Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 18

Swap: Add Ada Lovelace, Remove Georg Bednorz
Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Per nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Ada made the first computer program. I thinks that's more vital than Georg Bednorz's invetions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Nikolaus Otto
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support p  b  p  01:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Opposeper Cobblet's comment below --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Oppose Also the concept of the four-stroke engine had been patented by Alphonse Beau de Rochas; Otto was the first to create a practical version of it. This was very important, but including the four-stroke engine would allow us to cover the contributions of de Rochas and also Diesel (with the Diesel cycle). Neljack (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Would prefer adding four-stroke engine instead, since this appears to be the only reason why he's notable. Cobblet (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Proposal: Rename "Inventors" to "Inventors and Engineers"
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - This would lead to dozens of add threads, since the section does not currently cover engineers except for a few exceptions. If consensus develops in favour of the proposal I will reconsider my !vote. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Gabe. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose An inventor is a specific category of person valued by society for a specific type of contribution. I would lump engineers with scientists rather than changing what an inventor is and the vitality of inventing to human culture. Even the Soviets were ultimately forced to segregate inventors and honor their contribution. No engineer who hasn't contributed a significant invention should be on this sublist. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Discussion
 * As correctly pointed out by Gabe, some of the people listed in "inventors" may not have actually invented anything. Some of them may however still be notable as engineers, they could be great or brilliant engineers, but not inventors. Who ever added them to begin with put them under inventors, and as the list stands, that is probably where I would look for them. There is also an overlap I believe of people who could be described as both an engineer and a inventor, more so probably than other overlaps like business people and engineers not quite as much. Although some may deserve to go, we should remove articles because we truly believe they are not vital, but I wouldn't want to get in the habit of removing articles because they don't fit the header, I wouldn't want to remove who may be great engineers only because they haven't technically invented anything. Columbus didn't technically discover America. If someone has an alternative idea, like putting engineers in their own section or merging with another or just removing them all like we did with mystics and criminals bring it up. Carlwev (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a little space in People now and certainly some engineers should be included, e.g. Thomas Telford. I don't see why engineers who weren't also either scientists, inventors or businessmen should be automatically excluded from consideration, which seems to be the point of this poll. Cobblet (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about topic area: Inventors

 * I am trying to find common ground with Gabe, and yes I can support some of these, my only issue is this: ignoring for a second the individual merits for the people above. We should have people who invent things they are important. But there is this kind of breed of people, for want of a better term "great engineers" chiefly from the industrial revolution, people that take machines/inventions market them use them in different ways get them out there in masses and change industry and the world. Yes they may not have technically invented the original machine, but they may still stand out as one of the most important people associated with an invention. Yes I think some of the entries do deserve to be removed, but the sentence for Brunel, "It would seem he was a brilliant engineer, but what exactly did he invent?" kind of says my point, even you say he's "brilliant". I think the error may just be in the header. Someone made the base for the list, including a header "inventors", and others, later, tried to add great engineers, and "inventors" seemed like the best place to put them. While yes I think some can go, I don't want to get in the habit of removing great engineers and adding fairly unknown original inventors. Which is sad, as sometimes true inventors are undeservedly forgotten. Part of me wonders if some of these engineers may technically be better placed in businessmen then? But I do think they are probably in the right list, as that's where other users placed them originally, they could have placed them in businessmen to start with but they didn't; as the list stands at the moment, investors is probably where I would look for them. I may propose to rename the section, inventors and engineers to correct this perceived error. As I said before I wouldn't want to remove a great engineer and add a less great inventor just because it fits the header above better. I will get behind some of your proposals I agree with, I hope you can get behind some of mine, we should be putting our differences aside and working together to improve the list, not disagreeing all the time. Carlwev (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A remarkable polymath. Neljack (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Zhang Heng
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Another great polymath. Neljack (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi
Support !votes: Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A very important figure in surgery. Neljack (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Gilbert N. Lewis
Let's try this again, this time as just a straight add. Again, it seems to me that Lewis is a serious omission from the list of chemists we have. He discovered the covalent bond and was the first person to isolate heavy water. Anyone who took chemistry in high school will remember drawing Lewis structures; any chemist will be familiar with Lewis acids and bases.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Many important contributions. Neljack (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Leonid Kuchma, Add Ante Pavelić
Leonid Kuchma is largely unknown outside of Ukraine. Pavelić is vital from a historical point of view.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you should reword this so it's clearer who is largely unknown outside of Ukraine. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * 1) Support removing Kuchma. Oppose adding Pavelic. john k (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove George S. Patton, Add Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

