Frankfurt
 * 6)  Stuttgart
 * 7)  Düsseldorf
 * 8)  Dortmund
 * 9)  Dresden
 * United Kingdom, 8
 * 1)  London
 * 2)  Birmingham
 * 3)  Glasgow
 * 4)  Edinburgh
 * 5)  Liverpool
 * 6)  Manchester
 * 7)  Leeds
 * 8)  Cardiff
 * France, 8
 * 1)  Paris
 * 2)  Marseille
 * 3)  Lyon
 * 4)  Toulouse
 * 5)  Nice
 * 6)  Bordeaux
 * 7)  Strasbourg
 * 8) Lille
 * Italy, 8
 * 1)  Rome
 * 2)  Milan
 * 3)  Naples
 * 4)  Turin
 * 5)  Palermo
 * 6)  Genoa
 * 7)  Florence
 * 8)  Venice
 * Spain, 5
 * 1)  Madrid
 * 2)  Barcelona
 * 3)  Valencia
 * 4)  Seville
 * 5)  Zaragoza
 * Ukraine, 5
 * 1)  Kiev
 * 2)  Kharkiv
 * 3)  Donetsk
 * 4)  Odessa
 * 5)  Lviv
 * Poland, 4
 * 1)  Warsaw
 * 2)  Kraków
 * 3)  Lodz
 * 4)  Katowice
 * Netherlands, 2
 * 1)  Amsterdam
 * 2)  The Hague
 * Switzerland, 2
 * 1) Geneva
 * 2) Zurich
 * All other countries, 1 each
 * 1)  Athens
 * 2)  Belgrade
 * 3)  Bratislava
 * 4)  Bucharest
 * 5)  Budapest
 * 6)  Minsk
 * 7)  Prague
 * 8)  Sarajevo
 * 9)  Sofia
 * 10)  Vilnius
 * 11)  Zagreb
 * 12)  Dublin
 * 13)  Brussels
 * 14)  Copenhagen
 * 15)  Helsinki
 * 16)  Lisbon
 * 17)  Oslo
 * 18)  Stockholm
 * 19)  Vienna
 * 20) Riga
 * 21) Skopje
 * 22) Chisinau
 * 23) Tirana
 * Oceania, 6
 * 1)   Brisbane
 * 2)  Auckland
 * 3)  Melbourne
 * 4)  Sydney
 * 5)  Wellington
 * 6) Canberra

Cites deletion proposal August 2013
Here is my proposal on how we should proceed:
 * 1) Anyone may add cities to the list above until August 15. After August 15 further additions will have to be made as individual proposals separate from this list.
 * 2) Editors can choose to contest a city by writing "(contested)" next to the article on the list until August 20.
 * 3) After August 20 uncontested cities will be added to the list of vital articles. For each contested city we will vote on whether or not to include it in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support It takes time to review so many changes, but I think this is a good list. I think it has a good global balance. I would support this list as it is. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose per p  b  p  Let's discuss about quotas. --Igrek (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose mass deletions in general, and this one doesn't seem to be well thought out: remove Hiroshima, seriously? --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * What exactly are we supposed to be voting on here? Are we voting on the procedures Cobblet proposes above, or on the list itself? I have a lot of problems with the list itself, particularly with the additions Cobblet has made. My feeling is that the criteria for any subject's inclusion in the 10,000 articles should be not some sense of "inherent importance," but the much broader "how much has been written about this subject in English?" I realize that this would result in a list with more North American and European cities, and fewer Asian and African ones, but I think that's a bug - I think it would be far easier to create a great article on Nuremberg or New Orleans using reliable sources found in English than it would be to create one about Bujumbura or Dushanbe, and that, rather than some arbitrarily defined notion of "importance," should be the basis for deciding whether a subject is vital. ETA: if we are voting on using this list as a starting point, using the procedure outlined by Cobblet, I'm more open to that, although, as I've said, I generally don't agree with the vast majority of his additions to the list, and think many of the deletions are more worthy of inclusion. john k (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just a vote on the procedure itself. Cobblet (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Melody Lavender, what is so important about Hiroshima, that isn't covered by Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS. Looking again at the list, Hiroshima isn't being removed. I don't see why it should stay. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like some people are uncomfortable with these blanket proposals. Let's start small then - I'll propose some removals and swaps at a later time. Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Cities discussion July 2013
In the end I was able to cut cities everywhere except Europe, which ended up with just one less city than before. This was mainly a result of there being a lot of countries in Europe and me feeling the need to put most of their capitals in. Anyway, let me know what you think. Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Nice work! This proposal has my tentative support. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the changes. The problem is how are we going to vote this proposal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If we can reach a consensus that on the whole, 375 cities is a good number to work around, and that the new list works better than the previous one, then let's put the new list in. Then can we propose swapping out cities we want changed? Cobblet (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Though I readily admit that this format breaks from accepted practice, I also think many of us are starting to feel the drain and tedium of all these monotonous one-by-one threads for no-brainer trims. This sub-list has some significant issues that I think justify a little irreverence for WP:PRESERVE. I know User:Dirtlawyer1 is against these types of proposals in principle, but I would also respectfully add that he doesn't make the effort to !vote in nearly every thread like some of us do, so it might seem like more of a luxury to take your time when others are doing a good deal of the work for you. I don't see why we couldn't !vote this proposal just as we did the Regions re-make. Some of these sub-lists are beyond bad and as such do not deserve the effort required to perfect them one-by-one. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose We've got waaaay too many geography articles on the block right now. If every geography cut proposal passed, we would be not only far under any quotas we've batted around for geography, but we'd also be well under 10,000 total articles for the list.  I believe geography to be right-sized; and cities right-sized within it.  This proposal smacks of just cutting cities that people haven't heard of; a number of relatively large cities are being cut, and some relatively large and relatively important countries now have only a single city on this list.  I don't see the point in cutting so many cities, nor do I see the point in having a number of relatively insignificant world capitals added.  The cuts are not globalized; Europe, the U.S., Canada, and Oceania now carry undue weight in the list.  I cannot abide by geography being the sacrificial lamb here when there are almost a hundred entertainers and athletes of dubious vitality on this list.  p  b  p  17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Geography and Biology IMO are too large. We could use the freed space on lists that need more articles like History, Technology and Mathematics. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, I believe the 1300-article quota for geography articles to be very slightly on the high side, but more-or-less appropriate. However, to have 426 articles on individual cities is too much: one in three geography article is on an individual city.
 * To give some context, I went to the list at (IMO, the best site around for world population data) and summed the estimated population on April 1, 2013 of the 426 largest cities in the world: the total was 1,627,310,000. From the same site I got a world population estimate of 7,021,836,000 on July 2012, so if you do the division, the percentage of the world's population that lives in the 426 largest cities is less than 23.2% because the world population has grown in the intervening ten months. To me it seems inefficient to use 32.8% of our geography articles to cover 23.2% of the world's population, particularly when the geography section needs to cover physical geography as well as demography. And even within demography, there are basic terms like urbanization (how ironic) that we don't currently have.
 * The point is, we need to cut some cities, if not to free up room for other areas of the list, then to just achieve balanced coverage within the geography section itself. Approximately half the world's population still lives in rural areas. The only way we can cover these people is if we start including articles on things like regions and ethnic groups.
 * The original regions list was terribly uneven in its coverage - I think the list being proposed now is much more balanced and remains sufficiently comprehensive even though it's about half the size it used to be. Perhaps it isn't good enough for you, but it is for me.
 * Meanwhile, I see that a month ago, User:Maunus tried to add 15 cultural groups and nobody supported him because we were way over 10,000 articles at the time. IMO, 15 is too few; I'm pretty sure I could easily name 50 ethnic groups that deserve inclusion. For instance, we don't even have the Romani people who number at least 2 million worldwide (possibly much more, according to the article.) I'd say the Gypsies have a better claim for inclusion than any of the world's cities of comparable population not on the list I proposed above. I think ethnic groups are a serious hole in the list right now.
 * If you want to go through other areas of the list to delete 50 articles so that we can include 50 ethnic groups, or cities, or whatever it is you really want, you have my full support. I've given it a try myself. But given how there are (in my view) strong swaps being made in just about every section of the list and how other sections of the list likely need their quotas raised (I feel the physical sciences need about 100 more articles and User:V3n0M93 feels the same way about history), I doubt you'll find it an easy task convincing people that a city like Guwahati should make it into the list before, say, Mstislav Rostropovich - and we have already two other cellists!
 * It's time for us to move forward, so I'm going to propose doing something similar to what we're doing for Regions. Let's build a new list of cities to replace the old one. I offer my list of 375 as a starter: you and everyone else are more than welcome to add to it; anyone is also allowed to contest a city that's being added. After August 15 we'll replace the old list with all the non-contested cities on the new list; for each contested city, we'll vote on whether or not to keep it. I hope this works for everyone. Cobblet (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the balance of cities on my list: when I first set out to cut 50 cities I didn't expect I'd be adding so many cities, especially capitals, back in. The reason I added so many capitals was because I felt Canberra ought to be one of the 10,000 most vital articles on the English Wikipedia. (There's a proposal elsewhere for adding Canberra, and while some people disagree, I'm not alone in my opinion.) But Canberra's only a city of ~350,000 people, so I decided that if I was going to add it, I'd also have to add every capital in the world with a population of more than 350,000. That resulted in my adding ~20 capitals to the list, which isn't nothing, but I don't think it's such a large number as to throw the list entirely out of whack. If you prefer adding an extra 10 cities to India and China (because that's what you'd have to do if you wanted to go strictly by population, for example), by all means propose doing so; but they already have more cities than any other country on the list, and I was afraid people would complain if I put even more in. The original list had 38 cities in India, 35 in China and 27 for the US; my list has 30 for China, 27 for India and 21 for the US. Do you seriously prefer the balance on the original list? Cobblet (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say that, in general, historical significance ought to be at least as important for cities as population or political status. Looking at your US cities list, for instance, I think Baltimore and Pittsburgh, though not as large population wise as they once were, are at least as important as Phoenix or San Jose, simply because they have much longer histories, and were important much earlier. That leads me, broadly, to the conclusion that there should be more older European cities, and fewer close to brand new Third World cities. For example, there's a lot of enormous regional Chinese cities, but I don't think most of them are terribly important in terms of having major historical or cultural importance. Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Macau, Guangzhou, Xi'an, Nanjing, Hangzhou, Shenyang, Lhasa, Wuhan, Tianjin, Qingdao, and Chongqing seems to me like it would be about sufficient for China (although maybe I'm missing something obvious). Why is an article about Shenzhen or Shijiazhuang vital? Why are they more important than Thessaloniki, which has a long and tumultuous history? Within individual countries, there seem to often be similar issues at work. For Mexico, why León, but not historically significant (and much more famous) Acapulco? I'd say that, in general, for cities in the non-English-speaking world, the criteria would focus on whether the city is internationally important. For instance, the city of Campinas, in Brazil, is included, but Cancún is not. Campinas is a large provincial city. I'd suspect that very few non-Brazilians have ever spent very much time there. Cancún is an enormous tourist center, one of the largest in the world. On any measure other than crude population comparison, why should Campinas be vital and Cancún not? I guess my basic position is that it's fair to look at a variety of factors beyond population and "is it a capital" in determining whether a city is vital. I'd suggest, for instance, that coverage in English language travel guides and history books ought to be an important consideration. Cancún is the primary subject of numerous travel guides; Campinas is not. Thessaloniki has had several major histories written about it (most recently Mark Mazower's 2006 history); there are basically no books in English about Shijiazhuang. Shouldn't this sort of consideration be important? john k (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:John K - this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping my list would provoke. Certainly factors like historical and touristic significance ought to come into play. I picked Suzhou, Huế, Florence and Las Vegas for those very reasons. But since those factors are somewhat subjective, I didn't want to do that too often. For example, the same argument you made for Cancún could be made for Palma de Mallorca, which serves an equivalent role in Europe. For every European city like Thessaloniki there's a city like Kaifeng or Mysore in Asia - in fact the last city was the final cut I made. (Rereading the article on Kaifeng, I just noticed it was the largest city in the world in the 11th century - and neither one of us thought about including it for China!) Even within a country, it's sometimes not easy to pick the most historically significant cities - I hear what you're saying about Baltimore and Pittsburgh, but New Orleans was actually my final cut for the US.
 * One of the reasons I chose to make population my major criterion was because it serves as a good proxy for economic importance. So for example, Shenzhen is probably the single most dramatic example of China's recent economic transformation - it was essentially a village 30 years ago. Shijiazhuang's development might not have been quite as dramatic but it too is an example of a recently industrialized city in northern China. (It also happens to be the capital of one of the most populous provinces, Hebei.) According to the Brookings Institution, Campinas has a higher GDP than Kolkata or Bangalore - totally not what I would've expected, but there you go. Cobblet (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly put Kaifeng and Luoyang ahead of Shijiazhuang or Shenzhen, on the basis of historical importance; I'm less sure about Mysore, since Bangalore was the capital of Mysore State beginning quite a while ago, but I'd be happier to include it than something like Nanning. My feeling is that cities shouldn't be included because of their exemplary importance, or as being good examples of larger social phenomena. They should be included because they are important in themselves, and because there is a lot written about them in English. john k (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Shenzhen is China's fourth largest city and also home one of China's three stock exchanges, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. It's absolutely essential despite its short history. And to address your point on English-language literature, it also returns 1,470,000 results on Google Books compared to 595,000 results for Thessaloniki and 417,000 results for Salonika. Shijiazhuang only returns 66,900, so you have a good point there. (I suspect more isn't written because nobody can spell it.) Mysore returns 3,420,000 results; Bangalore returns 3,320,000. The trouble with Google Books of course is the heavy skew towards the US; Antwerp returns 5 million, Southampton returns 7,180,000; but Baltimore - 37,900,000, New Orleans - 33,400,000, Pittsburgh - 25,800,000. Still, if you use it just to compare cities within a specific region, this might be a useful metric. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys, if we weren't so deadset on cutting ~50 cities, we wouldn't have to make hard choices like the ones we're making. If we had 50 more slots to play with, one of them could easily be Campinas, and another could be New Orleans (one I'd personally keep).  We probably need most million-plus cities.  As for the Canberra-or-bigger capital thing, I'm beginning to wonder if Australia is overrepresented: we're moving toward having five Australian cities, or one for every 4 million Aussies, when the world average is about 18 million (meaning if Australia was fairly represented, they'd only get one or two).  I think 500,000 city or 1,000,000 urban agglo would be better threshold.  Another thing we need to consider is regional prominence: it's never made a great deal of sense to me that we've had both San Jose-CA and San Francisco, even though the former now has over 900,000 people.  By contrast, we dropped Vladivostok (the end of the Trans-Siberian Railway and Russia's Pacific port), so now we don't have any cities in the easternmost part of Russia.  Oh, and I'd note that you mentioned that a great deal of people still live in rural areas: if we want to represent rural areas, why are we slashing regions, which is also a good way to represent them?  p  b  p  20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because we do need to get to 10,000 articles one way or another, and originally there had been a consensus to cut 200 regions, until I suggested it would be more reasonable to cut 150 regions and 50 cities. The appetite to include even more regions just isn't there among the community; things like Florida and the state of Sao Paulo are being contested. I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but the community has taken the opposite view, and I'm just trying to achieve a compromise and keep the discussion moving forward with a concrete proposal. Hard choices are being made everywhere on the list, not just here. Proposals for things like Grand Canal, Amelia Earhart, national anthem, Australian aborigines and urinary system are being voted against. And again, if we're aiming for balanced coverage of populations, we really need to be adding ethnic groups. There are easily 50 ethnic groups that number more than a million and aren't represented by a country or region.
 * Again, we can't achieve balanced representation of populations with cities alone: there are 503 |urban agglomerations with over a million population. Vladivostok, the 25th largest city in Russia, is not one of them, but Perth and Brisbane are. We also have other cities in Siberia like Omsk and Novosibirsk, and we have Harbin in northeast Asia as well. San Jose's significant as a leader in world technology, while San Francisco is a historically significant city - most people would still consider San Francisco the nucleus of the Bay Area. Cobblet (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now formalized a proposed list for us to add to and/or contest. I've removed Perth and Shijiazhuang from my original proposal and added Kaifeng and Luoyang. Cobblet (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's something, I suppose. Looking at your 375 cities suggestion, I think the "including all capitals of Canberra size" is a really bad idea. I really think there is absolutely no reason to add Bujumbura, Bissau, Nouakchott, Bangui, Juba, Windhoek, Libreville, Gaborone, Kingston (Jamaica), Ashgabat, Bishkek, Kaohsiung, Yogyakarta, Denpasar, George Town, Angeles, Doha, Manama, Kuwait City, Skopje, Chisinau, Tirana, Lodz, Lille, Dortmund, or Canberra. That'd allow us to keep Fes, Acapulco, Veracruz, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Hanover, and Nuremberg, which are all, I think, of sufficient historic importance to warrant inclusion, and then to debate other additions on a case by case basis. Speaking just on Germany, I'd say that the importance of Hanover and Nuremberg - the former as a long-time capital city, and current provincial capital; the latter as one of the most important medieval and early modern cities in Germany, and a long-standing independent city-state, as well as one of the larger cities in Germany today; outstrips that of Dortmund, which is just a fairly large city in the Ruhr. Ruhr ought to itself be vital, but no cities within it are of any particular individual importance, and there's no reason to pick one city to symbolize the region when we have an article on the Ruhr itself we could use. john k (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I notice that for a lot of these, we seem to have cities standing in for regions and islands. Bali seems like it is probably vital. Denpasar clearly isn't. Same with Ruhr and Dortmund, as I said above. Cities should be important for their own sake, not because they are the capital of a country, or the only city representing an important region. If the regions themselves are important, they should be included on their own. john k (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:John K, I agree with most of your points. I'm beginning to reconsider on the capitals as well. I will say that out of the additions you felt were weak, Yogyakarta is historically and culturally important, and Kuwait City is an agglomeration of almost four million people and a major metropolis in the Middle East. Those would be the two cities that I feel absolutely deserve to be on the list. Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to keep Yogyakarta - I don't know that much about Southeast Asia, so I'll take your word for it. If Kuwait City is an article about a 3 million person agglomeration, how is it different than Kuwait? The agglomeration is basically the entire country, isn't it? In terms of capitals, I'll just say that I don't understand why we'd use capitals to represent countries when the countries themselves are all already included as vital. An article about the Central African Republic is going to include some discussion of Bangui. Do we really need to mark the article on that rather obscure capital as well? john k (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point about Kuwait, and I acknowledge your point about the capitals. One of the reasons I wanted to add them in the first place was to make sure areas like Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia wouldn't be overlooked in terms of coverage. Would you consider cities like Beira, Mozambique, Mombasa, Benguela and Khiva worthy of inclusion? The first two were on the original list. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Northwest Passage

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom. Sought in vain by explorers for centuries and finally becoming geopolitically relevant as a trade route in the wake of global warming. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Kasai River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. Minor non-vital tributary.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support If one African river has to go, it ought to be this one. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Kasai" — 944,000.
 * "Kasai River" — 9,740. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Liao River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom; non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems to have been removed already. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * It's duplicate copy, see above. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's duplicate copy, see above. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Orinoco