 * Support !votes
 * 1) As nom  p  b  p  01:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Quite an omission, if we are going to have four allied commanders, to leave Montgomery off for Patton. Hollywood should not be a guiding factor. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - If we are going to swap out Patton it should be for a non-westerner. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Yeah, Patton's a Californian like me. There are three other American WWII generals on this list: Ike, Marshall, and MacArthur. All held more significant commands than Patton. There are no Brits. I propose adding Marshal Montgomery, the Allied Commander at Dunkirk and D-Day to remedy this.

Add Alexander Kolchak
Leader of the White movement in the Russian Civil War.

Support !votes:
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) oppose not vital - a footnote in world history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not at all a footnote in world history, although Americans seem ignorant of him, but comparatively not vital. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 3) Oppose per AfadsBad. Neljack (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Mikhail Bakunin, Remove Marcel Mauss
Support !votes
 * 1) Support, one of the founders of anarchism --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I think Maunus understates Bakunin's influence on social movements. I would be happy to include both though. Neljack (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose I think probably both should be on the list, but Mauss is essential for his influence in shaping the social sciences as they are today. Bakunin's influence is rather limited outside of certain narrow circles of political radicals.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add George Eliot
Amidst a fairly substantial number of obscure writers who probably don't belong, I can't believe that Eliot isn't already on here. She's probably more vital than half the writers on here.
 * Support !votes
 * 1) As nominator john k (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support One of the most important English novelists. Neljack (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Add Sylvia Plath, Remove Madeleine L'Engle

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support Plath is notable for her poetry as well as the novel The Bell Jar. L'Engle is really not very notable. --Rsm77 (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plath is certainly more important. Neljack (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion
 * I'd support removing L'Engle, but I'm not convinced Plath is the most important writer not included. The swap would be better than the current status quo, though. john k (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Saint George, Remove Nestorius

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support, St. George is one of the most celebrated christian saints. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Despite his fame and subsequent veneration, St George does not seem to have been particularly important or influential during his life, while Nestorius was an influential theologian who founded Nestorianism, leading to the Nestorian schism after his condemnation at the First Council of Ephesus. Neljack (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Mani (prophet), Remove Kumārila Bhaṭṭa

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support john k (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We just added Manichaeism. Cobblet (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Cobblet, plus I don't know how many Hindu philosophers we already have on the list, but I bet we should not be removing them readily. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Mani founded a fairly big religion religion, Manichaeism, (although it's now extinct) he would seem to me more notable than quite a few religious figures we have. I'm not too familiar just using my judgment to pick on someone who appears not exceptionally vital from religious figures. Reading Bhaṭṭa's article he doesn't seem to be that vital. I was also contemplating swapping out Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj or Al-Nawawi if anyone thinks they are better? I may suggest those two for removal also? Carlwev (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Democritus

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support, important pre-Socratic philosopher. --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support One of the most important pre-Socratic philosophers, particularly with his influential materialist account of the world (atomism). More important than some Ancient Greek philosophers already on the list, such as Diogenes and Gorgias. Neljack (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) oppose Ancient Greek thinkers already have an overwhelming presence relative to other topic areas.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Gilbert N. Lewis, Remove Secretariat (horse)
Chemists seem a little under-represented relative to other scientists. Lewis discovered the covalent bond, the type of chemical bonding found in any substance that isn't a metal, a binary ionic compound or a noble gas. He was the first person to isolate heavy water and should've won a share of the 1934 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it. Anyone who took chemistry in high school will remember drawing Lewis structures; any chemist will be familiar with Lewis acids and bases.

Secretariat was a horse. What's it doing on a list of people?
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, Secretariat, the most famous race horse of all times, was just voted to stay on the list a month or so ago. We deleted all the jockeys in horse-racing and left the only sports-"personality" on the list that did all the running. Voters did some research at the time and it looks like Secretariat outperformed all horses of his time (1950s I think) and his record has not been broken yet if I remember correctly. Secretariat has several streets named after him. I'd prefer to vote for Gilbert N. Lewis as a straight add. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose my sentiments agree with Melody's p  b  p  15:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Secretariat was in many of those top athletes of the 20th century lists, the only horse on it. Importance wise, he easily trumps Balto (a rather semi-legendary figure) and Seabiscuit (famous because of a book) Secret account 22:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to famous animals I think of Seabiscuit and Balto first. And is Secretariat really a better choice than Man o' War? Are all of these vital? Are any of them? Cobblet (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Move Secretariat (horse) to Sports
on the "Anthropology, psychology and everyday life" page. That way we don't have to debate the significance of a horse vs. a human.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I still think it isn't vital enough to be on the list
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support.Melody Lavender (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
At present, the founder of microbiology is on the 1,000 list, but not on the 10,000. Generally, I at least believe 1000 articles should be on the 10,000 automatically. So what do we do?


 * Status quo: On the 1,000, off the 10,000


 * On the 10,000, off the 1,000


 * On both the 10,000 and the 1,000
 * 1)  p  b  p  18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Don't really know the 1,000 list well but he belongs on this list anyway. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Good catch! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On neither the 10,000 nor the 1,000
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Vladimir Ashkenazy, Add Mstislav Rostropovich
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Bedrieger (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Alfietucker (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I have to second Alfietucker's comments - if Ashkenazy is a sufficiently important pianist to be on this list, I can think of at 20 other pianists we should add (I've read two surveys where leading pianists of today were asked who they consider the greatest pianists ever - one a top 10 and the other a top 20 - and Ashkenazy was not on either list). Rostropovich, in contrast, is undoubtedly more important than both of the cellists we currently have on the list. He is widely regarded as one of the most important classical musicians of the past century. Neljack (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose - support the addition of MR, oppose the removal.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - we already have two cellists. Cobblet (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Much as I admire VA, he's simply not in the same league as the other pianists presently on list; besides, MR is a far greater and historically more important musician. Alfietucker (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The proposal below to add Rostropovich needs one more support !vote to pass. I would be happy to swap Ashkenazy for a more deserving pianist. I suspect he and Barenboim were initially added to the list because they are both notable pianists and conductors, though neither is really the most notable representative of each profession. Cobblet (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Mstislav Rostropovich
Support !votes Oppose !votes A musician who was acclaimed in his lifetime as one of the greatest in the world, inspired several major works from leading composers of the 20th century, including Sergei Prokofiev, Dmitri Shostakovich and Benjamin Britten, taught several great cellists including Jacqueline du Pré, Natalia Gutman and Mischa Maisky, and stuck his neck out for not only Prokofiev but also for Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - the latter action ultimately leading to the cellist's enforced exile from his homeland - is scarcely one of "small notability". Alfietucker (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support on condition we remove Jacqueline du Pré. Two cellists are plenty. Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Alfietucker (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Again I agree with Alfietucker. Consider what his fellow cellists have said about him. Julian Lloyd Webber called him "quite simply one of the greatest musicians to have ever lived...probably the greatest cellist of all time", while Steven Isserlis said: "'There are very few musical performers who have earned the same sort of immortality as the great composers. One of these few is Mstislav Rostropovich, the great Russian cellist who, through his amazing playing and his irresistible powers of persuasion, managed to wring out major works for cello from an almost endless succession of major composers, from Prokofiev, Shostakovich and Britten to Dutilleux, Lutosławski, Boris Tchaikovsky, Schnittke, Shchedrin…" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neljack (talk • contribs) 06:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - Per Cobblet. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Small notability for this list. -- Ace111 (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Jacqueline du Pré