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. 1) We already include Magdalena River and there is no need to have two Columbian rivers, and 2) There is currently a merge discussion for the article, so it might not even exists in a few months.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose: I'd also like to note that the merge discussion is for merging something to Orinoco, not merging Orinoco to something else p  b  p  20:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose It's the fifth largest river in the world by average annual discharge - its volume is twice as large as the Mississippi's, for example. This is a major river. (It's also in Venezuela, not Colombia.) Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Orinoco" — 2,650,000.
 * "Orinoco River" — 103,000. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Río de la Plata

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom. South America could use a little more representation. One of the largest estuaries in the world, with the major cities of Buenos Aires and Montevideo on its banks. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  16:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes


 * Discussion

Add Grand Canal (China)

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Fourteen centuries later, still the longest canal in the world. Cobblet (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose not the right time to start adding, and this is not a topic area where there is a need to add new articles any way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Bali, Remove Sunda Islands
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Bali is famous globally for its distinct culture as a Hindu-dominated part of Indonesia. We have Greater Sunda Islands and Lesser Sunda Islands already and Sunda Islands is a weak article. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Bali is more vital. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Long Island
Support !votes
 * 1) Support. Largest island in Continental USA, one of the most populous islands in the world  p  b  p  22:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Weak Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Would prefer Salsette Island or Manhattan. Cobblet (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Long Island is the 10th largest in the US and the 17th most populous island on Earth. Are the other larger and/or more populous islands already listed? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Whoops...should be lower 48. I believe a number of them are  p  b  p  00:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Even still, I can't help but notice that about 8 out of the last 10 adds that you've proposed are US/Anglo-centric. This seems like a dichotomy, because you so often use globalization and American-bias based arguments to block other proposals. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Antilles and Prince of Wales Island (Nunavut)

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Like the Sunda Islands, the former is a very weak article already covered by Greater Antilles and Lesser Antilles. As for the latter, the Canadian Arctic's very well represented already and we don't really need another uninhabited island of questionable significance. Cobblet (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Macaronesia or Canary Islands

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The former is a significant island group that deserves more attention (only Cape Verde is on the list), but it's not a commonly used term. The latter is the largest, most populous and most well-known archipelago within the group. I slightly prefer the latter. Cobblet (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Canary Islands. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Macaronesia. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - I think we should avoid these multiple choice props; this should be two threads, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Labrador Peninsula

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Not a commonly used term, even in Canada. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'd consider replacing with Labrador but since discussion on which regions to include is ongoing, I won't propose it here. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Chukchi Peninsula, Taymyr Peninsula and Yamal Peninsula

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Not vital. There's already a proposal to add Lake Taymyr. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Italian Peninsula

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Covered by Italy. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Fennoscandia

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Covered by Scandinavian Peninsula and Scandinavia (not even sure if we need both). Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Important landmarks in the Age of Exploration. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  16:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove 4 North American mountain articles
Specifically American Cordillera, Adirondack Mountains, Black Hills, Bryce Canyon, North American Cordillera, Basin and Range Province, Columbia Plateau, Sierra Nevada. Some of the terms are too technical; others are not significant enough. Losing Sierra Nevada is not ideal but it's covered by Pacific Coast Ranges. Cobblet (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removal of Sierra Nevada and North American Cordillera: Sierra Nevada at least shouldn't be happenin' and we shouldn't be deleting geography articles almost indiscriminately, 8 in one blow and whatnot p  b  p  17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * User:Purplebackpack89, it's difficult to justify including 13 articles on land relief in North America when Africa and South America are each represented by 4. Hence I'm proposing to remove the ones I feel are the least significant. The problem with including Sierra Nevada is that the Cascade Range and Coast Mountains have at least an equally strong case for inclusion - the Cascades are more volcanically active and the Coast Mountains cover as much area as the other two combined. I think it's better to just use the umbrella term Pacific Coast Ranges to cover them all for now, and then we can later see if there's room to include the three sub-ranges. Plus, we do have Yosemite National Park after all. In order to preserve balance within the Geography section, right now I'd rather make sure stuff like Florida gets included as a region. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with nomming 8 in one blow is that you can't really support the proposal unless you support all 8. Also, I'm not seeing that the Sierra Nevada is part of the Coast Ranges...it's mentioned in the Coast Ranges article as being part of the North American Cordillera (which should probably also be kept, it's the umbrella term for all the mountains in Western Canada, the U.S. and Mexico), but it's not in the Coast Ranges.  In Central California, the Coast Ranges like the Caliente Range separate the Central Coast from the Central Valley (or separate the US101 area from the CA-1 area between SLO and Monterey), while the Sierra Nevada separates the Central Valley from the Great Basin/Death Valley  p  b  p  20:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll break up this proposal into smaller ones then. You're correct about the Sierra Nevada being distinct from the Coast Ranges - my mistake. Nevertheless, I still don't think they deserve mention over the other two ranges I pointed out. Cobblet (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove Western Plateau

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Rename "Ocean floor" to "Ocean", move Great Barrier Reef into it; Rename "Other" to "Waterfalls"

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Gakkel Ridge, Add Ring of Fire

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Day and night in terms of notability. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - clear improvement to the listUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support excellent suggestion --Rsm77 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Iguazu Falls, Angel Falls

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Both vital topics. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support IguazúUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Iguazú --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Angel fallsUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Angel falls--Melody Lavender (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Kluane / Wrangell – St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini–Alsek
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This is one of the largest protected areas on the PLANET p  b  p  17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To be specific, it's either the 7th or 8th largest protected area in the world, being about the same size as the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Currently it appears we'll be keeping three areas on the list that are larger: Northeast Greenland National Park (#1 on the list), Phoenix Islands Protected Area (#3) and Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (#6); plus Great Barrier Reef (#5) is also on the list, just not as a park. At some point size can no longer be the sole reason to keep a park on the list, but if User:Purplebackpack89 would like to nominate Chagos Marine Protected Area (#2) for inclusion I'd probably support it. Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * FWIW, several of the protected areas listed contain mostly ocean. But I'll bite on Chagos  p  b  p  19:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 71% of the Earth's surface is ocean. Just because governments have dragged their feet on establishing marine national parks doesn't mean we shouldn't be putting the most significant ones on the list. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove Serra do Mar
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Jaú National Park
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove La Amistad International Park
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Manovo-Gounda St. Floris National Park
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Okapi Wildlife Reserve
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet p  b  p  17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll draw the line on this one. We don't have Okavango Delta; this would cover it. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Galápagos Marine Reserve
We have Galápagos Islands.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove 7 American national parks
Namely Redwood National and State Parks, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, Olympic National Park, Everglades National Park, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, Wrangell–St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. The USA is way over-represented right now. They'll still have Yellowstone, Yosemite, Mesa Verde and Great Smoky Mountains on the list. I think some arguments can be made for keeping Mesa Verde National Park. It was the first national park established in the United States (likely one of the first in the world as well; to give some context, it's older than any national park in Europe) for protecting a cultural/archaeological site; 107 years later, it remains the only one. Also right now we have exactly one other article on an archaeological site in the Americas: Machu Picchu. Finally, we're awfully thin on the ground when it comes to articles related to Native American culture and history. Cobblet (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Mesa Verde seems distinctly non-vital, as well. john k (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose A couple of these should probably stay p  b  p  17:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * We have Teotihuacan and Tiwanaku in the History list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected :) Still, we could use some more; where's Chichen Itza, for example? Cobblet (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Purplebackpack89, could you clarify exactly which ones you'd like to see stay? Cobblet (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably Wrangell (see comment above on the Heritage site that includes Wrangell), 'Glades, and maybe Olympic p  b  p  19:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your comment on Wrangell-St. Elias in that proposal. I was considering keeping the Everglades over the Great Smoky Mountains, but since the latter is the most visited park in the US I went with that one. I can't see a good case to be made for Olympic over many parks in western North America. I will also note that even after this proposal passes, no other country in the world will be represented by more than two national parks while the US will have four, and Africa will be the only other continent with four national parks. (North America might get five if the proposal to include Banff passes.) Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

General discussion about topic area: National parks
In general I think there are too many, and I think they are not very vital or notable, we should look at them one by one. They are World Heritage Site, but there are 962 of these around the world, we cannot have them all, and these parks are far from being the most vital sites out of the 962 like I said before we don't have Petra or Catal Huyuk for example. Many of the parks have been created recently, some within last decade, and although huge they are largely unpopulated, with no history or cuture. Any culture or history would be of the area that existed there already, not of the newly designated area. There are populated places, and places with more cultural and historical importance than these parks, that we don't have. There are many places, cities, regions, islands, civilizations, and sites that we don't have that are much more vital. Such as Petra, Catal Huyuk, Pompeii, Mount Vesuvius, Palace of Westminster we don't have the capitals of Australia and New Zealand Canberra and Wellington. We don't have UK cities with over 1000 years history like York, Bristol. When I think of what we don't have these parks don't seem vital. Carlwev (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am much happier with national parks than with the oddly large and modern biography section. World-Heritage sites are classic encyclopedia-articles. Petra, Catal Huyuk, Pompeii, Mount Vesuvius and the Palace of Westminster are important omissions that we have to make room for. The logic behind removing "newly designated" areas is flawed, because these reserves are historic areas that have been there for a long time. The designation as a reserve usually doesn't change the significance, it's just done to protect these sites.--Melody Lavender (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

General discussion about topic area: Ocean floor
My new area for targeting removal candidates is ocean floor features, like ocean floor ridges, between tectonic plates. Most of them are tiny stubs, appear in very few languages, and are also rated as low importance in their inclusive wikiprojects. Some like Mariana Trench and maybe the Mid Atlantic Ridge have notability. I can't help feeling the parent article Mid-ocean ridge is enough to cover the topic and remove most of these individual ridges. There are lots of missing political geography articles like cities, capitals, and territories. And for physical geography there are many missing rivers and islands. Even from within geology and plate tectonics POV, we haven't listed any individual tectonic plates, which aren't very vital but I would list plates before the boundaries between the plates. We don't have the prehistoric super continents, like Gondwanaland and Pangaea which I believe get more attention in encyclopedias than things like Southeast Indian Ridge which just do not seem very vital at all to me. In geology or astronomy I don't think we even have impact crater, that's fairly vital, and also rated top importance in the geology wikiproject. I may actually end up proposing most of these ridges being removed, I will start with about half of them, anyone feel free to propose more. Carlwev (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Pangaea should be on the list. It gets about 2420 hits per day. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @Melody, please find a lower priority topic to remove in favor of Pangaea. Thanks.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to let everyone know, I just noticed that ocean ridge was listed twice, once in geography and once in physical science under geology. I removed the one from geography because all other physical geography follows that pattern and this too should match. Mountain, volcano, sea, ocean, river, mountain range etc are listed in earth science, but lists of individual examples of them are listed in geography. Ocean ridge has to follow that. I did this without discussion first, as one had to go, and I believe, it had to be the geography one. I hope no one disagrees, but if they do we need to discuss the placement of all other features too, like mountain etc not just this one. Carlwev (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Need to be stricter
As it has already been stated anyone is free to add or remove but anyone else is free to revert and ask for discussion. I think the criteria for removing is too high. Do we really need to wait to remove Office supplies until 5 people notice it and support it, when it only has 3 at the moment? Do we really need to keep College of Pontiffs because one user mistook it for the Catholic Church? Do we really need to keep Helen Caldicott who has got twice as many people supporting removal than opposing it, at 4 to 2, which is 66% but below the 70% which is only the magic percentage because one user said it was. Don't get me wrong the more user's taking part the better. But some ideas are up for ages with few people noticing them. But if we want to get these numbers down we need to be stricter, I would say 4-0 in support after 10 days is more than enough, even if things are removed that I am opposing, I can't moan if it's 4-1 against me. If 4 people want an article removed is that not enough, it may have only been one loan user who added it in the first place with no consensus or discussion to start with. Articles in the list do not automatically have a greater right to stay only because they are already in, and because one user added them years ago when no one was watching. Carlwev (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carl, the 70% threshold is achieved with a 5−2 !vote. I am open to lower percentages for action in the 60+% range, but only when a larger number of editors participate in the discussion (say, 6−3, 7−4, etc.).  Maybe 4−0 and 4−1 !votes should be adequate after some longer period of time.  In order for the VA and VA/E add/drop processes to have credibility and for the lists themselves to have stability, we needed to have greater participation and more discussion.  We should not be making decisions based on very small numbers of participants.  That's where we were in February, and several aggravated driveby editors rightly criticized the process for it.  We needed greater participation and a more credible deliberative process.  The discussions need to be open for a reasonable minimum time (currently 15 days), and should fail and be archived if consensus is not achieved within a reasonable maximum time (say 90 days).  I also think there is some consolation in the fact that some of our newer participants started with the easy decisions, and now seem to be working their way through the talk page discussion topics from top to bottom.  That takes time.  (I also note that even PBP, you and I have not yet !voted in every discussion.)  We should also always help the process with clean formatting, clearly defined choices, and clearly stated rationales for the adds, drops and swaps.  I'm confident we are picking up steam.  Through the coming weekend, it looks like we will have a net of 30+ deletions, or 10% of the current total in excess of the 10,000-topic limit.  That's not bad progress in what will be three weeks since the moratorium ended.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the College of Pontiffs example, this is where WP:NOTAVOTE comes in. !Votes made based on clearly erroneous reasoning should be ignored. Ypnypn (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

=Arts=

Swap: Remove Webster's Dictionary, Add A Dictionary of the English Language
The latter is more notable.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. john k (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Growth of the Soil
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem vital. Even the Norwegian article is a stub.--V3n0M93 (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I don't really like the idea of a straight removal. I thought about replacing this with Hunger (Hamsun novel), which is more famous. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove A Tale of Two Cities, Add Great Expectations

 * Support
 * 1) Great Expectations seems to me the obviously most essential Dickens novel. john k (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I don't think it's obvious. David Copperfield would also be a reasonable choice. Even A Tale of Two Cities has its sensational sales to support its inclusion, though overall I think GE or DC would be my choice. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove And Then There Were None, Add Middlemarch

 * Support
 * 1) No Christie novel is of sufficient importance to be "essential." Middlemarch is always listed as one of the most important novels of all time. john k
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Darkness at Noon, Add Jane Eyre

 * Support
 * 1) The Koestler book is no longer particularly widely read, what with Communism being over and all. Jane Eyre is a perennial classic. john k
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Was going to nominate this very swap. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Can room on the list be made for The Gulag Archipelago? Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Ficciones, Add Wuthering Heights

 * Support
 * 1) Borges is tremendously important, but an article about a collection of short stories is not, especially since the individual stories all have their own articles. Wuthering Heights, like Jane Eyre, is a perennial classic. john k (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Are there any other modern short story collections worth including? Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Dubliners must be the most famous modern short story collection. But we already have Ulysses by Joyce. (Incidentally, if cuts to books are being made, why not try The Sun Also Rises as Hemingway also has The Old Man and the Sea). --Rsm77 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Judging from the swaps that have been proposed so far, it seems cuts will only hurt the quality of the list. I'm not going to nominate any swaps in the literature section since this definitely isn't an area I know much about, but I don't see why we can't have two works by the same author on the list. Also, we have three Bible translations: the Vulgate, the Tyndale Bible and the King James Version, and I've never heard of the second one myself. Cobblet (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Hemingway should have two works. I'm perfectly fine with Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy having two each. Perhaps we don't need Alice in Wonderland AND Through the Looking Glass though. Sorry, "cuts" was the wrong word above. I meant removal in swaps rather than straight removals. Like, for example, Les Miserables for The Sun Also Rises. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add The Prince, Remove History of Rome (Mommsen)

 * Support
 * 1) Support The Prince is hugely influential. History of Rome doesn't compare and is not all that well-known in the English-speaking world. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  15:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I had a few other ideas for non-fiction, including Wealth of Nations, The Interpretation of Dreams, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and possibly Leviathan. Be interested to hear what others think about these ideas. For me, something like The Art of Computer Programming looks a little weak in comparison. (Oh, and note the Communist Manifesto is on the list in the politics section. - edit, actually in the law section) --Rsm77 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The article on the list is History of Rome (Mommsen), not History of Rome. I've fixed it. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, and thanks. Of course I meant the Mommsen book. --Rsm77 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support swapping in one of the philosophical works you've mentioned above and swapping out the computer book p  b  p  15:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Jean Valjean, Add Les Misérables
The main character is well known, but not more so than the novel itself.
 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I didn't know Jean Valjean was on the characters list. Hopefully this should be quite non-contentious. --Rsm77 (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  15:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Holden Caulfield is another fictional character that should probably replaced with another literature article, since we have Catcher in the Rye. Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I'd support swapping out Caulfield for one of the philosophical works you mentioned above p  b  p  15:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Ballades (Chopin) and Études (Chopin), Add Counterpoint and Gregorian chant
Chopin's already represented by his Nocturnes. Meanwhile counterpoint is a defining feature of Western classical music and Gregorian chant was an important step in its development.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  15:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Mandolin and Tubular bells, Add Texture (music) and Chord (music)
Trying to add more basic musical terms. A mandolin is a type of lute, which is on the list. Tubular bells really don't seem vital, and we already have bell.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'd support Chord for Tubular Bells --Rsm77 (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Rhapsody in Blue

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose One of the seminal works of the 20th century, and one of the few jazz or avant-garde compositions on this list p  b  p  20:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per phb. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose agree with pbp. This is *the* lasting vital and transitional work between classical music and jazz.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Electric organ
Whoever put this under electronic instruments must have meant electronic organ - this article refers to the organ in electric fish. In any case, we already have synthesizer.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Carnegie Hall

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. There are far too many notable venues to do them all justice.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Sydney Opera House

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. There are far too many notable venues to do them all justice.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose, perhaps the most well known Australian building internationally. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Architecturally noteworthy. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove For He's a Jolly Good Fellow

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  01:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Need to cut some musical works. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes

A well-known novelty song? Yes. A vital topic? No p  b  p  01:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add The Girl from Ipanema, Remove Candle in the Wind 1997

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support The Girl from Ipanema is one of the most famous songs in the world, said to be the second-most recorded song ever. On the other hand, if we don't have Princess Diana why include Candle in the Wind 97? We could swap it for the original version, but wouldn't it be better to put The Girl in? --Rsm77 (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal Indifferent to add. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, oppose add, support removal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Would support removal. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove The Internationale

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose, the international anthem of left-wing politics. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, perfect storm of the confluence of music and politics.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Satumaa

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support OK, sure let's get rid of this. --Rsm77 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes
 * Discussion

Add Flamenco, Remove Robert Joffrey
Support !votes
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk)
 * 2) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I wonder whether it might be an idea to include the tango. --Rsm77 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ballet and modern dance are represented much more than other forms of dance. While I obviously won't suggest removing Modern dance itself, I will suggest swapping out one of the modern dancers, for a whole dance and music form, Flamenco. Lose a dancer gain a dance form. Is Robert Joffrey really that vital? In general losing a lesser known American artist gaining an whole art form another nation, but one which is known world wide, is good. Yes different sections but both represent dance, and I think the swap greatly improves the list. Carlwev (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove The Royal Ballet
We have two ballet companies (the other being the Bolshoi Ballet) but no orchestras and no theatre companies - no theatres either, for that matter.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add The Birth of Venus (Botticelli), Remove Melencolia I