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - Alfietucker (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rostropovich and Casals were greater cellists. Du Pre's tragic illness and her charisma explain why she is probably more well-known than them, at least in English-speaking countries. Neljack (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose one of the most important cellists, and one of the best known femal musicians of all times.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose greatest female cellist of all time. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If we're talking cellists, Pablo Casals definitely ought to be on the list before her; if we're talking female instrumentalists (ignoring the many female singers we have on the list, and many more we could add), Martha Argerich, Nadia Boulanger, Wanda Landowska or Clara Schumann easily trump her credentials. Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Boulanger is already on the list I believe, Clara Schumann might be a good addition but I wouldn't swap her for Du Pre. Landowska and Argerich I have never heard of.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless she isn't classified under People, Boulanger's not on the list. Landowska was a pioneer of historically informed performance. Argerich is one of the greatest pianists alive today—it's too bad you haven't heard of her. Cobblet (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well she definitely was on there once, so she must have been removed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Nadia Boulanger
Well this is an obvious omission. The most influential music pedagogue in the 20th century, she taught composers such as Copland, Glass and Piazzolla. She was also one of the first female conductors.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Alfietucker (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Females epically underrepresented among composers.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Very influential. Neljack (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Georges Bizet, Add Carmen
The opera is vital; its composer, not so much, especially when we have 23 other composers in the Romantic period. We could maybe replace Rimsky-Korsakov and Mussorgsky with The Five (composers). Cobblet (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - it makes sense to represent one-hit wonder type composers and writers through their famous work, rather than their biography. john k (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Metastasio
I don't think librettists are vital.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Kiri Te Kanawa, Add Mahalia Jackson
There are other singers of comparable stature as Te Kanawa that we don't include, e.g. Kathleen Battle. Mahalia Jackson seems more significant.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose world renown, one of most famous persons from New Zealand. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I would be open to replacing replacing Dame Kiri with another opera singer, but currently we have 11 opera singers (Bocelli isn't really an opera singer, though he's sung a bit of it, and in any case is set to be removed) and scores of popular singers. As an aside, I hardly think Kathleen Battle is of comparable stature to Dame Kiri as an opera singer. Neljack (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose p  b  p  15:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Benjamin Britten
Support !votes Would prefer a swap here—composers of classical music are rather generously represented already. I could get behind a swap of Satie for Britten; another prominent omission is Richard Strauss—maybe swap him in for Alexander Scriabin. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Britten is pre-eminent in 20th century opera, and is unquestionably the greatest British composer of the second part of the century. Frankly, to list Satie but not Britten is fairly absurd. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – There are more performances worldwide of Britten's operas than those of any other composer born in the 20th century (see OperaBase). Devoted as I am to Elgar and others, Britten is the only British composer whose music is part of the regular international repertoire. Satie (agreeing with Brianboulton's comment above) is a cherishable niche composer, but not central to the world repertoire of classical music. Tim riley (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Per Tim Riley and Brianboulton.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support One of the most important 20th century composers. I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people who know classical music who regard Satie or Scriabin as more important than Britten. I also agree with Cobblet that Richard Strauss should be included; Satie and Scriabin are not vital and can be removed to compensate. Neljack (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Classical composers way overrepresented already compared to all other genres. Swap him if anyone is less notable. I think a lot more people know Satie than Britten- perhaps swap for Scriabin a Cobblet proposes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Andrea Bocelli
Not vital when we don't have people like Celine Dion or Whitney Houston.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support His opera singing has got mixed reviews, to put it mildly, so he certainly shouldn't be listed under classical singers. His non-classical stuff has been very popular, but we can't post every singer who is very popular and I see little wider impact or influence. Neljack (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Beverly Sills, Add Joan Sutherland

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Sutherland and Sills are quite easily comparable, since they both specialised in bel canto roles. While Sills was a very fine singer, I think the great majority of critics would agree that Sutherland was the greater and more important singer. She, along with Callas, was crucial in the bel canto revival and her voice was extraordinary in its combination of power and agility (not for nothing was she known as La Stupenda). Neljack (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Camarón de la Isla
Support !votes
 * 1) Support: Most important Flamenco artist of all time. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add The Chieftains
Support !votes
 * 1) Support. Less influential in the genre, but perhaps better known in the US than the Dubliners. I remoind you again that the folk section does not have A SINGLE artists from outside of the US. Folk is a global genre, and Irish traditional music is globally known and appreciated. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Not vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose not influential. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose A good call for an influential non-American folk group, but, unfortunately, I don't think that they are comparatively influential at the vital level. It would not necessarily be bias to have all American folk musicians in the vital section, even if undesirable. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion
 * I think it is very much undesirable yes. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I am not sure what we could add. However, I have a friend who is a musical historian, and I will ask him for some insight on one thing I thought of, Calypso music. But, I don't know what we can do in this area. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I've already tried The Dubliners and Chief O'Neill for Irish folk, Camarón de la Isla and Paco de Lucia for Flamenco and several others just to try to get some international presence in the section that his half Country music and half Americana - but to no avail people here are intent on keeping semi-vital Americans (like Joan Baez who is known for covering Bob Dylan but never wrote a good song herself) rather than including truly vital non-American artists (I dont ascribe this to ill will, but simply to the fact that no editors here are really familiar with folk music and therefore only know the few names that are well known in their own local area). I don't think Calypso is a very good candidate for broadening the folk category, it is not usually considered folk music, more like a caribbean kind of popular music of the 1940s and it has little influence on contemporary folk styles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is Caribbean folk music and it had a strong influence on later Caribbean folk music, influenced American music such as the Kingston Trio, also first million selling album was pseudo-calypso; all this eventually impacted American and British popular music (Hip Hop). I would start calling to remove less than vital American folk musicians, then. I think if we are going to concede (and I am), that it is largely an American music style, then we ought to limit it to a few representative examples. There's also Mariachi, although not as influential as Calypso, many people have heard of it, and it was far more influential in American popular music than most American realize. That it did not influence folk does not make it less vital; it influences popular music, Reggae, Hip Hop, etc. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * PS You are correct that it is due to very limited participation and little knowledge of the genre. The ballet will have to be sorted out terribly; it's not a Russian sport. That is why it will be difficult to convince people of the importance and influence of calypso music on other genres, not on folk music other than Island Folk and exotica. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I have tried to remove many of the semi-vital Americans, but most have not been accepted. Only a couple of the least notable country artists were removed and they were not replaced with others. Les Paul who is not even known as a musician but as an inventor is still in the section. Also I do not concede at all that it is largely an American style there is a large folk scene throughout Europe, and I would claim that Irish trad is the best known folk genre worldwide.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I said I think vital articles will be limited to American groups. Internationally Irish folk music is well listened to, but the world is crazy about American folk, too. I have friends who are folk musicians, a few very famous, but most only moderately so, and they travel Europe, Asia, Nigeria. Les Paul, again, is extremely important to another type of music, rock, so I don't see him being removed. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Les Paul should not be removed, but moved to the section on inventors.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, Paco de Lucía was in fact added to the list. I would happily support adding calypso music and folk music of Ireland if strong arguments are presented for their significance relative to other folk music traditions. Cobblet (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I can see he was added in a separate "flamenco section" instead of the folk/country section (from which Bob Dylan has also been moved to "Rock"). I propose then that we rename the folk-country section to "Americana" which seems to cover its contents much better currently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Renamed to "American folk and country." Cobblet (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Glenn Miller, Add Ella Fitzgerald
I think this improves the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Ella Fitzgerald didn't give us In the Mood, Pennsylvania 65000, etc. p  b  p  15:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Paco de Lucía
Support !votes
 * 1) Support: World renowned revolutionary Flamenco and Classical guitar virtuoso. Second most important Flamenco artist, but has played in many other genres and collaborated widely with great artists across genres. Honors include grammys, BAFTA, honorary doctorate of Berklee college of music and multiple "smash hits". Oh, and globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Alexander Borodin, Add Guillaume de Machaut
In the rather crowded Romantic period I think Borodin is the weakest link, especially considering we already have two of the Russian Five in Modest Mussorgsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov. Meanwhile we have no composers from the Medieval period; Machaut seems like the most appropriate representative.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add William Wilberforce
British anti-slavery advocate
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  21:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, maybe we should swap him with one of the US entries, as they are too many. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Per V3, I would prefer a swap, but since we now have the size under control I don't see any harm in adding this glaring omission. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion
 * Let’s discuss cutting an American: to review, the activists are Susan B. Anthony, John Brown, Frederick Douglass, Eugene V. Debs, Betty Friedan, Mary Harris Jones, Helen Keller, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, John Muir, Rosa Parks, Margaret Sanger, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman.  As you can see, it’s hard to cut without cutting a woman or minority.  The two I have the most qualms about are Jones (obscure) and Truth (redundant to Tubman, Douglass and others).  I personally don’t care for Malcolm X, but this community.  Likewise, I’d personally keep Debs and Muir, but I’m not sure how the community feels about them.  p  b  p  14:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Truth is the weakest of the bunch, but that really Truth, Parks, and Jones are probably all non-vital at the 10,000 article level (are they really more important than virtually every American politician who never became president, for instance?) john k (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Parks is absolutely vital. I could support Debs and Muir.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove Mary Harris Jones