 * Support
 * 1) Support The Birth of Venus is one of the most famous paintings of all time. Melencolia I, from roughly the same period, cannot remotely compare. --Rsm77 (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Ceramics, Add Ceramic art
The former is a disambiguation page; there's a current proposal to add ceramic under chemistry, so this seems like the other obvious replacement.
 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support p  b  p  23:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, Remove Le Rêve (painting)

 * Support
 * 1) Support A Picasso for a Picasso. Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is a more obvious choice to represent him. --Rsm77 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Nighthawks, Remove Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

 * Support
 * 1) Support I think Four Freedoms is a really weak choice on this list. Nighthawks is more highly regarded and certainly more famous outside the US. (Perhaps in the US too.) --Rsm77 (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Quasimodo, Add The Hunchback of Notre-Dame
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose to remove Quasimodo from fictional characters, and add the novel The Hunchback of Notre-Dame to the appropriate place in works of literature. We only need one Quasimodo the character or The Hunchback of Notre-Dame the original novel. There is no book series for the character like Tarzan or James Bond, there is only one novel. Most of the time the character is used in more modern media it is an adaptation of the novel not a new story. Looking at the length and detail of the two articles and how many languages they appear in it hints users believe the novel to be more important, or more worthy to put work into. The novel article is longer, has more references and appears in a lot more languages compared to the character. Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * I would prefer to add Les Misérables. I considered nominating it already. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is clearly an improvement so I will not go so far as to oppose, but there are plenty of novels with good claims to enter the list, and I think some claims are better than The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. Even if Les Misérables gets in as a swap for Jean Valjean I think something like The Three Musketeers for example would be a better choice than The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. --Rsm77 (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Three Musketeers are listed under fictional characters. Nevertheless your point is well taken; there's certainly nothing to stop us from closing this discussion right now and then nominating a different work of literature to replace it. Cobblet (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, seem to keep missing people on that list! No, although I wouldn't be surprised if something else comes to replace Notre-Dame in the long run, let's leave it as it for now. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove The Cat in the Hat, Add Dr. Seuss
None of Dr. Seuss's stories or characters are as vital as the man himself.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  15:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

=Philosophy and religion=

Remove Religious philosophy
A stub of a list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Nice find! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Northamerica1000(talk) 07:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Islamic mythology, Add Manichaeism
Islamic mythology can be covered by Islam. Manichaeism is an important historical religion.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Looks like a good swap. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Per Carl. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with Manichaeism, read through the article seams like a brilliant choice, pretty vital, 56 languages. Not sure if anyone will hate the idea of losing Islamic mythology or not. It is kind of covered by Islam, and it's only in 6 languages. I support. Both are from the middle east, doesn't really alter the region balance in any direction. Carlwev (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Argonauts, Add Aztec religion
Greek mythology is overrepresented, and Argonauts is covered in Jason. Aztec religion is a vital topic.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We already have Jason. Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * @Gabe you realize that the ancient Greek religion is extinct and non-English speaking as well?
 * Greek mythology is still taught globally at both the college and pre-college levels. Aztec religion may well be taught in some major Universities, but not nearly as commonly in the English speaking world. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But you are not voting to keep Greek religion, but a minor Greek myth that is already covered in another article. And you are arguing that English language topics should get priority, which seems to be contraditory to your usually sound degree of reasoning and interest in global coverage. Now of course you have your right to vote as you like and no one can force you to be consistent in your argumentation. But still, one might hope. Btw, I apologize for offending you, it was not my intention, in fact I was meaning to cheer you up.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Graveyard
We already have cemetery, which as I write this, actually includes some of the text from graveyard. In any case, the cemetery article is of much better quality.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Perhaps we should make a new section for articles related to death, like cemetery, in the Everyday Life section. Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Orphism (religion), Add Orpheus
The former seems less vital than the latter, which should go under Greek and Roman mythology.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  00:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Philosophy and religion: Alternative views

 * I suggest that we remove all of these entries, but I will list them below individually. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Conspiracy theory
Support !votes
 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, important topic. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose We apparently have hundreds of WP articles devoted to them p  b  p  19:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Extrasensory perception
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Psychic
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Pseudoscience
Support !votes
 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, important topic. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I could be convinced it is redundant to science if the latter had a larger section on pseudo-science, but currently it does not and pseudo-science the article is reasonably well written. Potentially, it could be replaced with scientific method. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientific method is listed under Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences. Cobblet (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Scientific skepticism
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

=Anthropology, psychology and everyday life=

Add Maya peoples
Support votes oppose votes
 * 1) support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  16:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Bantu peoples
Support votes
 * 1) support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Discussion about topic area: Ethnology
This is the closet thing to a list of different races or ethnicity we have. "Race" itself is in he vital 100 so we are kind of saying it's important. Our list here in the vital 10'000 of different races looks very shabby to me. We have stubs like Turco-Mongol, but don't have perhaps the most basic of races. Again I am not an expert and voting needs to take place but we are missing things like black people and white people and Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, Caucasian race etc. We have Turkish people, but hardly any other country's people so that looks odd. I doubt we want every nation itself in geography plus every nationality in race as that would be unhelpful duplication taking up room. But which "races" if that's the right word do we include, and which do we not, maybe a touchy subject and some may avoid it because of that. Some people are not adequately represented by a country article. Turkish people may be half represented by the inclusion of the country Turkey. However people like the Indigenous peoples of the Americas are only represented at the moment by present countries like USA, Mexico etc and old civilizations like Aztec, and History of USA, History of Mexico and History of The Americas. Anyway, in short, I think the section needs lots of care and attention from myself and others. Carlwev (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This swap would improve the list, Turco-Mongol is a stub even on Turkish Wikipedia. Indigenous people of America ranks 8164 in traffic statistic. Readers seem to be even more interested in Native Americans in the United States, which ranks 1501 in theses statistics. Maybe we should swap it for that.
 * Race is a concept that is primarly relevant to the US. It is untranslatable in German, for example, the WP-Article links to Racial theory, because race is not a biological fact. Biology does not classsify humans into races. I don't think it should be included in the top 100.
 * Caucasian race: 1415 views
 * Race: 8095
 * Aboriginal Australians: not ranked (page views not among the top tenthousand)
 * Turkish people: not ranked
 * Demographics (most of the article is on another page, Demography, there is currently a merge proposal to be voted on) ranks 4766, maybe we should include that.
 * Obviously, pageviews can't be our most important criterion, we could ignore that completely. They are just an indicator of what readers want from an encyclopedia.
 * If we start including individual races, we are opening Pandora's box - that's why the article on Turkish people is a candidate for removal, in my opinion. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't need articles on "races" in vital articles at all - since this concept is not used in modern ethnology. We can have the article about Race (human classification) as an article about the general concept. We could have articles about ethnic groups - but I would not want to be the one to evaluate which groups are notable and which aren't.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many good important articles about "peoples" Turco-Mongol is not one of them. In history we have Celts, Saxons, Huns, Goths and more, the articles are pretty good in many languages and the people in question were important to history. When it gets to people who are still around today, people have this view that to list peoples/races here or even discuss it is somehow prejudice or racist. Like I said before some peoples have a nation almost exactly in coloration to themselves, Turkish people, Filipino people, chinese people etc, all have Turkey, Philippines and China. Some peoples whom are quite numerous and quite well documented, quite important to history and the world, do not have their own nation and so are not covered well. Several users have said that Native Americans are under represented, but I am truly baffled why some vote to keep leaders who are poorly documented and not exceptionally vital like Jaguar Claw and Metacomet but people don't want the article on Indigenous peoples of the Americas nor any tribes as it's viewed as being wrong somehow. Already we have history by nation, we have history of Brazil, but not history of Belgium, is this wrong? I doubt it. The list of nations in the 1000 list is also strangely selective, we have Australia with 23M people and Israel with 8M people, we don't have Thailand 67M Vietnam 90M or Ethiopia 91M I think that's very odd. The whole project is biased, talking about it and altering it may fix it, ignoring the matter won't. I believe Native Americans article has a shot a being in vital articles, but those leaders, not really. Carlwev (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I am not the one voting to not add Indigenous peoples of the Americas or articles about specific indigenous groups or languages. I would say that obviously Aztec, Maya peoples, Inca, Lakota people, Cherokee people should be in the list, as should groups of similar prominence in their respective continents.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is the swap. We don't have Mongolic people and this might be a more obvious swap. I'd support the stand-alone addition of Indigenous people of the Americas. It takes time to research. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Australian aborigines, Remove Panethnicity
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per discussion.--V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose votes

Panethnicity only appears in one other language. Article says it is a political neologism coined in 1990. Referring to people of large areas as a race when they are not actually one race, as in "Asian people", well considering it's a new and slightly obscure term, and considering what is missing and considering Panethnicity only appears in one other language. I think it unlikely an encyclopedia would have an article on it. I think we can do without it. Carlwev (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Australian aborigines
Support votes
 * 1) support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Remove Distrust
Trust is in the same category and looks like the better article.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Mutilation, Add Body modification
Support votes oppose votes
 * 1) support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add this, but not sure. You know I thought about adding it myself last year, but I didn't I added specific terms, Tattoo and body piercing instead they were missing too, I added Jewelry as well believe it or not. I am surprised on this topics lack of information both in English and other languages considering it's carried out among many cultures. Carlwev (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove April fool's day, Add Mana
Support votes
 * 1) support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes
 * 1) Oppose, would support removal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove April fool's day
Support votes Oppose votes
 * 1) As nom. Non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support john k (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Cultural anthropology, and Social anthropology
Support votes oppose votes
 * 1) support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Cultural and Social anthropology are two sub-traditions within general anthropology. They are not clearly distinct and overlap more than a lot. Including anthropology is enough. (btw. I am an anthropologist) (cultural/linguistic) .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Significant other, Add Concubinage
Support votes Oppose votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Signicant other article is not much more than a stub mostly about the term, which apparently was first used in 1953 according to the article. Any relevant content about partners that could potentially be there, is in other included articles like Interpersonal relationship, Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Husband, Wife, courtship etc. Concubinage is a fairly well documented topic, and appears in many cultures throughout history. Carlwev (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * "significant other" is a relatively new term with a very narrow context of usage and not a significant or vital phenomenon.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Barbie
Already have doll.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Northamerica1000(talk) 07:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove G.I. Joe
Unknown outside the US.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Northamerica1000(talk) 07:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Ge'ez language, Add Yiddish language
Yiddish was an extremely important language right up to the Holocaust. It has a significant literary tradition, including a Nobel Prize winning writer in Isaac Bashevis Singer, and was a language in which many newspapers, books, etc. were published into the mid-twentieth century.


 * Support !votes
 * 1) john k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Indian 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 Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Italian 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 Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Discussion about Regional Cuisines
You've been away for a while so you may have missed it, but these national cuisines have only just got in, by all means propose what you want, and people can change their mind and all. But I find it unlikely the users here will vote for these to be removed, when most of them only just voted to add them. They only got in a week or 2 ago the archives have literally only just been cut off this page. Also I voted them in too, and I think they should stay. This list is still under construction, so maybe we can add a few more a bit later Mexican and Japanese are up for adding and have 3 support. Basically the whole list is ranking, we have to figure out or choose which topics are more important because some topics are more important than others. Italian Cuisine is more important than British Cuisine, American Cuisine or Ethiopian Cuisine. We shouldn't remove some regions' cuisines because we don't have others. We have cinema of a select few countries the most vital but not all others. We have history of some nations but not others, here and in the 1000 too. In the 1000 we list some actual countries themselves but not others, (there we have Israel with 7M population but miss off Ethiopia with 91M.) Some nations have 10 of their leaders listed others have none. That's the way it is. Some national cuisine are more vital and important and we shouldn't remove some and have none just because we don't have them all. By that logic all the other things I said, all regional Cinema, history, leaders, would have to be removed to be fair to those not included. (and all actual countries in the 1000 list too) Removing international articles improves globalization? what? For once American and British topics their national cuisines were voted to not come on, having these others therefore makes the list less American. Carlwev (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Baby food
Support !votes
 * 1) Not vital. Also, anything mushed-up and fed to a baby is baby food; most of the world's babies never had any Gerber products, IMO.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Move Potato from Biology to Foods
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. More notable as a foodstuff than an organism.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Steak
Support !votes
 * 1) As nom. Steak is not a foodstuff per se, its a cut of any number of meats.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, there isn't a lot you can write about steak.--V3n0M93 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We have what they are made of, beef, fish etc, what v3 said, how much can you write about steak? a small part of me wants to keep this, but it's one of the weakest food articles, and if food is to be trimmed, the weakest out first. Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose  p  b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Move Rice from Biology to Foods
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. This is clearly a glaring omission, IMO.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Are you sure it isn't listed in the biology section? p  b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but I feel fairly confidant that its more a foodstuff than an organism (think Asia). Afterall, what foods aren't also organisms? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in biology, with oats fruit and veg etc. HERE. I agree with Gabe I would look in food. I would like to move all food to biology to alleviate this problem, Food vs biology - fruit, veg, nut, spice, diet, nutrition, too much overlap. There's no real reason food has to be with emotions colors and sports. Carlwev (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in biology, with oats fruit and veg etc. HERE. I agree with Gabe I would look in food. I would like to move all food to biology to alleviate this problem, Food vs biology - fruit, veg, nut, spice, diet, nutrition, too much overlap. There's no real reason food has to be with emotions colors and sports. Carlwev (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about topic: food and drink

 * On the herbs, spices or plants that have been nominated. I'm not saying they all belong. Edible plants are split between organisms and food which needs to be addressed at some point. It appears you're trying to trim the food section, Lavender and Mint may be less vital than chocolate milk and meat etc. However the fact they are edible is why they have been placed in food and means they are more vital than many organisms that are not edible. The biology section contains loads of plants and animals that are way more obscure and less vital. Mint and lavender are standing out as less vital as they next to Meat and Milk. If they were in plant section they would be among Pteridium aquilinum, Xanthorrhoea, and Strelitzia reginae. Lavender and Mint would then actually stand out as being more vital compared to those plants. I suggest we remove plants like those I mentioned, that are not cultivated or consumed a lot by people first before we remove plants which we actually know and use. Mint and lavender are not obscure, although they may still get the boot in the end, but it's biology that contains the loooooooong lists of fairly obscure plants and animals, that are even less vital. I wouldn't want to remove mint and lavender before those other obscure plants. Maybe you could propose to move them. Potato is in organisms by the way. Carlwev (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Secondly we have already trimmed food and drink by quite a bit, may be the articles there can be trimmed a tiny bit more, but I think it's almost at it's limit. Other sections have a much greater number of really obscure or non vital articles, compared to this section. Carlwev (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carl. Food is right-sized and I can't get behind very many of the deletions  p  b  p  13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Acorn
Support !votes Oppose !votes Peanut is in bology too (here), nuts like veg are split it's hard to navigate. Carlwev (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Not vital. Also, peanut is not included and I think its fair to say many more food stuffs use peanuts than use acorns.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Desk
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)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Bench (furniture)
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)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Cabinet (furniture), add Cabinetry
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom  p  b  p  18:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes One redirects to the other, non-controversial. I believe an article on cabinetry is a necessary part of the 10,000 vital articles list. See also discussion above p  b  p  18:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - If we are trying to reduce the size of this list, then we should do that before adding basic concepts like this one.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, I don't think it is vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * Cabinet categories here on wikipedia includes cupboard and chest of drawers, (how correct that is outside of wikipedia I'm not too sure) if there is consensus to reduce the items of furniture, cupboard and chest of drawers could be feasibly be thought of as covered by cabinet. (Although cabinetry itself is categorized as a craft not an item of furniture, which is odd, as it means cabinet/cabinetry is not in the cabinet category? Easily fixed though.) Cupboard is in many more languages than the other 2 though. Carlwev (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Anybody find it funny that if these deletion percentages hold, the outcome will be keep the redirect without removing or changing it? p  b  p  04:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only editor holding-up the removal of the Cabinet redirect is you PbP, but yes, I do find that quite amusing. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cabinet (furniture)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. Redirects to Cabinetry.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Northamerica1000(talk) 07:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * PBP, you have apparently opposed the removal of a redirect and while I'm sure this wasn't a copy-paste error on your part, would you mind giving us some reasoning why we should retain a redirect page as a vital article when we are trying to trim the list by 300+ articles? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Cabinetry on the Vital articles? If not, than it should be  p  b  p  04:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see it in the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless you are still voting to keep a redirect, not the article Cabinetry. I don't consider furniture to be apt for inclusion as vital at all. Its material for a dictionary not for an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Maunus. If we were actually attempting to get this list back to 10,000 (after some people allowed it to grow out-of-control), this seems like a relatively un-contentious removal. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We need not bicker here, I have tried to tone my own comments down. The way I see If someone thinks cabinet and/or cabinetry in itself does not belong that's fine support removal then. I wouldn't support removal only because its a redirect or say it's completely un-contentious unless cabinetry is included which it's not. Some article names have changed since this list was made, This one was merged/moved in Dec 2012. in November it was at cabinet (furniture) title [lookhere] I imagine pbp sees the uncontentious alteration being changing cabinet (furniture) to cabinetry, which does make sense. Not very different to removing something because we have a different spelling. Theater is a redirect, if we listed that it would be clear to just change spelling, not remove it for being a redirect. By all means still try and remove cabinet if you don't like it, it definitely has a chance at getting the boot anyway, but I don't think redirects are all automatic dead weight unless what they redirect to something we already have (which, yes most are, but not all). Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify... p b  p  18:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cupboard
Support !votes
 * 1) As nom. We already include Furniture on the same sub-list.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Northamerica1000(talk) 07:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Really? Cupboard? john k (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * #Oppose p  b  p  22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I am stricking my opposition to this because a cupboard is enough like a built-in cabinet so as we don't need both  p  b  p  18:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * So PbP, you don't oppose the removal, but you also won't support the removal, is that right? Is cupboard such a controversial removal that you must remain neutral regarding this particular proposal for some reason? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dude, take what you can get. While cupboard is hardly the most important topic in this list, it's hardly the first thing I'd remove, either.  You don't keep your dishes in Willie Mays, after all.  Things that are controversial I oppose.  This isn't controversial per se.  p  b  p  23:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Chest of drawers
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)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Sportsmanship
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. What is this article meant to be? Carlwev (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - This is excessive. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose votes
 * 1) Oppose: I feel like the sportsmanship ideal should be on here. Maybe if it stays on here someone will fix it  p  b  p  22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Although "sporty" this is more of a emotion/relationship kind of thing. Similar to "respect" that we have in psychology setion. Carlwev (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