 * Support
 * 1) Support Pbp says she's obscure in the US. I haven't heard of her, whereas I've heard a lot about Debs, say. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The activists etc category currently has a disproportionate and excessive number of Americans; Jones seems one of the less important American ones. Neljack (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Knud Rasmussen
Support !votes
 * 1) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Combined exploring and ethnology in his investigation of the Inuit peoples. Neljack (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Zhang Qian
We have no Ancient Era explorers. I looked through Category:Ancient explorers and this seems like a pretty strong candidate for inclusion. His discoveries led to the establishment of the Silk Road.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--V3n0M93 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support The Silk Road was very important. Neljack (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Fridtjof Nansen

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add David Thompson (explorer)
The greatest surveyor of all time? He singlehandedly mapped 20% of North America.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)\
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Mia Hamm
Support !votes
 * 1) Support Women's association football is getting better, but it doesn't remotely have the history of the men's game and as the list gets shorter I see less and less need to include Hamm --Rsm77 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Women's soccer is big, and Hamm was an outstanding player. I think she deserves a place. Neljack (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * More evidence that people are voting to cut sports personalities simply to cut sports personalities. Hamm belongs on this list until her career is surpassed and she i replaced with another woman soccer/football player.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Scythia, Add Scythians
Scytians covers the subject better.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Xiongnu
Support !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The nomadic peoples of Central Asia are under-represented. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Add Great Seljuq Empire, Remove Seljuq dynasty
Seljuq dynasty is mainly a list of kings.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Hausa Kingdoms
Support !votes Oppose !votes I'm going to start opposing proposals made with no justification. A cursory read of Sahelian kingdoms suggests that we've included all the other notable historical empires of West Africa on the list; it would be nice if someone could explain why this particular one isn't noteworthy enough to include. Cobblet (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet's discussion point. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion
 * Reading through the different articles, this one seemed not that vital. When I proposed this removal we were 250+ articles above the limit. Now that we are below the limit, I have no problem with this staying on the list, but I do feel there are more important topics that are not yet added that this article. --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Swap:Add Carolingian Empire, remove Carolingian dynasty
The dynasty article is mostly a list of kings.

Support !votes
 * 1) as nom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:39, 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 john k (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Add Chivalry

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Seems redundant to Knight, already on the list. The first two sections in chivalry are more or less copies from the knight article. The knight article has a substantial section on Chivalric code. In 4m articles, it's fine to have such sub-articles, but probably not if you're limiting to just 10k. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Winter War
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Suggest Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact instead; this war was one of its many consequences. Cobblet (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - Per Cobblet. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Libyan civil war
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose pending outcome. We don't include the failed 1991 uprisings in Iraq, do we? Not even the Lebanese Civil War is included. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We have the Arab Spring. The Syrian civil war may turn out to be more noteworthy; too soon to tell. Cobblet (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Wounded Knee Massacre, Add American Indian Wars
The overall war is more important than a single part of it.

Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes Could the objectors explain why Wounded Knee deserves mention over Battle of the Little Bighorn, the Nez Perce War, the Apache Wars, Tecumseh's War and the Second Seminole War, to name five other prominent US–native American conflicts? Cobblet (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - We should include them both, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose per Gabe, not either or.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Keep both per GabeMc. It describes an era and its closure with both, and Wounded Knee is far more important in modern day reflections on the atrocities than other battles and best known internationally for this. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion

Remove Contour line
Now that we've added elevation, this can go. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital and really just one particular aspect of cartography, which is already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 6) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * A contour line is far more general than just lines of equal elevation; it's a very important mathematical concept. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

Remove Dependent territory
Would suggest replacing with administrative division but that article's mostly a list. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support article is largely a list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Scale (map)