=Society and social sciences=

Remove Procter and Gamble
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Per Melody. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Why should we put individual companies on the list? Especially the ones that aren't ranked among the 10.000 most frequently viewed articles should be weeded out. Those articles are more likely than others to be percieved as purely commercial information. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's worth noting that P&G drops more ad benjamins than any other company on the planet. They probably also have more recognizable brands (Crest, Ivory, Duracell, Gillette) than any other company  p  b  p  14:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they did that recently. It is true that P and G is often cited as a good example for branding. Does it make them vitally encyclopedic? There is a discussion section on companies at the bottom of the page with more details. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Dutch East India Company
Duplicate. Already on History list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Shouldn't these simply be deleted on sight? I've been documenting my deleting of duplicates on this thread - feel free to add to it, V3n0M93. Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So far we have always voted on these deletions. I'm sure that nobody would mind if they are deleted, but I prefer to go through the procedure. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove East India Company
Duplicate. Already on History list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per my comment above, I think duplicates should be deleted on sight. Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I agree with Cobblet - there's no reason to vote on duplicates. john k (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Bank of America and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
These are the only articles we have on a specific bank. I don't know why these two in particular were chosen. I presume it's because of their size, but there's more than one way of measuring that and the list of largest banks fluctuates from year to year, so I think it's better not to include any banks at all. We do have the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Revolution, Riot, Protest, Demonstration (people)
I cannot find these topics listed, am surprised none of them are there. We have many articles about individual revolutions, at least one article about a historical event which is referred to as a protest, (Tiananmen Square protests of 1989). But we do not have articles about these basic concepts themselves. These happen and are recognized topics over most of the world through most of history. Considering the list is 10'000 strong and we have individual events that are named as being them, I am sure some of these are important enough to be listed. They are separate articles with separate meanings, however there is some overlap in what they are and the content of the articles, they may all get support to add, or maybe only some for this reason; but they wouldn't be the worst overlapping articles listed. I like some more than others, but I nom all to see what others think, in the order I like them: Carlwev (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Revolution
Support !votes
 * 1) Strong Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Igrek (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Add Riot
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Igrek (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Add Economic inequality
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support essential topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 Admiral

 * 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 Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Captain (armed forces)

 * 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 Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove General officer

 * 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 Bedrieger (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

=Biology and health sciences=

Swap: Add Semen, Remove Rasbora
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Rothorpe (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion
 * see sperm discussion below Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Caterpillar, remove Tortricidae
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes Remove a fairly unknown family of moths. Add article on the young stage of all moths and butterflies, the caterpillar. Pretty studied topic compared to Tortricidae. We have things like tadpole and larva. Caterpillar is I imagine, a more studied and read about topic compared to many of the 100+ insect species and families we have surely. Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, many of these Tortricidae are economically important pests. Google Books search results - 158,000. --Igrek (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Igrek. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Melolonthinae out Extremophile in
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Extremophile life forms are actually a hot topic in biology, as scientists study them for clues as to how life might evolve on other planets.  We will never miss the redundant family of scarab beetles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I propose removing Melolonthinae, a division of scarab beetles which are already included, and don't appear particularly vital. I propose replacing it with Extremophile an encompassing term for many types of organisms that can survive harsh conditions, well studied and wrote about, quite important to biology, and I'm sure they actually do have an article/section of their own in some encyclopedias and text books if I remember back to school correctly.  Carlwev (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Afrosoricida
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support If the entire order went extinct tomorrow noone would notice. oOt all orders are vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Curculionidae
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, see below. --Igrek (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * see attelabidae Carlwev (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Weevils include 7 families: Anthribidae — fungus weevils, Attelabidae — leaf rolling weevils, Belidae — primitive weevils, Brentidae — straight snout weevils, Caridae, Curculionidae — true weevils, Nemonychidae — pine flower weevils. Curculionidae is important family, see Google Books result:
 * Weevil - 2,270,000 results
 * Attelabidae - 2,960 results
 * Anthribidae - 24,500
 * Belidae - 5,610
 * Brentidae - 11,000
 * Caridae - 33,400
 * Curculionidae - 288,000 results
 * Nemonychidae - 3,640.
 * --Igrek (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove 8 general bird articles
Namely ornithology, bird flight, beak, evolution of birds, bird anatomy, bird migration, bird vocalization and origin of avian flight. Not because they aren't significant topics, but because no other type of animal (mammals, fish, etc.) gets covered in this kind of detail. If we can drastically cut down the number of entries on specific species and taxa then we might be able to reintroduce articles like these at some later point.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, although I'd rather have bird flight kept because it's an interdisciplinary article. However, Walking doesn't seem to be included either. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support the ones I'm not opposing below p  b  p  16:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose ornithology, bird flight and beak the rest can go p  b  p  16:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't have comparable articles like ichthyology or claw. Even animal locomotion isn't yet on the list - see the proposal below. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Arboreal locomotion, Add Animal locomotion
Not sure why we include the article on how animals move in trees when we don't include the one on how animals move at all.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. The general article is a bit sketchy, but I supposed this can be fixed through editing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Elephant shrew and Tree shrew
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Shrew is enough, we don't need seperate entries for all of them. Comparing we have only one entry for Lemur. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removing both even though not covered by shrew. Only ~20 species of each, compared to something like 300+ shrews. Not important enough to be in the 10k. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, do not be confused with name, Elephant shrew (Order: 	Macroscelidea) and Tree shrew (Order: Scandentia) do not belong to Shrews (Order: Soricomorpha). --Igrek (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Tetrigidae
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Add Grapefruit, Remove Custard apple
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Custard apple is basically a stub/dab. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Citrus doesn't seem included. We could swap Lime (fruit) for Citrus. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Strelitzia reginae
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Xanthorrhoea
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Ribes, Redcurrant, White currant
We have four articles on currants which is at least three too many. Let's spare blackcurrant for now.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Nice find! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Actinidia arguta
Known by various names - hardy kiwi, kiwi berry, etc. But we already have kiwifruit. This fruit seems less vital.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Brachiosaurus, Add Iguanodon
Even if Camarasaurus goes there are still three more sauropods on the list - a bit unfair to all the other dinosaurs. Apatosaurus (aka Brontosaurus) and Diplodocus are more widely familiar to people, so I suggest removing Brachiosaurus and replacing it with Iguanodon, the archetypal ornithopod (which will lack representation once Maiasaura is gone) and one of the first dinosaurs to be discovered.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Maiasaura
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Urinalysis
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

=Physical sciences=

Swap: Remove Absolute magnitude and Apparent magnitude, Add Magnitude (astronomy)
The last article covers both of the articles we have now.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Isthmus
Redirects to List of isthmuses, which is a list. Not that vital.

'''Support ! votes''' Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Jus  da  fax   06:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Guyot
which is a flat-topped seamount according to the latter article, which is already on our list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Silicate minerals, Add Feldspar
The former is a list; the latter, the most common mineral on Earth.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Yet another great proposal! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove List of elements
The article is a list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Material, Add Ceramic
The former is a stub - too nebulous a concept, I suppose. The latter is vital.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Alkali, Add Radical (chemistry)
An alkali is just a water-soluble base and we already have two examples: potassium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide. Radicals (a.k.a. free radicals) are responsible for a lot of chemical processes: combustion, ozone depletion, free radical polymerization and DNA damage, to name a few. An absolutely essential topic that I forgot to add when I was expanding this section a few years ago!
 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Oil, Add Cooking oil
An oil in the chemical sense is just a liquid organic compound; we definitely need the latter under Cooking, food and drink.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

=Technology=

Swap: Remove Insecticide, Add Pesticide
Insecticide is a type of pesticide.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom (User:V3n0M93)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Textile manufacturing and Loom
The manufacture of textiles is a major industry that we don't have represented on the list, except by textile.

Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Cobblet (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  23:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Swap: Remove Kinematic pair, Add Screwdriver
Support !votes
 * 1) support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, because Kinematic pair is a main article for all kinds of joints which are an important concept, and likely an older concept than screws/screwdriver. (Because the former can be wooden, so it's probably older). I think screwdriver is kind of covered by screw, which is on the list. No subarticle of Kinematic pair was on the list, last time I checked (which was several weeks ago). Maybe a straight add for Screwdriver should be considered, or adding subarticles of Kinematic pair. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If we want say lists of loads musical instruments, tools are pretty important too. Tools like this are widely used but kind of forgotten about, we already have hammer and saw etc. Carlwev (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Watering can, Add Sail
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Jus  da  fax   06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The sail article is pretty good; this swap improves the list. Jus da  fax   06:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Watering can
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * sail is not vital --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Net (textile)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support, doesn't seem vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Twine
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support, doesn't seem vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support obviously not vital in any way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Loppers, Add Scissors

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)]
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add C (programming language)
Technology is still below quota and there are no programming languages.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Space shuttle
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. Defunct/archaic. Also, we already have International Space Station.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Épée

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support agree not the most vital weapon or sword, in warfare, fencing maybe. Carlwev (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Sabre

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Non vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Tomahawk (axe)

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion

General discussion of topic area: Weapons technology
I am mostly searching for removal candidates, but these omissions caught my attention. I would prefer if I cold find swaps for these, and I might search for some removal candidates to pair these with soon; Revolver and Pistol. Both seem more vital than AK-47, covered by handgun? but are they better representatives than hand gun? Carlwev (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The articles brought up, artillery and knife are in the vital 1000, it makes sense to expand on them within the 10'000. I still examples of weapons are more vital than examples of numerous sports athletes, journalists, musicians, albums, insects, movies, national parks, 160 fish. There are 9 weapons in the 1000, natural X 10 expansion would be 90, but we have 74, I would actually like to add a few more. I cannot get behind any of these really possibly one or two I could. Can't really remove knife anyway as its in the 1000 list, Shows that someone thought it must be very vital to put it there. Dagger is a kind of knife. Dagger is the submisive term not the other way round, I'd probably keep them both anyway, but I wouldn't oppose moving knife to tools, but it's OK in weapons. We have fork and Spoon somewhere in tools, it could go with them or stay put. Also bear in mind, from the 1000 to the 10'000, weapons has gone from 9 to 74. Compare it to other areas. Fish has gone from 1 to 161. Birds from 1 to 158. Insects from 1 to 112. Fruit from 1 to 46. Veg from 2 to 70+. All numerous lists of Tennis 16, Baseball 9, Basketball 9, Golf 10, figure Skating 8, and more have all been expanded up from 0. I mean cannon and knife not vital really? as we have artillery and dagger??? I feel more comfortable saying 8 figure skaters are not vital as we have figure skating. I think weapons is close to its proper limit, I'd prefer increasing it a tiny bit rather than decrease it. Weapons are important, and should not be reduced to several generic over-encompassing terms, we need more specific ones too. Carlwev (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

=Mathematics=

Remove Imaginary number
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support, covered by Complex number. --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Radix

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, doesn't seem vital. Numeral system is a better choice. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need an article that discusses bases other than base-10 and binary. Numeral system is a possible choice but talks about things besides bases. What about Positional notation? Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * It looks good. The problem with Radix is that I doubt it can become anything more than a Start/Stub article. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Distance

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom: line is not general enough and we don't have displacement or metric either (but we do have metric space.) Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion

=Measurement=

So where does measurement belong?
At the end of May I started a thread about merging measurement, previously a page of its own with under 100 topics into another page. The thread was named merge measurement into Physical science or mathematics, I stated I was preferring physical science. 3 other users supported but gave no preference, 1 user commented within the support saying merge measurement into technology, no one else appeared to comment about technology. Although there were 5 supports, there was no clear picture of where it was going to be merged to, physical science I thought looked like the preferred. Measurement was then merged into Technology, which was not the title of the thread, and only one user commented about technology. I appreciate the efforts of everyone to improve the list and although technology kind of makes sense for measurement, and it's much better there than standing alone, I'm not sure this is the best place for it. I can see the argument for all 3 Physical science, Mathematics, and Technology. Because it is hard to place I can understand it standing alone, but with less than 100 topics, I cannot see it being justified. There are more things that could stand alone but don't, there are weirder things lumped together in the same section. I will put a list below and state my order of preference 1st 2nd 3rd as to where I would put measurement. A bit more complicated than our standard voting but not too complicated, and any other way may be hard to find what people actually want, like the last thread although getting 5 supports wasn't clear what it was support for. If others follow my lead we will find out where our joint consensus want to put measurement. I know it might be a bit over the top but hey if we don't try we'll never know, we've all put a lot of work in here, so what's a bit more. Carlwev (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Technology: rightly or wrongly, some instruments for measuring things are within technology, as instruments are a tool or a technology this makes sense to place measurement into technology. Many things that are measured are measured with a tool or a technology.


 * Mathematics: measuring in part kind of includes of uses numbers and counting and adding, overlapping clearly with maths, some things in measurement like measuring angles with degrees, is more geometry, which is part of maths.


 * Physical sciences: The article or category of measurement here on Wikipedia has been placed in the categories of "applied sciences" and "Scientific observation" but not maths or tech categories. Time and space etc are clearly part of physical science, so it makes sense the units for measuring time and space be somewhere on the same page.

Have Measurement as a stand alone page
 * 4th choice/oppose Carlwev (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Place measurement in Technology
 * 3rd choice/weak support Carlwev (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Place measurement in Mathematics
 * 2nd choice/medium support Carlwev (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Place measurement in physical science
 * 1) 1st choice/strong support Carlwev (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) The terms belong to different fields of science. Measurement should be split up into these sections: bit and byte belong obviously into computing, yard and meter obviously into geography, calorie and joule into everyday life (or wherever nutrition is), decibel, celcius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin, Ohm, Volt, Pound, Gram, Watt, Ampere and most others obviously into physics. Degree and radian, again obviously, into Mathematics. There are probably only a few cases that are not obvious. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Melody. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Per Carl.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Per Carl. There are 99 articles under Measurement - I think it's better to keep them all in the same section rather than to split them up. Cobblet (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Unit of length
Article is a list. Not vital.


 * Support votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes


 * Discussion

Remove Nanosecond
Already have Second.


 * Support votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes


 * Discussion

Remove Decade
Non vital. We have Year and Century.


 * Support votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes


 * Discussion

Remove Gram and Microgram
Already have Kilogram.


 * Support votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Square metre, Square mile, Century and Millennium, Add the 13 remaining named SI units
Namely: steradian, pascal (unit), coulomb, farad, siemens (unit), weber (unit), tesla (unit), henry (unit), lux, becquerel, gray (unit), sievert, katal. These are all part of the International System of Units and are therefore vital. Centuries and millennia are simple multiples of years and are not vital. Nor are the two units of area - their articles are practically stubs. Area already covers the concept of a square unit.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

=General Discussions=

Voting on swaps only, or separate adds and removals
I can see the POV but I am disliking very strongly the direct swap only idea. I believe we should have lone deletions happening. I believe removing one or more articles at the same time as adding one is good idea, but I think we should vote on removals and additions separately.

DL, While supporting the odd few additions, it looks as though you are opposing many topics that you yourself think are vital only because we are over limit. I wish you wouldn't oppose things when you actually comment you think they are vital, because they will count as oppose votes, if anything a neutral comment in the discussion would be better I think.

DL, You seem to be OK with direct swaps. I have already stated several times here and there, that I think direct swaps are really awkward at times. It becomes a game of making sure a proposed addition is pitted against the correct non-vital removal candidate, it's not actually finding vital articles that are missing. I believe we should not have adds alone happening. I believe when one article is added, one or more articles should definitely be removed at the same time, but which one it is should not be "dependent". Which ever addition has the most support, should get added; and at the same time which ever removal has the most support, should get removed. A swap really is an addition dependent on and at the same time as a deletion. To support a swap a person has to agree with 2 things not just one, the addition and the removal. If they strongly support the removal of "A" but, strongly oppose the addition of "B", they cannot cast a proper vote.

Example. Many cheeses and other foods and drink are getting huge removal support. Some national cuisines DL said are vital. But opposed many of them. It may have got DL's support if I proposed a swap like, Edam out, Chinese cuisine in. But if 3 other people love the idea of adding Chinese cuisine, but also hate the idea of removing Edam they might oppose the swap. But if it were only Add chinese cuisine they had to vote on they might support it, but if it's an add only vote some may oppose it, but for being and add only, not for being nonvital. Can we not just remove which ever food has the most support for removal at the same time as adding which ever food has the most support for addition. Why must one addition proposal be bolted to one, and only one specific removal proposal. It is still a swap, but a flexible dynamic one, but not a swap 100% dependent on all users agreeing on both sides of one swap at the same time.

If we rely on swaps only, many vital things will not get added that maybe should or could, if people don't agree on both sides of the swap. Or the talk page will be longer than it needs to be with people retrying the same addition proposal with a different removal proposal attached to it each time. It may also take a lot longer to change than it would the other way.

Imagine this fictional Vote with only 4 imaginary users to see my point. It's possible many topic voting could end up like this, where votes on swaps only would be 50/50 and go dead, but the same articles voted on separately may get 3/4 approval and go ahead It will still result in the same swap but is more likely to be closer to people real opinions and is more likely to happen. I feel very strongly on this. I am not saying at all we should add without removing anything, just go ahead with the removal with the most support, at the same time as the addition with the most support of that section. Carlwev (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Carl, I don't disagree with what you're saying. Your matrix looks like a variation on basic game theory to me.

Here's the bottom line: in the last week, we have proposed four or five times as many new additions as we have removals. We are already 300+ articles over the stated limit for the VA/E, and that problem is not going to resolve itself by proposing four or five times as many new additions as old removals. In reality, it's an impossibility. The quickest way to resolve this problem is to scour the sublists for lower-priority topics and propose them for removal, but it's not going to be easy. We knew that already, frankly. Adding stuff is fun, and we feel intelligent for having found overlooked vital topics; removing topics is hard, and usually requires making choices that some editors oppose. At the end of the day, the Vital Articles project is about making choices; there are something like four million articles on Wikipedia. Only 10,000 of them get to be deemed "vital" topics; the other 3.9+ million do not.

As for swaps, they obviously work best when the two topics to be swapped are closely related (e.g., two movies, two actors, two foods, two military journalists, etc.), so participating editors can make a direct comparison of the relative importance of the two topics. It's difficult to compare the relative importance of a species of fish, with, say, a Canadian prime minister. Sometimes, cross-category swaps may work, but I suspect those will be the exceptions. I see one or two pending that will probably succeed.

I suppose we could rank every topic on every sublist from highest to lowest, and then cut the bottom three to five percent from every sublist, but I see that being far more involved and procedurally difficult than what we are doing now. As for those articles that every participant would like to add, well, we're going to have to be patient and clean up the mess that was left for us before we get to add many more. The reality of the situation is we need to propose four or five times more existing articles for removal than we propose new articles for addition. That's where we are for the time being. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Swaps, adding, removing, method not working when some sections are too small
I'm still seeing some big problems. Users have different views on how we should be managing swaps, adds and removals. I can see all POVs here and don't mind which method we use. At first I did not like swaps, as people have to agree on the the article getting added and the article getting removed at the same time. I wanted to vote on all adds and removals separately, but make sure a successful addition could only be completed at the same time as one or more removals at the same time, from anywhere, in the list not necessarily the same area. But that has the problem of some users only proposing multiple adds but no removals. And others seem to oppose any lone addition for being a lone additions. I understand that view, I was even agreeing with it and following it for the last few months. This way articles can only get in by being directly bolted to a removal, a direct swap. I tried doing a swap but by putting a removal right next to an addition, but so voting on them is separate, but the removal went through faster, and the addition look like a lone add, so I think people were put off by that. That didn't seem to work either. So it straight adds only. Leaders for leaders. Novels for novels. Films for films etc.

But now. We are at a point were we all agree, some sections are way too bloated, and others are not. If I believe there are missing vital religion or maths articles, and they have to be swapped in. But say if those sections aren't hugely bloated but biographies section still is bloated. Perfect solution is to remove a biography and add a maths or religion topic. But now users are opposing swaps because they are from different sections, pretty much. So half the users will not support cross swaps, and the other half of users won't support lone adds only swaps, even if more removals are happening. So where do we end up, 15 ethnic groups have been proposed to add, I think they are good candidates for inclusion, lets just say for arguments sake that they are vital and need to be in and we need to have more races here, how do get them in. Most users won't support straight adding, neither do I really. There are not 15 ethnic groups crying out for removal to make room, but there may be 3 sportsman, 3 artists, 3 plants, 3 fish and 3 insects crying out for removal, but if I propose that I am hit with the wall of "try and avoid apples and oranges" try and avoid cross swaps. Well if there are 160 fish and 20 ethnic groups we want less fish more ethnic groups for example, half the users won't add an ethnic group without it being a swap, the other half won't support a swap because it's from 2 different sections. So even if there was consensus to increase races for arguments sake, our whole voting structure and individual views would never let the articles get in. Ethnic groups could be doomed to stay a small under represented list for years until the whole project is well under 10'000 again, and we've probably all forgotten about it or moved on from this project, and the original proposal for it is hidden somewhere in archive 17 of 256 never to be seen again. I have an open mind, I really don't mind which methods we use for the adding removing and swapping as long as we agree and it works. I changed my view and embraced the swap method I originally hated it but everyone else seemed to like it, and for a lot of things it worked. But now I see it not working on some things at all. How can you get a vital topic get in if there is no lesser article "of the same kind" to remove in its place. Ignore the ethnic groups, it's only an example. If some sections are very bloated and other different sections are missing truly vital articles, how are we going to fix that as a group? How do we decrease one bloated section and slightly increase another section that is lacking and have everyone agree on a method for doing it? because at the moment with peoples' views and methods, it seems like an impossibility. Carlwev (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The correct way to do this would be to establish a fixed size for each group (and I would argue a quote system to assure balance between Western/American-Global and Male-Female). So for example we might want to start by agreeing about what is the right number of articles about Fish, Ethnic groups, Math etc and then start shaving them down to the size we want. I would suggest that 100 Fish and 40 ethnic groups would be reasonable goals. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Each to there own but I am getting really annoyed by all the "Apples and Oranges" remarks. If there are too many apples and not enough oranges, how can we improve the list if we cannot swap an "apple for an orange?" swapping an orange for another orange when we have too many helps no one. We cannot add Apples straight up on there own because, we're not allowed straight adds, we can't swap an Apple for another Apple because there's virtually no Apples to start with. Carlwev (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Musicians vs albums etc
While I know we want some albums and songs/works and I admit a small number of cases such as Happy Birthday to You you would include the work before the author. Most cases you would have artist before album/song. Although it's not getting support, The Beach Boys have been proposed for removal, but in arts is their album Pet Sounds. It probably wasn't noticed or intended but why would anyone want to remove The Beach Boys but leave in one of their albums? If you thought they were solid or borderline you would prefer to keep the band rather than one album wouldn't you.

Certain bands I think are borderline for inclusion have got a place for them self plus another for one of their albums, other bands that are borderline and maybe could get in, are not in and don't have an album in either. We have Nirvana (band) and Nevermind but we don't even have Grunge, we have The Beach Boys and Pet Sounds, The Velvet Underground and The Velvet Underground and Nico. Then we have Rumours but we don't have Fleetwood Mac themselves? There are artists like Little Richard and Simon & Garfunkel that are kind of getting support for inclusion but not quite getting in, when some artists are in them self and have an album in too. There are several artists I think are on equal par or above some listed. Little Richard, Simon & Garfunkel, R.E.M, Iron Maiden, Phil Collins, Genesis, Dire Straits, Rod Stewart, Bon Jovi, Sting (musician), Guns N' Roses, Tina Turner. Don't get me wrong I know we can't have them all. But I think we may be approaching it wrong, we could get better coverage of modern pop music, and be closer to a real print encyclopedia if we removed say 15 albums/songs, and added 5 more artists, and still reducing the numbers. Also look at The Beatles, we removed George Harrison, partly for being semi-redundant to the Beatles but we still have, All You Need Is Love, I Want to Hold Your Hand, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, plus Imagine. Not only can Harrison not cut when 2 Beatles songs, and 2 albums and a Lennon song can, which seems not what a print encyclopedia would have, Beatles/Lennon works make up 5/41 or an eighth of all modern musical works which seems too high. (Doesn't "Yesterday" seem like one Beatles song we should have instead?). I will make some proper suggestions soon, but do people see what I'm saying? What are your thoughts Carlwev (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There are also some classical pieces I don't like very much, do we need 3 separate pieces by Chopin? I'm not so sure we do. Soon I want to propose National anthem and maybe Christmas carol, they seem more vital concepts than many music pieces we have. Carlwev (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there are too many albums and too many musicians. I think the modern musicians should be cut to 100, but modern specific works should be cut to ~20-25 (it's way over that now) and classical specific works should be cut to about a dozen.  The cutting of modern musicians should go towards getting the count down to 1,000, but I could see some of the space created going toward more for genres and specific cultures (I.e. Music of Africa, Music of Africa)  p  b  p  22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * PBP, please identify the five lowest-priority rock musicians among those still remaining and not already proposed for removal from the VA/E list. It has gotten much tighter.  I know; I just spent the last 45 minutes looking over it, and several other related popular music lists.


 * Carl, I've actually noticed the same inconsistencies and redundancies throughout our various pop culture sublists. I think that's largely a function of editors having added their various favorites and/or perceived "vital" artists and works without any sort of discussion or review since the VA/E lists was originally compiled five or six years ago.  Which was easy to do when there was still room under the 10,000-topic limit, and nobody was watching.  Take a look at what was listed at the end of 2007, for instance, in terms of pop culture vs. "serious artists."  The percentage of pop culture was much smaller than now.  The serious (I assume) proposal of three or four rappers to be added is indicative of just how far down the pop culture road the list has come, and the pop culture topics that have been added over the last four or five years constitute a lot of the "bloat" of less-than-vital articles.


 * In discussing which pop culture topics should be included, we need to start with the proposition that no musical group should be listed, then have two or three individual band members listed, followed by several its albums and individual songs. As big of a deal as the Beatles were from 1964 to 1969, they were no bigger a popular cultural phenomenon than Elvis Presley was a decade earlier.  "Vital" should mean "vital," not one of the top 32 rock musicians, 28 "popular musicians," and rock/pop songs and albums, with separate lists for R&B, Country-Western.  All of those categories need to be pared, and no group should get as many listings as the Beatles currently do.  We are not cutting U.S. presidents of the 20th Century to make room for Whitney Houston, Shania Twain and Burt Bacharach.


 * BTW, the reason why Rumours is listed is because it was the best-selling record of all-time for over a decade until its sales were finally overtaken by Michael Jackson's Thriller several years after Thriller was released. Rumours was a popular album not because of just one or two songs, either; practically every song on it was a hit, and it plays extremely well as an album, not just a collection of songs.  It was the undoubted peak of Fleetwood Mac's success, still one of the ten best-selling albums of all-time, with only four others having greater certified sales.  It was produced 36 years ago.  It was a big deal.  And there are several others on the list that are worthy to be there, but not many.  There also should only be a handful of individual songs.  Bing Crosby's 1942 recording of "White Christmas" is still the best-selling single ever with over 50 million copies; clearly, it gets a slot.  It, too, was a Big Deal.


 * Anyway, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the list, Carl. We still have a lot of refinement to do, but I think we've made more progress in the last four weeks in terms of organization and developing a way forward than we had in the lat four months.  We're picking up speed.  Keep reviewing and critiquing the sublists.  We've only just begun.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Carlwev here. In my opinion, songs that have become standards performed by many artists have the strongest case for inclusion as modern musical works. Most albums are not such cultural phenomena in themselves as to be more worthy of inclusion than artists. My first picks for deletion would be Nevermind, the Velvet Underground & Nico, and Revolver (because we don't need two Beatles albums). On the other hand, I don't think the Velvet Underground and Nirvana should be deleted from artists. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles with multiple swap threads?
Another problem I see approaching from the swap method is some articles are being proposed for adding or removing in several different threads at once. If one swap is being opposed or ignored an article thread is posted pitting the article against another, this is the general method had has developed. The problem with one article in several different threads, if more than one of the threads gets the required support at about the same time, which one would we follow? Removing 2 articles and adding one would be OK. Harold Wilson is proposed to be removed in at least 2 swap threads, against Gladstone and Atlee. If both got up to 5 support in the same day, and we carried out both swaps as each would be a successful swap thread by itself. We have to add 2 articles while only removing one, which is not what we're going for. Or we would have to not add an article which was proposed and was successful with enough votes. Which means an article that 5 or more feel is vital won't be added even though it was voted to be added, which is kind of unfair to the voters and the list? Carlwev (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget about the 1000 list
There are proposals to improve the vital 1000 list taking place too. HERE Input from more users would be greatly appreciated, such as stating support or opposition to proposed changes, or just discussing them, or giving new ideas. Hopefully we can improve the list more by having a greater number of people take part. Carlwev (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Target Numbers
I present my view on target numbers:

Let's discuss this. --Igrek (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 2000 bios sounds about right. I think the tech number is a little high and the geography number is a little low  p  b  p  22:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the proposed 10% reduction in the People sublist is wildly over optimistic, given current discussion and !voting trends. Even with the current concerted effort to review and purge the pop culture lists, we are adding one new People topic for every two we remove.  And the People sublists outside of the pop culture-related sublists are not nearly as bloated.  I also think that the 26% increase in Technology sublist topics is disproportionate, especially as other sublists must bear a far greater reduction in order to support that increase.  Also, I would want to review the 40+ Mathematics topics proposed to be added before I would support a 12% increase of that sublist.  In fact, I've already asked a couple of Wikipedians with graduate mathematics backgrounds to review the existing Mathematics sublist to determine what can and should be cut.


 * Frankly, I think it is premature to be proposing significant expansions of any sublist at this time. The history of the Vital Articles project has proven that it is very easy to add new topics, but damn difficult to remove existing ones.  We are presently have a difficult time removing the B movie Godzilla from a list of the 50 most significant films ever produced.  That speaks volumes.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had mistake on Technology sublist target number, must be 800, not 900. --Igrek (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like everyone thinks People is the most bloated section. In geography I think it is too small, I think there are a few important cities, regions and islands etc that are much more important than Shania Twain and Helen Caldicott. But I think there are places to be trimmed there too like Parks and Preserves and Antarctic Territories. But I dare suggest any places to add until we are under limit again which won't be for a long time. It's hard to think of targets from afar at the moment, without examining the lists. Without looking you wouldn't know there were 25 footballers and 19 tennis players. I personally would like to move some sublists about, Measurement into physics. And I would like a section like "Art, Media, and Entertainment" because I think TV shows and movies are the same kind of thing, and board games and video games too are a designed and published and enjoyed much like movies, books and music, games are an art form, and art is entertainment, so they should be together. So I cannot think of list totals when I do not agree with the lists layouts. Carlwev (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Carl, I have not yet had the time to review the Geography sublist in detail, but I note that the Antarctic national territories are all strong candidates for removal. I also question the large number of Chinese and Indian cities on the list.  Regarding Caldicott and Shania Twain, removal discussions are already pending; as for the footballers and tennis players, I agree both lists could and should be further trimmed.  I also think the consolidation of several of the sublists propose by you make sense.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Vis-a-vis Chinese and Indian cities, yeah, there are a lot, because there are a lot of really, really big Chinese and Indian cities. Together, China and India account for about a third of the world's population; yet they only account for 17.2% of the cities on the list.    China and India are actually underrepresented relative to their population; just not as grossly as they are underrepresented elsewhere in the project. As such, I can't really support them being culled by more than than a few cities.   p  b  p  15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PBP, I'm not sure that allocating vital topic geography slots to cities based on the populations of the parent country is the best way to proceed. By that same token, Athens, Berlin, London, New York, Paris, Vienna and Washington have smaller populations than most of the Chinese cities on the list.  Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai are clearly vital, as are Delhi and Mumbai; all others should be critically reviewed for historical, economic and political relevance, not just raw population numbers, and the same standard should be applied to western cities, too.  Among U.S. cities, I also question the inclusion of Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit and Minneapolis for the same reasons.  Every Brazilian state capital seems to be included, and I suspect there are many other regional cities that were included by simply on the basis of population.  No topic or topic area should get a free pass.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article Global city I came across, it kind of shows how important cities are from a world wide POV with population not being a primary factor. Factors are said to be Economy, Politics, Culture and Infrastructure. I think we could use this article for ideas for which cities to include and exclude, but obviously not as an exact rule book. Most of listed cities seem pretty sensible, but it does seem to favour modern economies over historical and cultural or religious significance, Tel Aviv is way higher than Jerusalem for example. Carlwev (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carlwev on Geography sublist, it have more vital articles than many ones from other sublist. When I looked for candidates for removal from Geography sublist, I realised that it not easy to choose 160 articles. I propose cut it to 1300, not 1200. I think, we can cut Physical sciences sublist to 1000 and set 750 for Technology sublist. I propose new numbers, more realistic for short term goals (see table). --Igrek (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: If we're doing this, we might as well break down how to cut bios. Of the 190-something cuts that still need to be made to bios, a disportionate number need to come from entertainers, musicians, athletes and fictional characters.  People of letters and sciences are right-sized; same with military and political leaders  p  b  p  15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have for a very long time wanted to move fictional characters out of people into arts. They are not real people that are born, live and die and interact with the world, they are designed and are artistic creations, like movies, books, games, comics. Some aren't even people like Kermit, Mickey, Tooth fairy, Easter Bunny. Some are not even characters at all, they are series/works/franchises Pokemon, Adventures of Tintin, Asterix, Peanuts. I would keep them as a character list within arts or split them into comics, literature, movies, mythology and religion. Only issues would be multi-media characters like James Bond books and movies, and who's actually real or not, from religious texts, eg Adam and Eve, then Noah, then Joseph, then Moses, then Jesus, where's the exact cut off point from historical person to character from religious texts? Anyway do users think characters belong in art like I do? Carlwev (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 650 for History is too few. There are a lot of vital history articles not included. I think something along the lines of 750 articles for History is enough. The Geography and Biology quotas are too high IMO. We can lower them to make room for more History articles. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Geography I feel is appropriately sized - it should definitely be no less than 1250 articles. I would suggest lowering the quota for biology from 1000 to 750, and then increasing each of the physical sciences by 25; so 225 for astronomy, 300 for chemistry and physics, and 275 for earth sciences. I wouldn't mind buffing History, even though I'm not totally sure it needs 100 more; also, given the difficulties we're having trying to cut anything in Arts, that quota probably needs to be bumped up by at least 50. Cobblet (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Biology quota right now is 1500 not 1000, which I think is excessive. As for History we don't have many historic cities of the list and there quite a few important topics that haven't been added.--V3n0M93 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I got my numbers confused. Medicine and health right now is 250, which is fine; so biology itself is 1250. I suggest cutting the biology quota to 1000. I'd consider cutting it even further, but let's just cut 250 first and see what the list looks like - one in five articles is a pretty significant cut already. Cobblet (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Target Numbers. People
Let's discuss this. --Igrek (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: p b  p  19:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would propose 450 for politicians and leaders.
 * 100% support getting sports figures down to 100. We have way too many second-tier figures on that list
 * I don't think writers/journalists needs to be expanded significantly; journalists is being shrunk and writers can hold steady
 * I think we can go below 200 on musicians; there are a lot of second-tier musicians and performers that I have questions about.
 * Same with entertainers
 * In philosophers and religious figures, the fat is mostly in philosophers; I think hold at 125 for religious figures and cut philosophers to 75 is the right approach (and some of the philosophers are misclassified; William James was a social scientist)
 * Getting inventors and comp sci to 50 is a good idea because we need to consider Cyrus McCormick and Elias Howe.
 * For Activists, maybe 40?
 * 20 or 25 for Journalists
 * Only 40 for business; I'm not seeing a lot of top-tier businessmen missing from the list
 * If fictional characters is moved, we might want to go even below 2,000


 * 10,000 Articles? It looks like we have been operating with an inaccurate total count for some time, if the latest update is correct.  If we are, in fact, 400+ articles over the 10,000-article limit, there really is no room to add anything at this time.  We really should be looking at nothing but prioritized cuts.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am close to agreeing with you on this. I too am thinking about removals only... at least until I notice something that really is vital and missing. But no really it looks like removals only probably is the way forward. Carlwev (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We also need to seriously look at our target numbers by category. I would love to trim the People list to 2,000, but I fear that is completely unrealistic, given the resistance to deeper pop culture cuts.  The only way I see the People list getting to 2,000 is moving the 80 mythical, legendary and fictional people elsewhere, but that's really just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  The move probably makes sense for other reasons, though, but it doesn't really represent a cut of 80 articles.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the comment about the chairs, as I noted above about shooting for under 2,000 if we move fictional characters. Really, at the moment, the only "add" I've got going is Diaz, and that's really an "add Diaz, remove Max".  I've got a lot of swaps and a lot of removals; and we're gonna need some more, particularly in Athletes.  We need to get basketball players down to 5, and tennis players down to 10.  It would be nice if somebody could propose more of the second-tier athletes for deletion  p  b  p  19:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Archives
For my opinion, naming of archives by sublist names is more convinient than by numbers. I propose new names: and replace content of sublists (Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/People, etc) with redirects to sections of this page. --Igrek (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/People/Archive 1, 2, 3...
 * Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/History/Archive 1, 2, 3...