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital/subsumed by map, which is already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I'm a cartographer; the scale is part of a map, not a stand alone. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 6) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  16:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Meridian

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom: Subsumptive with longitude, analogous to circle of latitude, which is already on the chopping block. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion

Remove Eurasia
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. This is listed under Continents, but Eurasia is not a continent, its simply Asia and Europe combined and we already include both Asia and Europe.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Opoose Keep and move p  b  p  15:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should move it under politics, since it's more of a political term than geographical. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The division between Europe and Asia is a historical and cultural construct. Eurasia is a distinct physical and geological concept worth keeping. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Gnomonic projection

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This is about vital articles; while there is not a single article on the list that is not very important, I question in a list with a finite number of articles, that gnomonic projection is a vital article at the 10,000 human items level. Without Mercator projections, the Age of Exploration would have been a fail, so it cannot be removed, particularly for a Anglo-centric encyclopedia. However, the article on map projections in general should be edited to reflect the variable importance of different large categories of projections, and gnomonic projection can await the 100,000 vital articles list.
 * Opposes
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Andean states: Add Canberra
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose support remove, oppose add.Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Cobblet, Andean states was removed via a different proposal. I've left this one in case is gathers enough support to add Canbera. --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Gulf of Bothnia

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Part of the Baltic Sea. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Gulf of Bothnia" — 153,000. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Laptev Sea

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital marginal sea.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Propose replacing this and East Siberian Sea with Northern Sea Route. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)''
 * 5) support 01:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·


 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Laptev Sea" — 38,800. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove East Siberian Sea, Add Northern Sea Route

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom. The East Siberian and Laptev Seas seem less well known than their neighbours (33 900 and 52 300 hits respectively on Google Books), but are geostrategically important in the context of the Northern Sea Route, formerly known as the Northeast Passage. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion

Remove Solomon Sea

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support If the Bismarck Sea isn't included this shouldn't be either. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Solomon Sea" — 16,800. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Barents Sea

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital marginal sea.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) supportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose All its neighbours of similar size are on the list. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Only sedimentary basin on the list; an important sea geologically. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Barents Sea" — 299,000. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Beaufort Sea

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital marginal sea.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Economically and geostrategically important to Canada and the USA. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Beaufort Sea" — 353,000. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Sea of Okhotsk

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital marginal sea.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Economically and geopolitically vital. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:

I can't believe people think this isn't vital—this sea dominates Russia's Pacific coastline and is one of the largest seas on the list. See File:Oceans and seas boundaries map-en.svg. Cobblet (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sea of Okhotsk" — 157 000. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove White Sea

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital marginal sea subsumed by the Barents Sea, which is also a marginal sea.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose  p  b  p  20:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Economically vital body of water for Russia throughout its history. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose It's not just economically vital, but it is an important access point for Russia. Probably a little hard to see from a Western perspective, but vital. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:

If this is removed I'll immediately nominate a swap of this for some other hydrology article—this really should stay on the list, IMO. While I think the Geography quota should probably be 1250 rather than 1300, we've got less than 1220 articles in this section now. Cobblet (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "White Sea" — 548,000. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Yellow Sea

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital marginal sea subsumed by the East China Sea, which is already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose  p  b  p  20:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:

This is obviously distinct from the East China Sea. Again, see File:Oceans and seas boundaries map-en.svg, which is drawn according to the IHO definitions. Removing this because we have the East China Sea is like removing Gulf of Aden (and even Red Sea) because we have Arabian Sea. Unlike the East China Sea, it was only submerged after the last Ice Age and remains an unusually large area of shallow water. To quote the WWF, "the Yellow Sea is one of the world's largest areas of continental shelf covered in shallow water, providing for rich fishing grounds and an important site for migratory birds." Cobblet (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Yellow Sea" — 358 000. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Inside Passage

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom: one of the few places in the developed world where roads remain scarce relative to population and transportation by boat still predominates. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose, doesn't seem vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Kattegat