People. Historical significance of politicians

 * What do you think, will we able to find objective criteria for assessing the significance of the politicians? I am afraid, our voting without objective criteria depend on subjective views. --Igrek (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Companies?
We have a small list of companies in business, and a few more dotted about, in cars and food etc. proposals to remove companies have started, I have wanted to bring this up for a while. When I first found this list, I too had a dislike about including companies. Some companies have had a large impact on the world, but they are kind of faceless, with no identity. Having thought about it I'm not so sure. We have Akio Morita the co-founder of Sony, we don't have Sony. In this case Sony may be more vital. The artificial measuring methods: Sony is in about 65 languages, Morita in about 25. Morita has about 8k-9k hits a month, Sony something like 120k-150k hits a month. Nintendo (not included), 80k-120k hits and 60 languages, Shigeru Miyamoto (included) 45k-65k hits per month, and 30 languages. Companies can go for much longer than a human life span and can employ thousands and in some cases millions of people, achieve or create more things and become more famous, than individual people like a company founder. Some companies release/produce important art, or technology/inventions. Both companies Sony and Nintendo, have longer better articles than their respective people do, especially the Sony one. In this case I think Sony and Nintendo are possibly better articles to represent their topic field than Miyamoto and Morita are. There are obviously times when it is not the case too Charlie Chaplin is more vital than United Artists for example. But I can't help feeling companies like Disney, 20th century Fox, Warner Bros may be more vital to the topic of film than Sunset boulevard, West Side Story, Morgan Freeman, Nicole Kidman and Dustin Hoffman are, ignore the fact some of them may go soon, I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. Electronics and Film are only 2 examples, there maybe many more. I can see this both ways, what do others think? Carlwev (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sony offers a number of products in a variety of product lines around the world. - That's a quote from the Sony-Article, and: it's sourced! (www.sony.com) I'll spare you my sarcasm. This statement sums up the contents of these articles. The Sony-article reads like a commercial - and I'm sure the PR-departments take good care of it, because they get free advertising-space on Wikipedia. If I want info on a company, I go to their website. I expect something different from an encyclopedia. I expect NPOV information. So maybe Market for electronics would be interesting in an encyclopedia (- this is a red link because it ís probably hard to research - the studies on market-share are often not available to the public).
 * We have retail and then we have Walmart as an example. Someone included Procter and Gamble probably because it's frequently cited as exemplary in Branding. Branding should be covered by Marketing, but I would rather support Brand to be included than P and G.
 * In general, this list tends to include the tangible rather than the abstract, and I admit that I expect encyclopedias to cover abstract concepts at least equally well. There should be a balance.
 * There are companies that are different: Dutch East India Company and East India Company are historic. If we do have room, I think they could stay. Or maybe Enron because of the Enron scandal.
 * Yes, some of the companies are ranked in the 10.000 most frequently viewed articles on WP, like Microsoft and Apple Inc. But that's just one aspect of many that influence the decision of what is vital, as we have discussed before. And these numbers could be influenced by the PR-department of the companies.
 * Biographies of managers: we should judge them separately from the companies. Sam Walton is certainly interesting (and on the list if I remember correctly). That should not predetermine whether we include Walmart or not.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Only Americans play Folk music?
And half of all notable folk musicians in the world are American country musicians from the 50s and 60s? I find that hard to believe. Also it is a ridiculous waste of people's time to revert someone's edit with the only reason that it hasn't been discussed first - it also goes against basic policies such as WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. And finally who in the lager world outside of the US do you think even know of Les Paul (except as the name of a guitar), Jimmie Rodgers and Garth Brooks? At least Cash and Kline, Parton and Williams are known outside of Tennessee.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Maunus. As you may have noticed, there are several dozen active discussions underway above regarding the addition, removal or swapping of articles on the Vital Articles/Expanded list.  There are several reasons for those discussions.  First and foremost, the VA/E list has a limit of 10,000 articles; it is currently 300+ topics over that 10,000-article limit.  Because of the limit and the fact that the list over 300 articles over budget, a major function of this project is to compare and prioritize the relative "vitalness" of every list topic.  Usually, just one person is not the best judge of what is "vital" across the English-speaking world or the world as a whole.  Second, after witnessing the results of the willy-nilly addition of many editors' personal favorites over the past four or five years, many of us have decided that every change -- whether a new addition or the removal of an existing list item -- deserves a meaningful discussion on the merits in which a half dozen or more editors participate.  I don't agree with every decision we make in these discussions, but I readily acknowledge that there is a group wisdom that evolves from the perspectives and interaction of multiple editors, and I believe the VA/E list is being rapidly improved as a result.


 * As for the reversion of your proposed change being counter to WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, I simply note that every BOLD edit is subject to being reverted per the express language of WP:BOLD, and the "R" and "D" in BRD stand for "revert" and "discussion." That having been said, Maunus, we would welcome your active participation in our add/drop discussions on this talk page, including those subjects you raised above.  Yours would be a welcome additional voice and perspective, and you may come to appreciate the method in our madness -- and the improvements that such discussion methods are making to the VA/E list.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bold edits are subject to being reverted with a reason which is then stated on the talkpage to initiate a discussion. Not just willy nilly. And you didn't address the subject of my query namely the question why there are only american musicians in the folk section and why half of those are country musicians probably only known to Americans above the age of 50, or people who regularly visit the grand ole opry.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Maunus. Please list the articles you want on this talk page. Tell us who you want to add and also who you want to remove from the list. We are aware of the problem you are addressing (that the list has too many Americans on it). We need editors to help change that. And also the list is currently too long - so if you find articles that you think should be removed, list them in the appropriate section (musicians) under its own heading. Within 15 days or 3 months at the most we will vote on the subject according to the conditions that are described at the top of the page. And, in answer to your question about the age of the musicians: the Vital Articles/Expanded-List should contain the most vital 10000 articles any encyclopedia should have: it should provide a worldwide view and has to include articles from all eras, not just the last 20 years. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is it that whenever I suggest an addition to the folk list of a non-American musician several people here oppose without giving at least a rationale or even better a suggestion of a more vital non-American folk musician to add. It simply cannot be the case that only American folk musicians are vital. So give me your suggestions of which non-American folk artists should be included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Leonard Cohen was voted off. I was quite surprised when I just looked at his article to find there are versions in over 50 languages. Maybe there's a case for voting him back in as an artist with global appeal. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Leonard Cohen isn't exactly a move to globalize the list - he doesn't represent a non-American folk tradition even though he is Canadian.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Removed
—Wavelength (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is someone maintaining Vital articles/Expanded/Removed, keeping it up to date?


 * No, I think that was maintained for a short time period, and only by a few users within that time period, one of them me, and not very well either. I kept my own list of things I removed (and added) on the talk page but gave up maintaining it at about 100 topics cut. I would imagine there were many articles removed before and during the removed sections presence that where not put on it. Since this voting started 100s have come off, as straight removals or removed in swaps. The talk page archives will show up the cuts made since voting began at the end of Feb this year, but for the ones before, one would have to examine all the projects different pages archives....Also if it were properly maintained, although things don't generally get added today without voting it never used to be that way, people used to add and remove willy nilly. How long would an article have to be in for before being removed to qualify as a removal, if someone added 20 rock bands but they were removed within 2 hours, maybe not, but what about 2 days or 2 weeks, 2 months, how long does an article have to be in to really have been classed as "being in". Anyway I think it would be great to have such a list of removed topics however it's done, but creating an accurate one would be a biiiiiiig project, with a lot of digging and exploring the archives. Carlwev (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I understand the constraints against time.  I am interested in that page, mainly because it provides a convenient basis, together with Vital articles/Expanded, for a list of the 100,000 most important articles.  I have made related comments in the past.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, the list of former VA/E articles that have been removed from the list needs to be updated and maintained. IMO, we need to establish some basic procedures for the closing of individual topic discussions:


 * 1. the article needs to be removed from the particular VA/E sublist of which it was a constituent topic;


 * 2. the total number of articles on the particular sublist needs to be updated on the VA/E sublist page, and within the summary tables on the VA/E main page and this talk page;


 * 3. the total number of articles on the overall VA/E list needs to be updated within the summary tables on the VA/E main page and this talk page;


 * 4. the removed articles and added articles need to be listed in chronological order on subpage of listed changes, so that we may track the changes and prioritization over time.


 * No one is suggesting that we need to compile a list of all articles ever removed from or added to the VA/E list, going back to the list's beginnings. Given the time involved to review the thousands of list changes over the period of the last six or seven years, that's a practical impossibility.  We should keep track of the recent changes, however, since we have started making large-scale revisions again in February.  VA/E participants should be able to quickly review and reference recent decisions, and it would also be helpful for the reasons suggested by Wavelength.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wavelength, as an aside to you, I admire your ambition of starting a VA list of 100,000, but I can tell you as a practical matter that creating and maintaining such a list of 100,000 topics would be exponentially (literally) more difficult and time-consuming than maintaining and improving the VA/E list of 10,000. I have been involved with the VA/E effort since February of this year, and even with a core of five or six constant participants and another six to ten regular contributors, maintaining and improving this list of 10,000 requires a great deal of individual effort from those participants.  What you are suggesting is an effort on a scale ten times greater than that of the present VA/E, with even greater amounts of time required for the start-up and organization of the effort.  That's ambitious, indeed, even if Wikipedia is your full-time job.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please hear my idea
Basically swaps and stuff ain't working smoothly. Some people oppose swaps of different things just because they are of different things. Some people will only support swaps, not straight adds. So, only an example, if I want to cut 10 of the 160 fish. And add 2 vital ethnic groups. The ethnic groups may never get enough support to come aboard. Half the users won't support removing a fish and adding an ethnic group as they're too different. The other half won't support adding the ethnic group, unless it is part of a swap, so an under populated list can never grow with this current method. Even swaps of the same thing means users have to agree on the add and removal. The fact some people only agree with half a swap means they cast a vote like "Support removal but not add" cannot really count it? or many of the same articles are brought up in 2 or more threads at once, which gets confusing and makes a long page longer than it has to be. Also if a removal wins before a swap on the same topic, the swap may get taken down even though the article it was trying to add could have had 4 votes in support, it has to start again in another thread from scratch. And some users have expressed a dislike for articles being brought up several times as well. Some users have already put up a load of lone add proposals anyway.

I really think we should put all proposals up as separate additions and removals, simplest way to vote. BUT on the grounds that when ever you post an addition proposal, you must post a removal proposal too, either in the same section or a different section, so it's kind of a swap but split in 2, they can be similar things or different and people can vote on them separately, without worrying about "well I support the add but not the removal, shall I vote yes, vote no or or ignore it? Shall I vote support but only add? Shall I start a new thread for the add only? shall I start a thread for a swap with something different?" or "Hell no I can't even begin to contemplate removing a baseball player and adding an emperor they're just too different" and when carrying out successful proposals. again, any additions cannot be greater than removals. And removals can always be proposed and carried out on their own too. If 20 additions proposals are successful but only 10 removals ones are, then some of the additions will have to just sit and wait for more success in the removal area, before they are actually put through. If I can't swap a fish with an ethnic group I'll have to remove a fish by itself and add an ethnic group by itself, same thing in the end, but I'll really find out who likes what part or not.

On top of that we need to start discussing how big we want each section. Obviously we can't have loads of proposals to add sportsman and remove fish, if we agree we want 125 athletes but we sit at 150. So we should be at the point were we can maybe only add a sportsman for sportsman. But we can add a history topic for a sportsman too. But we probably wouldn't add a sportsman and remove a history topic.

It's took me ages to write all that I really hope people understand me. Because all the swaps and adds and removals of the same articles are confusing long and messy but are the only way people can express agreeing with half a swap at the moment. I cannot seem to get what I think are truly vital articles like Reincarnation or Decimal voted in, because people won't straight add them alone, or swap them for a fish either, etc. Comments ? Carlwev (talk)

I propose
 * 1) Vote on adds and removals separately.
 * 2) Make a big effort to make sure removals (proposed and carried out) always out number additions.
 * 3) Set maximum limit to bloated sections, to prevent them growing at the expense of other sections.


 * I strongly disagree with setting arbitrary maximum limits. I see a much more simple solution in focusing on the obvious excess for removals. Then, after we are comfortably under 10,000 entries we should consider adding glaring omissions. In the meantime we should continue to swap, providing they are apples to apples or oranges to oranges, not apples to oranges. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK if everyone agrees with you then things will continue just as they are. But you comment is just the same as saying, you and everyone else can continue to discus and swap sportsman for sportsman and rockbands for rockbands among the obvious bloated biographies list. You can still add yet more musicians this week as there's loads of musicians to choose from to swap them with from the "obvious excess". But articles that are "glaring omissions" from smaller-than-they-should-be lists have to wait months for the count to be under limit. You're saying it's OK to add the Dubliners, or the Fairpoint Convention tomorrow because luckily the musician list is huge. But we'll have to wait months to add Reincarnation, Writing system, decimal, because religion, language and math are too small. Apples to Apples only means You're saying bloated lists are allowed to stay bloated and tiny lists are obligated to stay tiny and are not under any circumstances allowed to grow. Us now, we are changing this list. We are changing it's contents, we are changing it because we all believe it is not correct, we believe there are articles on it that shouldn't be, and article missing that should be on board. With all this voting, None of us believe at all that the contents of the list are correct, so why would anyone for one second believe the "proportion or size" of every section of the list is correct? We can change the articles, but not the section sizes? ridiculous! we can keep 170 sportsman (plus 120 sports) because our predecessors put them there, you can juggle some sportsman in juggle some out, have some fun, but we can't increase language past 174, because that's the size our predecessors made it, you're saying it's already that size so tough - You'll have to wait til christmas you can't comprehend that Writing system or Reincarnation might maybe just maybe be more vital than Ryan Giggs, or Willie Mays. If the people before us put 200 sportsman and 170 language topics, why on Earth do we have to keep the numbers that way? Absolutely Ridiculous. Carlwev (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics
Right I'm falling asleep soon. I want to get my ideas out of my head onto this page before I forget them. Found what I think are more important topics with a chance want to write them down so I don't forget and so everyone can see them and think and talk about them if they want. Again love to propose them, but adds and swaps are both awkward at present. People don't want to swap apples for oranges, and I've just found a load of Mangoes now too. I may pick from this list, swaps in the next few days, others can too if you like the look of them. Alternatively the list could stay here for a few months until we're under 10'000 topics again and we can add several Mangoes straight up without worrying if their more important than or comparable to a turnip. Some of these I think are great, some OKish, some overlapping a bit, and some I thought of ages ago, and some as a was writing so they're a bit mish mashed. Again these are not presently proposing to add straight up with no swaps now, probably sit here for ages and wait for under limit or until I can think of swaps. I would appreciate people's views on these articles and whether you think they could get in when we're under limit. Remember language and maths are both in the vital 10, so by a twisted pseudo logic could be argued that they should have about 10% of this list each or 1000 articles each, but they don't, Math 255, language 174. I'm not proposing language and math should be increased up to 1000, but I think some important topics are missing and they could be increased slightly, considering their size compared to others. Carlwev (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Military (to many leader and ranks, not enough other topics)
 * Maths
 * 1) Number system
 * 2) Radix
 * 3) Binary number
 * 4) Decimal (already proposed but not catching on)
 * 5) Arabic numerals
 * 6) Roman numerals
 * Language/writing
 * 1) Writing system (I like this, very broad important and over encompassing topic, but I'm wondering if this will go the same way as Abrahamic religions which I liked too, I'm sure this is better)
 * 2) Syllabary
 * 3) Abugida
 * 4) Logogram
 * 5) Abjad
 * Religion
 * 1) Nirvana (one of my favourites)
 * 2) Reincarnation (already proposed but not catching on)
 * 3) Avatar (no not the film)
 * 4) Prophet (slightly different article to prophecy and actually looks better)
 * 5) Lords prayer (really not sure but only found this among articles in the most languages which surprised me?)
 * 6) Saṃsāra, circle of life, not as hot topic as reincarnation or nirvana, but pretty hot, more important than some existing articles.
 * 1) Militia (probably a more important concept than 10 military ranks)
 * 2) Rifle (I don't think assault rifle covers all angles)
 * 3) Pistol
 * 4) Destroyer
 * 5) Frigate
 * Others
 * 1) Calligraphy (one of my favourites)
 * 2) Diplomatic mission (Embassy)
 * 3) Cigarette (We have tobacco plant in biology, would you leave off bread because we have wheat?)
 * 4) Smoking (maybe only cigarette)
 * 5) Nomad (Over 30M today, more than some nations, even more historically)

Ridiculously Parochial Music representation
The Music list has a ridiculous and utterly parochial American bias. There are currently FIVE representatives for "Country music" a genre with no traction whatsoever outside of the US. The Utterly anglophone genre of "comedic musical" has ELEVEN composers represented! In contrast "Latin " music a genre representing something like 25 countries on three continents over a century has THREE artists represented neither of them in the big leagues (try Maná, Alejandro Sanz, Shakira, Jose Alfredo Jimenez, Vicente Fernandez, Silvio Rodriguez, Heitor Villa-Lobos...). That is laughably parochial. The Folk list doesn't include a single musician from outside of the US and the people voting here seem to be tryng desparately to find excuses not to include any. "We don't have other national traditions represented" YES YOU DO: US MUSIC IS A NATIONAL TRADITION. "We are trying to cut down not add." THEN CUT SOME AMERICAN MUSICIANS LIKE JOAN BAEZ OR LES PAUL neither of whom have had any influence on folk whatsoever. Gigantic European folk traditions like Irish, Scottish, British, French or Scandinavian HAVE NO REPRESENTATION AT ALL! The list of "non-English language singers" which presumably includes about 80% of the world's singers include only 6 European singers in the classical tradition from the mid 20th century. Imagine a list of English language musicians with only Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby and Bette midler on it. That is what that list looks like to someone who is not an American. This project is riduculous and should be closed down. IF we are supposed to have a vital articles list then it should be determined by the wikiprojects who have expertise in each area which articles should be added - then at least we coudl expect people to have a clue and not vote on their own subjective, ethnocentric and parochial tastes. IF you want to cut then cut down the American musicians so they correspond to the non-American ones - start by cutting all the country artists because that is a parochial genre that has less followers world wide than Bhangra and Sufi music. It should have the same amount of representation as those two genres = 0. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus, this is the English speaking Wikipedia. Do you think more English speakers listen to Bhangra and Sufi music, or country music? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So fucking what? The vital list is supposed to be a list of globally vital topics - not stuff English speakers like. And if it is not supposed to be that then it is useless and irrelevant. An encyclopedia is here to teach people stuff they don't know about the world, not to cater to their ignorance and parochialism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. Never thought you would get so uncivil over this nearly meaningless list; I've never once improved an article because it was on here. I've made several attempts to compromise and !vote for the ideas of others, but not if you are going to get abusive. Good luck. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying fuck is not uncivil or abusive. It makes no sense to try to make compromises with people who are unwilling to do so. And yes, I am now convinced you are right that the list is meaningless.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus, both you and Gabe make some valid points, and I have responded to your concerns expressed on my talkpage, but I have to agree with Gabe that your arguments lose a lot of weight when profanity is thrown in. Nothing here is that vital. Civility isn't on the Five Pillars list for nothing. Take heed, bro. As for "meaningless" well, it's as meaningful as we can make it. Like Wikipedia, we will never be finished here. Jus  da  fax   23:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's a lot easier to dismiss an argument out of hand because you don't like the tone it is made in or to respond to a sidenote such as the my comparison o country with Bhangra than to actually consider its substance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Hierophant443


Newly created account only actions to vote here and to recreate a previously deleted article. Maybe we shouldn't consider those votes. This is the first weakness of a pure vote based system. The other is subjective reasoning not based on arguments but idiosyncratic personal preferences and (lack of) knowledge.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've definitely had some SPAs and sock/trolls here, but without a CU I'm not sure how we can decide that their !votes don't count. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The account appears to be more than a year old, it just wasn't actively used frequently until earlier this week. And even if he is a sock, unless he's a sock of somebody else who's active here, I see no reason why he's votes shouldn't count  p  b  p  23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PbP, if Hierophant443 is a sock of a banned user, then we should also not count his !votes, though as I said, the only way to prove that would be a checkuser, which is unlikely to be granted based on what I see. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An SPI that confirmed a connection between Hierophant and a blocked or banned user should be sufficient to disregard the votes, CU or not. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 02:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Premature closures by User:Purplebackpack89
PbP just closed the Polk removal thread after only 5 days. While I don't see the consensus changing, I am also concerned that PbP seems to not feel any need to follow the agreed upon 15 days. Any thoughts? Is 5 days really long enough and can others close threads within less than 15 days in contradiction to the standard operating procedure? Also, there are several threads that PbP started that date back to May which he has chosen not to close, e.g. the swap thread for Garth Brooks and Simon and Garfunkel, which I have now closed as no consensus. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  22:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a good guideline would be to not close one's own nominations and not to close in favor of the viewpoint one has voted in favor of (i.e. don't close oppose if you've voted oppose). If someone closes prematurely and there is disagreement it can always be reverted. Also the system is broken and arbitrary anyways, so it doesn't really matter.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons why I closed the Polk thread
 * No proposal here has ever passed with 4 or more oppose votes
 * The discussion really shouldn't have been started because Polk had been added to the list less than 90 days ago

p b  p  22:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are not valid reasons. People had ten days in which they could be persuaded to shift from oppose to support, and people have been switching around a lot lately. Furthermore I think it is poor form to close in favor of one's own vote.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Maunus, and FWIW I think that if everyone follows the agreed upon rules until such time that those rules are changed then the atmosphere here will be less caustic. PbP, please just follow the rules like the rest of us. Your unwillingness to abide by them smacks of ownership issues. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop the ownership accusations. I have reopened the Polk thread, but I have no doubt that it will close as kept  p  b  p  23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

SNOW clause?
I think we need a SNOW clause that we can invoke after 5-7 days, that would allow closures for one or more of the following:


 * 1) Fewer than 25% support for a proposal
 * 2) A unanimous vote of 8 or more
 * 3) A discussion that repeats exactly (i.e. drop repeating only drop, add repeating only add, swap repeating only the same two being swapped) a discussion held within the past 90 days

Right now, the only SNOW clause we have is for topics that are already on the list being added p  b  p  23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. That way we can close topics faster and clean up the talk page. It is getting harder and harder to find anything on it due to the size. --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is find as long as we don't close threads prematurely in favor of our own vote. There is no need to get into that kind of trouble, then it is better to let someone else close.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I support sticking to the 15 day window that was agreed upon months ago by several editors. If we don't allow 15 days, then some people will not even get a chance to !vote before a thread is opened and closed. I strongly oppose any duration that is less than 15 days. Some people, like User:Jusdafax don't necessarily edit here every 5-7 days so what's the hurry PbP, you are at least one of the people who allowed this list to get 400+ entries over the limit in the first place? Now lets take our time so as to allow for wider participation. FWIW, I've changed several of my !votes based on what User:Dirtlawyer1 had said and he also doesn't always !vote on every thread within 5-7 days. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is true that I don't come to this Vital list as often as others do, and though I have on at least one nomination suggested an early close, after consideration I would appreciate the agreed upon 15 days as a courtesy to myself and those like myself, thanks. Jus  da  fax   00:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Regions
If you are looking for excess/bloat, then look no further than the Regions and country subdivisions sub-list within Vital articles/Expanded/Geography; its beyond absurd, IMO. I would gladly add a removal thread because I believe that we could trim at least 100 articles from this one section, but I am quite hesitant to make the massive effort required if User:Carlwev and User:Purplebackpack89 are just going to block most of the removals. Any thoughts User:Jusdafax or User:Dirtlawyer1? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  01:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wondered if anyone else noticed that the whole section is debatable. Happy to discuss scrapping the entire section. One thing that jumped out at me was that some of the USA states are listed, but not all. The idea of dumping that entire sub-list has my tentative support. At the very least, as Gabe notes, about 100 could be dumped. Jus  da  fax   01:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder what User:Rsm77, User:Melody Lavender, User:Betty Logan, User:Igrek and User:ColonelHenry think of this sub-list mass deletion proposal? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gabe, I'm not familiar with that section of the list, but I'll take a look at it and see what suggestions I can offer. Interesting idea. I don't see why we should really have any states, provinces, etc., and should just stick to the 7 continents, 200 countries themselves, and a maybe a few notable regions (Siberia, New England, Patagonia, Balkans, Levant, and the like). --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. There is already both a Continents and Countries sub-list, so this is really about which Regions are vital. I agree that Patagonia, Balkans and Levant are notable regions, but they are not currently included on the sub-list. Do you see any other glaring omissions in the tentative keep list? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The factors I personally think are most important are regional identity and global cultural impact, and I'd prioritize cultural impact. Based on this, I think Tibet (in the process of being added) should be on this list even when cut. I would also add Hawaii and Quebec to the list of articles not to cut. Other articles to consider (but which I am not insisting should be added to the save list) are Crimea, Alaska, Aceh, and Sikkim. I would not include Russian republics with minimal cultural impact on the list as if regional identity alone is enough we could add many more articles to the list, such as Xinjiang, probably several regions in India which is well-known for its diversity (even if it's not a subject I know much about) and probably many, many more regions that I've never heard of (because they have minimal global impact) in various parts of the world. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rsm77's criteria. --Lukobe (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So do I. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

===Working proposal to remove most of the Regions and country subdivisions sub-list from WP:VA/E===
 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. This one move could get us back to 10,000 articles or less. Also, if there are some vital articles in this sub-list that are not already included on another sub-list, then editors should feel free to add them to the list below, so that we can scrap the entire section while retaining any articles that would create a glaring omission if removed entirely from WP:VA/E.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support excellent proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal of ~100 I'd note that I have voted "Support" on dozens of region removals, and Oppose on only a few p  b  p  03:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I have been mulling this over for some time. As noted, the beauty of this proposal is that it gets us close or a lot closer to 10K. It might be easiest to dump the entire list so we don't have to discuss each and every one, which is tedious. I would support adding back most of the articles listed in discussion below and others as nominated. If we go ahead and delete this section in whole or in part, the list of articles removed should be placed somewhere for easy future reference. Jus  da  fax   04:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --Lukobe (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Rothorpe (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose, these regions are more important than many countries or cities. --Igrek (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * Vital articles currently in this sub-list and not in any other sub-list
 * 1) These should probably be kept: South Asia, New England, Scandinavia, Catalonia, Polynesia, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Provence, Alsace, Bohemia, Flanders, Siberia, Chechnya, Caucasus, Sichuan, Yunnan, Kurdistan, Transylvania, West Bengal, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Yukon, Texas, California, Carribean, Central America, Arctic, Latin America, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Queensland, Queen Maud's land. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maunus on many of these. We shouldn't just throw out the baby with the bath water; I believe that 50-100 regions from around the world be kept  p  b  p  03:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think overall this is the right way to go about it: Cut entire sections and then vote on which of the truly vital members to add back.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A few more article I think should be kept. Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Moravia, Middle East, Oceania, Bavaria and Galicia (Spain). Moldavia and Wallachia also seem vital but they can be moved to the History section.--V3n0M93 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we rename the sub-list Regions, and retain it for the articles that we keep. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tentative keep list (pending consensus)

 * 1) Aceh
 * 2) Alaska
 * 3) Alsace (contested)
 * 4) Amazon rainforest
 * 5) Andhra Pradesh
 * 6) Arctic
 * 7) Atlantic Canada (contested)
 * 8) Azores
 * 9) Bahrain (region)
 * 10) Balochistan, Pakistan
 * 11) Bashkortostan
 * 12) Basque Country (autonomous community)
 * 13) Bavaria
 * 14) Bihar (contested)
 * 15) Bohemia (contested)
 * 16) Brittany
 * 17) California
 * 18) Canary Islands
 * 19) Carribean
 * 20) Catalonia
 * 21) Caucasus
 * 22) Central Africa
 * 23) Central America
 * 24) Central Asia
 * 25) Chechnya
 * 26) Crimea
 * 27) Curaçao
 * 28) Dagestan
 * 29) Darfur (contested)
 * 30) East Africa
 * 31) England
 * 32) Eurasian Steppe
 * 33) Flanders
 * 34) Florida
 * 35) French Guiana
 * 36) French Polynesia (contested)
 * 37) Galicia (Spain)
 * 38) Gran Chaco
 * 39) Great Plains (contested)
 * 40) Greater Khorasan
 * 41) Guadeloupe (contested)
 * 42) Guam
 * 43) Guangdong
 * 44) Guangxi
 * 45) Gujarat
 * 46) Hawaii
 * 47) Hebei
 * 48) Hejaz
 * 49) Henan
 * 50) Illinois (contested)
 * 51) Inner Mongolia
 * 52) Jiangsu
 * 53) Kaliningrad Oblast
 * 54) Karakalpakstan (contested)
 * 55) Karnataka (contested)
 * 56) Kashmir
 * 57) Komi Republic (contested)
 * 58) Kurdistan
 * 59) Languedoc (contested)
 * 60) Latin America
 * 61) Levant
 * 62) Madeira
 * 63) Madhya Pradesh (contested)
 * 64) Maharashtra
 * 65) Manchuria
 * 66) Martinique
 * 67) Mayotte (contested)
 * 68) Middle East
 * 69) Midwestern United States
 * 70) Moldavia
 * 71) Moravia (contested)
 * 72) Najd (contested)
 * 73) New Caledonia
 * 74) New England
 * 75) New York (contested)
 * 76) North Africa
 * 77) North Rhine-Westphalia (contested)
 * 78) Northeast China (contested)
 * 79) Northeast India
 * 80) Northwest Territories (contested)
 * 81) Northern Ireland
 * 82) Nova Scotia (contested)
 * 83) Nunavut (contested)
 * 84) Ontario
 * 85) Pampas
 * 86) Pantanal (contested)
 * 87) Papua (province)
 * 88) Patagonia
 * 89) Pennsylvania (contested)
 * 90) Polynesia
 * 91) Provence
 * 92) Puerto Rico
 * 93) Punjab, Pakistan
 * 94) Puntland
 * 95) Quebec
 * 96) Queensland (contested)
 * 97) Queen Maud Land (contested)
 * 98) Rajasthan
 * 99) Réunion (contested)
 * 100) Sahel
 * 101) Sakha Republic
 * 102) São Paulo (state) (contested)
 * 103) Sápmi (area)
 * 104) Scandinavia
 * 105) Scotland
 * 106) Shandong
 * 107) Siberia
 * 108) Sichuan
 * 109) Sikkim (contested)
 * 110) Sindh (contested)
 * 111) Southeast Asia
 * 112) South Asia
 * 113) South India (contested)
 * 114) Southern Africa
 * 115) Southern Cone
 * 116) Southern Italy
 * 117) Southern United States
 * 118) Sub-Saharan Africa (contested)
 * 119) Taiga
 * 120) Tamil Nadu
 * 121) Tatarstan
 * 122) Texas (contested)
 * 123) Tibet
 * 124) Transylvania
 * 125) Tundra
 * 126) Tuscany
 * 127) Udmurtia (contested)
 * 128) Uttar Pradesh
 * 129) Veneto (contested)
 * 130) Vojvodina
 * 131) Wales
 * 132) Wallachia
 * 133) Wallonia
 * 134) West Africa
 * 135) West Bengal
 * 136) Western United States
 * 137) Xinjiang
 * 138) Yukon (contested)
 * 139) Yunnan


 * I suggest that for the keep list we agree upon a time-frame during which editors can indicate an opposition to an article's status as a keeper. We then start individual removal threads only for the contended keeps. That way we can save ourselves lots of time and trouble retaining the vital articles that are currently listed here. If we end-up deciding to keep 75+ of these articles, then we won't need to go through the tedium of 75+ individual remove threads; it would be more like 5–15, IMO. Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think 5 days for adding articles to the keep list, 5 more days for contesting additions and after that 15 days for voting is enough time. There is enough time to add and object and we wont stretch too much the procedure. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak support: This still needs a little work. We've cut a little deeper and quicker than many of us expected.  There are some globalization issues with this current list  p  b  p  15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Purplebackpack89, if we need to add/keep +/- 10-15 additional articles in order to properly address the globalization issue, then we will still be looking at cutting 200+ entries in one move, which again, would get us back to where we need to be at around 10,000 articles. FTR, Eurasia and the Americas hold approximately 86% of the global human population, so if we keep 75 articles in toto, then there is no shame in 64 of them being American and Eurasian. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Objections
 * Udmurtia? Name me one globally famous Udmurtian, or a famous battle, or tourist site. Aside from an obscure character in Tolstoy's Hadji Murad, I would have never known the name.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've discussed with GabeMc below why I think we should have the Russian republics on the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we really need Nunavut, Queensland, Queen Maud Land and Yukon. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to contest a few of these, starting with Canada. I think that it's kinda off that we have Nunavut but not Northwest Territories, which predates Nunavut by a great many years and once encompassed all of Northern and Western Canada.  I think the other two regions of Canada should be the Prairie Provinces and Atlantic Canada, rather than Yukon and Nova Scotia.  If you want an actual Canadian province, I'd go with Quebec, since it has a much different identity than the others.  I also think we've cut the U.S. in such a way in that the regions don't represent the entirety of the U.S..  You can't understand the entirety of the U.S. just by visiting Alaska, New England, Texas and California (and I'd note that parts of California are quite different from other parts, as the Carey McWilliams book Island on the Land, which I currently reading, notes).  For example, we don't have the Great Plains and we should.  We don't have the Southern United States and we should.  We don't even have New York State  p  b  p  15:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Purplebackpack89, per your above comment: "We don't even have New York State"; why would we add just one specific US state? We have California as a region, but New York State is 1) not a region, and 2) subsumed by New England anyway, not? Also, the city is far more vital than the entire state and its already listed under Cites. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I live in California, and I think it should be on here even if I didn't, but California isn't one region. People from Northern and Southern California are quite different culturally, just like people from NYC and Upstate NY.  And, no, New York isn't in New England per se.  Traditionally, New England consists of Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine  p  b  p  23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so you want to list all 50 US states and the various permutations of their geographic regions on the same list? So, Northern California and Southern California along with California, which is part of the Western hemisphere (already included), North America (already included) and the US (already included)? Kinda like how we currently have a sea within a sea within a sea within an Ocean and you havn't supported its removal? As I predicted, you will fight this proposal tooth and nail just because you are not in control, well so what? I predict that we will do it without you! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The only states I have been on record as supporting are CA, TX, NY, AK and HI.  I am fine with 40 or more of the states of the Union not being on this list.  Also, it is spurious to criticize someone for not even voting in a thread.  A person is always entitled to abstain from a thread with no penalty whatsoever  p  b  p  01:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me also again affirm that we've cut too much. We were talking about cutting 100 and we've cut far more than that.  And we've cut far too many states and regions from Africa and Asia, which are hardly represented on this list  Darfur, for example,  p  b  p  23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me affirm that I see PbP's actions here at this point as obvious and embarrasing obstructionism. Again, so what I call your bluff and assert that the community can pull-this mass deletion off without yours or Carl's support. If you really think that we have cut too much, then please do provide us with a list of the Regions currently included in this sub-list which you think should be kept, you know, like everybody else has done? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned a number of things I consider to be missing throughout this thread. They vary from New York State to Quebec to Darfur.  Your continual assertions of obstructionism and ownership are inaccurate, disruptive, hurting the project, and need to stop ASAP  p  b  p  01:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, as of now, all of your requests have been added to the tentative keep list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FTR, User:Purplebackpack89, the original proposal was to remove the entire section(please see in toto), which later evolved into keeping only the most vital articles per User:Maunus and User:Jusdafax. So perhaps you should reconsider your above !vote and just oppose if you have an issue with the proposal as it now stands so that the rest of us can get on with improving the list. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I support adding New York - unless New York City is already on the list. I think that is the only vital aspect of that state. It doesn't matter that people in SoCal are different - it only matters if the region in itself is notable enough to be considered vital on a global scale. It isn't - neither are the great plains. Currently there is no such thing as cutting too much. We can always add back with swaps once we are under the 10K mark.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said cut anything. My vote was to cut 100.  I never voted for supporting to cut the whole thing  p  b  p  01:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then remove your misplaced support and cast another !vote as you see fit. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't pick a fight with me too, I'm not taking any sides, still trying to cut and find a happy medium. But from a US centric, or an international POV, I would find it odd for an encyclopedia to have more articles for American Football players, than American states? same goes for American Ice Hockey players, and American Basketball players too. My opinion here may be biased as I am more interested in geography than sports and biographies, but still, do I have a valid point or not? what are others thoughts on this point? even if you disagree, please do so nicely, it's only a question, I know the whole apples and oranges thing, but that's what you end up comparing when you make one list of 10'000 with no concrete agreed on sublist limits. I'm asking an open question, Should we have more American Football players than American States? Carlwev (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * pbp you can add as many articles as you want in the keep list. After that we'll have a vote and decide which we should keep. Carlwev, I'm all in favor of establishing quotas for the different sections. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Pbp and Carl make good points. I think the process should be extended with more time to add regions. However, the current lists for Africa, Asia, and South America look a little problematic to me because of being unbalanced. Especially Africa, which has 10 regions out of 24 in total from Nigeria. It may turn out that better candidates are not actually on the existing lists. Another problem I imagine there might be with these areas is generally poor coverage in Wikipedia at the sub-country level (or areas between countries). But still it would be better to have more time to add regions, and I'd generally encourage more nominations at this stage. (Incidentally, I suppose it will end up in the islands, but I noticed Bali is absent). --Rsm77 (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Rsm77, per User:Purplebackpack89 comments I've now added, East, West, Central and Southern Africa, which should cover it, IMO, but if not we have lots of room to add a few more. Per User:Carlwev comment: "Should we have more American Football players than American States?" We currently have 5 American Footballers on this list and as it now stands we will keep 25 US states on the list. Remember that New England has 5 and the Southern US has 15. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Dirtlawyer1, you objected to nominating two articles at a time further up this page, so I would like to know your opinion on the discussion about deleting over 100 articles at one time. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also like to know what User:Dirtlawyer1 thinks about this not just out of curiosity, but also to add legitimacy to the proposal (I suspect he will oppose in principle while entertaining the idea as a possibility and a silver-bullet to the immediate issue of being over the limit). FWIW, the section is currently absurd and I defy anyone to take a real good look at it right now and then debate otherwise. It needs a complete re-do and if we require 277 individual !votes for each topic it will require a gargantuan effort from several editors. Lets think outside the box here and re-do this entire sub-list to our choosing from the ground up. If we miss anything crucial there is always the option of an add thread at a later time, so really, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Once we get back to below 10,000 we can all relax a bit and shift gears from this contentious and tedious removal process that will otherwise take at least another 3-4 months, assuming participation rates hold. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Southern Cone looks like a good article as a sub-region of South America so would like to nominate. I wonder if it's OK to nominate articles not currently on the list (as the list is not that great for some parts of the world). It seems that Patagonia has been added, although not on the list. If it's OK, I would like to nominate South India, also known as the Dravida, which has a strong cultural identity, and the Sahel as an important region of Africa. I was wondering about Amazon rainforest, which seems like it should be somewhere in Geography, though I'll accept it if people say not here. (Also thought about Northeast China, but I guess it might be better to add Manchuria in history).--Rsm77 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Rsm77. I've added the five regions that you suggested above. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Expansion and corrections for balance needed
This list of 76 regions is severely unbalanced. I've proposed a list of 125 regions that tries to address the issues. I'll outline the changes I'm suggesting:
 * Swap Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories and Yukon for Ontario, also keeping Nunavut: Canada doesn't deserve so much coverage and Ontario is definitely the one province to include besides Quebec. Nunavut is also significant as the only territory in the Americas that was created as a homeland for a native people (I don't mean a reservation, and the Indian Territory no longer exists and was not nearly as kind a gesture!)
 * Remove Darfur: I'd happily vote in support if somebody proposed War in Darfur - that seems to be more appropriate.
 * Remove Great Plains: already listed under Land relief.
 * Swap Komi Republic and Udmurtia for Sápmi (area), Karakalpakstan and Kaliningrad Oblast: Russia's republics are already quite well represented (Bashkortostan, Chechnya, Dagestan, Sakha, Tatarstan) and there are areas outside Russia that deserve representation. On the other hand, Kaliningrad deserves inclusion on account of its history and geographical location, plus the fact that it constitutes its own economic region in Russia.
 * Swap Queensland for New South Wales: the more noteworthy state to include.
 * Swap Queen Maud Land for Oceania, Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia: Regions of Antarctica are not vital. Oceania and Australasia are alternative terms for describing that continent, but they have slightly different meanings. Melanesia and Micronesia are the two other traditional groupings of Pacific islands, like Polynesia.
 * Add Tundra, Taiga, Eurasian Steppe, Gran Chaco, Pampas, Pantanal: we don't have an ecozones or natural regions category, but these topics are all worthy of inclusion, just like Amazon rainforest or Sahel. Also improves coverage for South America.
 * Swap Alsace, Bohemia, Moravia and Veneto for Azores, Madeira, Basque Country (autonomous community), Canary Islands, Languedoc, Brittany, North Rhine-Westphalia, Southern Italy and Vojvodina, keeping Catalonia, Galicia (Spain), Bavaria, Provence, Tuscany, Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania: The four candidates for removal are better covered by historical topics we already have such as Franco-Prussian War, Kingdom of Bohemia, Great Moravia and Republic of Venice. The additions improve representation and balance among European nations.
 * Add Puntland, Réunion, Mayotte, New Caledonia, Guam, French Polynesia, Puerto Rico, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Curaçao, French Guiana: currently we have no category for dependent territories (Greenland is included as an island though) and this needs to be fixed. We have Somaliland under "unrecognized states" but not Puntland.
 * Add Hejaz, Najd, Bahrain (region), Greater Khorasan, Balochistan, Pakistan, Punjab, Pakistan, Sindh: Improve representation in West Asia. With the exception of Bahrain, all of these were on the original list of 272 regions.
 * Swap South India and Sikkim for Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Northeast India, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu: Improve balance for India relative to other areas in the world. Sikkim is covered by Northeast India, while South India becomes almost redundant (sorry, Kerala.) West Bengal is already on the list.
 * Swap Northeast China for Manchuria, add Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Hebei, Henan, Shandong, Jiangsu, Guangdong: Manchuria is the stronger article. Improve coverage of China. All autonomous regions added except for Ningxia. Largest states in terms of population and economy added. Sichuan and Yunnan are currently on the list.
 * Add Papua (province), São Paulo (state): Improve balance and complement selections of other autonomous regions and significant subnational entities such as the Russian republics, Aceh, Nunavut, New South Wales and Ontario.
 * Add Midwestern United States, Western United States, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania: Improve coverage of the United States. New England, New York, California, Alaska, Hawaii and Texas are already on the list, so the only states that don't get extra coverage after these additions are Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey. Unfortunately the article on the Northeastern United States is rather weak, so I decided to just grab Pennsylvania on its own.

Again, you can see my proposed list in its entirety here. Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Glaring omissions

 * 1) Patagonia (added)
 * Balkans
 * 1) Levant (added)
 * 2) Great Plains (added)
 * 3) Atlantic Canada (added)
 * 4) Kashmir (added)


 * Discussion
 * Balkans is on the list under Peninsulas. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep list by continent

 * 1) Arctic
 * 2) Middle East

Africa, 1

 * 1) Sub-Saharan Africa

America, 11

 * 1) Carribean
 * 2) Central America
 * 3) Latin America
 * 4) North Africa


 * Canada, 3
 * 1) Nova Scotia (contested)
 * 2) Nunavut (contested)
 * 3) Yukon (contested)


 * USA, 4
 * 1) Alaska
 * 2) California
 * 3) New England
 * 4) Texas

Europe, 25

 * 1) Alsace
 * 2) Bohemia
 * 3) Bavaria
 * 4) Catalonia
 * 5) Flanders
 * 6) Galicia (Spain)
 * 7) Moldavia
 * 8) Moravia
 * 9) Provence
 * 10) Scandinavia
 * 11) Transylvania
 * 12) Wallachia
 * 13) Wallonia


 * Russia, 8
 * 1) Bashkortostan
 * 2) Chechnya
 * 3) Dagestan
 * 4) Komi Republic
 * 5) Sakha Republic
 * 6) Siberia
 * 7) Tatarstan
 * 8) Udmurtia (contested)


 * UK, 4
 * 1) England
 * 2) Northern Ireland
 * 3) Scotland
 * 4) Wales

Asia, 8

 * 1) Caucasus
 * 2) Central Asia
 * 3) Kurdistan
 * 4) Sichuan
 * 5) Southeast Asia
 * 6) South Asia
 * 7) West Bengal
 * 8) Yunnan

Oceania, 2

 * 1) Polynesia
 * 2) Queensland (contested)

Antarctic, 1

 * 1) Queen Maud Land (contested)

For my opinion, there is strong eurocentrism bias in this list. --Igrek (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think so too, but I think that is justifiable in this case due to the historical and global importance of Europe and the West. We should not expect a fully balanced distribution, but is iomportant is that all continents are represented with their most important and well known subnational units.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Russian regions are in Asia not Europe, so there isn't that much eurocentrism. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This list isn't being updated, unlike the one above - can we archive this to prevent confusion? Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done--V3n0M93 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Russian republics
I thinks we should have all the Russian republics (they are 21 articles). Even though they are part of Russia, they are more like a country in a country and hence different than the other regions. What are your thoughts? --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My instinct is to disagree. There are 50 US states, but certainly we wouldn't include all of them on this vital list. I strongly agree with User:Jusdafax and User:Maunus in that the best way to go about this is to cut the entire section of 277 articles (thus getting us back to 10,000 or less!), and then !vote on which ones to add back. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a difference. The Russian republics are mostly populated by different nations than Russians (thats what makes them different than the other federal subjects in Russia), while the US states are all inhabited by Americans. The republics are nominaly autonomous and have their own constitution and their government represents them internationally. As for the deleting the entire section and adding the vital ones, I completely agree. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you about the difference, but citizens in some US states feel like they are culturally distinct from the generic term American. E.g., a Texan, an Alaskan and a New Yorker might not have that much in common except their shared union of states, which are similar to dependent republics, IMO. At any rate, I would suggest that you add any Russian republics to the Tentative keep list so that we can all !vote on them individually when that time comes. If we can show some discipline here and cut 200+ articles from this ridiculous section, we will find ourselves back to 10,000 or less in three weeks, versus three months. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put the ones that were already on the list. I'll post add proposals for the rest after we cut the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward
On August 1st the Regions proposal will be 15 days old. I think at that point we should feel free to move forward with the proposal (assuming that the current support holds). I was thinking that we could approach this with not an add, remove or swap thread, but with Keep threads for only those articles that are contested keeps. Such as:

Keep New York

 * Supports
 * 1)  p  b  p  17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes


 * Discussion

If an article fails to earn 5 supports and 70% it will not be kept. Do all editors agree with moving forward on August 1st and are there any suggestions for the process? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  20:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the current Regions section is not too bloated and cutting it down to ~75 is far too drastic. Maybe cut to ~125 and cut ~50 cities instead - I can work on the latter. Cobblet (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think there are other regions that need to remain, feel free to add them to the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Cobblet (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeping 125 Regions
As I'm sure everyone who's been following the discussion has sensed by now, it's rather difficult to limit the number of regions to just 75. I suggested in the earlier thread that it would be easier to cut 50 cities instead (which I did; the list is posted up above) and keep 125 regions. Bear in mind that "regions" is kind of a wastebasket category: we could be talking about administrative divisions, dependent territories, cultural regions, historical regions, ecozones, etc. So besides agonizing over which US states to include and all that sort of fun, I decided to comb through the Geography section and see what was missing, and have tried to fill in all the gaps here. It seemed like an impossible task at first, but I'm pleasantly surprised at the result. Here's my proposal:


 * Arctic and Subarctic, 3
 * 1) Arctic
 * 2) Tundra
 * 3) Taiga
 * Europe and Russia, 34
 * 1) England
 * 2) Wales
 * 3) Scotland
 * 4) Northern Ireland
 * 5) Azores
 * 6) Madeira
 * 7) Canary Islands
 * 8) Catalonia
 * 9) Galicia (Spain)
 * 10) Basque Country (autonomous community)
 * 11) Provence
 * 12) Languedoc
 * 13) Brittany
 * 14) Flanders
 * 15) Wallonia
 * 16) North Rhine-Westphalia
 * 17) Bavaria
 * 18) Tuscany
 * 19) Southern Italy (mezzogiorno)
 * 20) Vojvodina
 * 21) Moldavia
 * 22) Wallachia
 * 23) Transylvania
 * 24) Crimea
 * 25) Caucasus
 * 26) Chechnya
 * 27) Dagestan
 * 28) Kaliningrad Oblast
 * 29) Sápmi (area)
 * 30) Bashkortostan
 * 31) Tatarstan
 * 32) Eurasian Steppe
 * 33) Siberia
 * 34) Sakha Republic
 * Africa, 10
 * 1) Central Africa
 * 2) East Africa
 * 3) North Africa
 * 4) Southern Africa
 * 5) West Africa
 * 6) Sahel
 * 7) Sub-Saharan Africa (contested)
 * 8) Puntland
 * 9) Réunion
 * 10) Mayotte
 * Asia, 39
 * 1) Middle East
 * 2) Central Asia
 * 3) South Asia
 * 4) Southeast Asia
 * 5) Levant
 * 6) Hejaz
 * 7) Najd
 * 8) Bahrain (region)
 * 9) Greater Khorasan
 * 10) Karakalpakstan
 * 11) Balochistan, Pakistan
 * 12) Punjab, Pakistan
 * 13) Sindh
 * 14) Kashmir
 * 15) Rajasthan
 * 16) Uttar Pradesh
 * 17) Bihar
 * 18) West Bengal
 * 19) Northeast India
 * 20) Madhya Pradesh
 * 21) Gujarat
 * 22) Maharashtra
 * 23) Andhra Pradesh
 * 24) Karnataka
 * 25) Tamil Nadu
 * 26) Tibet
 * 27) Xinjiang
 * 28) Inner Mongolia
 * 29) Manchuria
 * 30) Hebei
 * 31) Henan
 * 32) Shandong
 * 33) Jiangsu
 * 34) Sichuan
 * 35) Yunnan
 * 36) Guangxi
 * 37) Guangdong
 * 38) Aceh
 * 39) West Papua
 * Oceania, 10
 * 1) Oceania
 * 2) Australasia
 * 3) Micronesia
 * 4) Melanesia
 * 5) Polynesia
 * 6) New South Wales
 * 7) New Caledonia
 * 8) Guam
 * 9) Hawaii
 * 10) French Polynesia
 * North America, 20
 * 1) Nunavut (contested)
 * 2) Ontario
 * 3) Quebec
 * 4) New England
 * 5) Midwestern United States
 * 6) Southern United States
 * 7) Western United States
 * 8) Alaska
 * 9) California
 * 10) Florida
 * 11) Illinois
 * 12) New York
 * 13) Pennsylvania
 * 14) Texas (contested)
 * 15) Central America
 * 16) Caribbean
 * 17) Puerto Rico
 * 18) Guadeloupe
 * 19) Martinique
 * 20) Curaçao
 * South America, 9
 * 1) Latin America
 * 2) Southern Cone
 * 3) French Guiana
 * 4) São Paulo (state)
 * 5) Amazon rainforest
 * 6) Gran Chaco
 * 7) Pampas
 * 8) Pantanal
 * 9) Patagonia

As always, your thoughts are much appreciated. I know not everything that was on the previous list of 75 is included here - if you're curious why I left some things out I'd be happy to explain. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you add your regions in the list above and we'll vote on the contested regions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done so here. Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cobblet, while I tentatively support your alternate proposal I must point out that you have not indicated which of the 125 are contested keeps, as we did above in the proposal that editors !voted for. I have no issue with your addition of 50 more regions, but you need to indicate which are contested since we only planned to !vote individually for contested keeps only. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, fixed. Cobblet (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cobblet, what I meant is to add the new articles to the list and contest the ones you wish to be removed. There is no need to write an explanation for all the changes. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do that. I'll keep this here though, since this one's sorted by continent. Cobblet (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This raises another issue: Since you have now added 50+ regions 15 days after the proposal was agreed upon and within hours of the proposal going live I think that we had better put off the !voting for another 5 days, so that editors have an opportunity to contest the latest 50 additions. Any thoughts V3n0M93? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea. I'm going to contest some of the entries. I am sure some of the other editors would want to do that as well. 5 days is enough. I think we should close adding new articles to the list and just contest for the next 5 days. If somebody wants to add a new article they'll have to wait until we do the voting and remove the regions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lets begin !voting on individual keeps on 6 August. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know some people won't be happy with how I just added 50 entries. However, I do feel that if further large cuts to geography articles need to be made, it should happen mainly in the cities list and less so here. Something like 360 cities and 120 regions, for example, would make sense to me. Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its fine. We are glad to have your input and participation, Cobblet and I don't see any harm in delaying the process another 5 days. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm happy to keep the discussion open; just wanted to point out that there's more fluff in other places than here. Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't think this fixes all our problems
It looks like we've essentially decided to get to 10,000 by chopping a couple hundred articles from Geography. While I applaud the decision to get to 10,000 quicky, I still believe we have lots and lots of work to do. I continue to believe that it's bios where the bloat is (particularly Actors, Athletes and Musicians). That aside, we've (at least informally) set benchmarks for the size and scope of various sections and subsections, and we're nowhere near those benchmarks, in one direction or t'other, in a lot of cases p  b  p  21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We should set formal quotas for the different sections. That way we can easily control how many articles each section has. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bios overall is not bloated. The problem is with its subsections. Some are overrepresented, others are underrepresented. But overall 2000 is a fine number for bio articles. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:V3n0M93; the bios lists are currently "right-sized". My issue with formal quotas is that we would also need to set limits on the sub-lists as well as the lists, which will be obnoxiously tedious, IMO. E.g., we can set an arbitrary limit on Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life, and then Cooking, food and drink, but who wants to debate how many to include in Basic, Dairy and analogues, Grains, Sweet things, Nuts, Meat and other animal products, Herbs and condiments (currently at 31), Food types and Drinks. I predict that setting the quotas for all the lists and sub-lists would take several months if not the better part of a year and I think that our efforts would be better spent trimming out the least contentious excess. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if there isn't a set limit to each subsection big sections will remain big and small sections will remain small. Because "apple-to-oranges" swaps and adds without removals are generally rejected bloated section will remain bloated. We need to find a way to fix this. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, I hear you, but I think that bloated sections should be reduced via removal threads and small sections brought-up to "right-size" via add threads. We've spent far too much energy on swap threads, IMO and we should shift gears into trimming excess until such time that we are under 10,000 and then look for glaring omissions that can be rectified via swap threads or straight adds. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bios is the right size overall what requires work is the internal weighing, and I do believe quotas is the right way to approach this. I think there should be more attention paid to the relative weight of sublists. For example currently in the music section we have the purely anglophone genres "musical comedy" and "Country and Folk" as seperate sublists with approximately 10 people in each, but "Latin Music" which encompasses the music of 329 Million people and dozens of genres (english speakers worldwide number 328 million,a ccording to 1995 numbers which have probably changed more in favor of Spanish by now) represented in a single subsection with three people. That is just utter absurd nonsense, as is the argument "this is the English encyclopedia" - an encyclpedia is supposed to be a representation of global knowledge and include information that the reader doesn't already know - not to just confirm them in their biases and the idea that the only interesting things in the world are the ones from their own neighborhood of the global village. Therefore we should set a goal of at least 20% of any given section and subsection representing the non-Anglophone world. In some subsections this will be hard to achieve, and this should lead us to either consider removing those subsections if they can be subsumed into a wider one (e.g. comedic musical into general composers) or to have other subsectins that have more weight for non-Anglphone bios.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Maunus, I don't disagree in principle that quotas might be a good way to protect the integrity of the list long-term, but my concern is that we can hardly agree on whether or not to add chewing gum or remove a sea within a sea within a sea within an ocean, so how are we going to agree on X number of pop, Y number of rock and Z number of jazz artists? Then consider the globalization issue, which I think has largely been misused in a manipulative way; how can we include a global perspective on something like comedy? What English speakers listen to comedy routines by non-English speakers? How could rock music not be a bit anglo-centric? 90% of the most popular rock artists have been English speakers. Why is Africa underrepresented in Mathematics? Or why are there so few non-American b-ball players listed? I am not aware of any Native American scientists currently listed, why is that? Sometimes one particular region or continent or group of people are vastly more responsible for generating vital topics in any one topic than another. We need to think outside the box. Do we include Klaus Kinski just because he speaks German, or because his article is vital to this encyclopedia? Does anyone really think his acting is on par with the others on the list? In a way, the globalization argument has turned into a kind of affirmative action, whereby we force ourselves to add weaker topics at the expense of stronger ones because: "We need a Frenchman in pop", or "surely we must have one 2 Spanish, 5 German and 3 Italian composers". So while I don't entirely disagree, in principle, I also see the setting of list and sub-list quotas as fraught with difficulty at best, and a quagmire of epic proportions at its worst. I think that the best course of action is to continue removing the less contentious excess, of which there is currently no shortage, and once we reach a comfortable total less than 10K, we should start looking for glaring omissions and globalization concerns. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually think that it will be a lot easier to set a quota than to vote on specific topics because less individual idiosyncratic reasons to keep or oppose will presumably be involved.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also anther thing I think we desparately need is an actual set of objective criteria for inclusion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you might be right that quota setting will be easier than the topic voting, IDK. I suggest you attempt to set quotas for a given list and all its corresponding sub-lists and see how that goes. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact there was a majority of 6-1 to reduce "Musical comedy and lyricists" t0 8 - whoch would be a beginning to the quota system. But the proposal was archived without conclusion or enforcementUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The section is now 8 articles, that's why I archived it. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * BUt it should have been archived with a note that it has been decided by consensus that it should not be larger than that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where do you propose we put a message. I doubt anybody will search the archives for it before adding a add/remove proposal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I dont know. If we decide on a quota system we could have a subpage for quotas.

Double listings
Tao Te Ching is double-listed under Religion (Taoism) and Literature (Nonfiction in antiquity.) I have removed it from the latter. Symphony is double-listed within musical genres and forms, I have removed the duplicate. Cobblet (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Found another duplicate, Vedas, under Religion (Eastern religions) and Literature (Nonfiction in antiquity.) Removed it from the latter. Cobblet (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And another one: Sydney Opera House was under both architecture and music venues. Removed from the latter. I've updated the count on the main page to include these four deletions. Cobblet (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience listed under both "philosophy of science" and "alternative views", removed from former. Cobblet (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A tricky one: Contraception was listed under Sexuality in Everyday Life but redirects to birth control, which is listed under Issues in Society. Deleted from the latter. I've stopped bothering to update the article count on the main page at this point. Cobblet (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great job identifying all these opportunities for non-contentious removals! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I just found five more: mineral, clay, gypsum, diamond and graphite are all double-listed between Chemical Substances and Geology; I've left the first three in geology and moved the last two under carbon in chemical elements. Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

duplicate articles Algorithm
The article Algorithm appeared in both Vital_articles/Expanded/Mathematics and Vital_articles/Expanded/Technology. The article is duplicated in Expanded vital articles.--Wolfch (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there are more than 10000 articles in Expanded vital articles now. I will remove Algorithm from Vital_articles/Expanded/Mathematics--Wolfch (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)