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital. Also, we already include Skagerrak, which is more vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose I'd say it's just as important as the Skagerrak, since together they connect the Baltic Sea to the North Sea. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Strait of Malacca
If there was one strait in the world worth including this would be this one, I think. A quarter of the world's traded goods and a quarter of the world's oil goes through this strait. Hong Kong and Singapore wouldn't exist without it. Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Ypnypn (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Angara River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. We already have the Lena River, Ob River and the Yenisei River, so we don't really need their tributaries as well, do we?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Major tributaries are worth including. The Angara also happens to drain Lake Baikal. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Angara" — 301,000.
 * "Angara River" — 19,900. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Darling River

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom. Australia could use a little more representation, and the river system as a whole is usually known as the Murray-Darling anyway. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Suggest the Murray-Darling Basin instead - they're usually referred to together, as Cobblet noted. Neljack (talk) 03:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Irtysh River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom; we already have the Lena River, Ob River and the Yenisei River, so we don't really need their tributaries as well, do we?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Major tributaries should be included, particularly in cases where the tributary is longer than the named stem river—this river system's usually known as the Ob-Irtysh. You wouldn't remove Missouri River because we have Mississippi River, would you? Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Irtysh" — 73,100.
 * "Irtysh River" — 14,700. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Kolyma River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom; non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose It's a pretty large river, and it'll be forever associated with the gulags. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Kolyma" — 212,000.
 * "Kolyma River" — 20,500. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Nelson River

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom. North America could use a little more representation, and the Nelson drains a large swath of Western Canada together with the Saskatchewan River. It's the longest river system on the continent not to be represented on the list yet. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Syr Darya

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Along with its sister river the Amu Darya, the lifeblood of Central Asia. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Syr Darya" — 61,900.
 * "Syr Darya River" — 48,300. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Tocantins River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. Minor non-vital river currently listed as a tributary of the Amazon, which it isn't.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose It is a tributary of the Amazon, a major one in fact. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Tocantins" — 808,000.
 * "Tocantins River" — 10,800. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ubangi 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 Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose The Kasai River can go but this should stay; Africa deserves representation. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Ubangi" — 165,000.
 * "Ubangi River" — 7,980. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Northern Dvina River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom; non vital and short at only 744 km/462 miles long.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Economically vital to Russia during its early history. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Dvina" — 182,000
 * "Northern Dvina" — 15,300.
 * "Severnaya Dvina" - 4,290.
 * "Northern Dvina River" — 2,970. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Great Salt Lake and Lake Taymyr

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The former is the largest salt water lake in the Western Hemisphere and the 33rd largest lake in the world. The latter is the largest lake north of the Arctic Circle and the 21st largest lake in the world - the largest one not to be listed yet. Cobblet (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  17:03, 7 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· 12:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Lake Volta and Lake Kariba
Given the demand for reduced Western bias elsewhere on this list, it's strange to see so many people oppose the addition of articles not only of interest to the world in general, but vitally so to developing countries. Cobblet (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The former is the world's largest reservoir by surface area, the latter the largest by volume. Both located in Africa. Cobblet (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support if we mapped the world from population density is article density on this list Africa and India would disappear. Lake Volta should have been a no-brainer put initially on the list. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:25, 26 September 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· 13:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove White Sea – Baltic Canal, Add Volga–Baltic Waterway

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The latter has a much longer history and remains economically much more important than the former. Cobblet (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Support remove but not add. 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)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Canal of the Pharaohs

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. One of the first major canals ever built and the forerunner of the modern Suez Canal. Cobblet (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Kiel Canal

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Busiest canal in the world today. Cobblet (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 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)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Davis Strait

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support since Northwest Passage has been added. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Denmark Strait

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I'm Danish and had never heard of this.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Swap: Add Gulf of Aden, Remove Bab-el-Mandeb

 * Supports
 * 1) Support as nom: part of the same waterway, but the former is much larger and better known than the latter. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Per nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Gulf of Aden gets 507 000 hits on Google Books, compared to 122 000 for Bab-el-Mandeb. Cobblet (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Makassar Strait

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Strait of Otranto

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Strait of Tartary

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Tsugaru Strait, Add Seto Inland Sea

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The latter is a more notable feature of Japanese marine geography than the former. Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Daugava River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom; non vital. Its barely 1,000km/625 miles long a rather minor river as far as Russia and Eastern Europe is concerned.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Dvina" — 182,000
 * "Daugava" — 97,400.
 * "Daugava River" — 6,290. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Dvina" is ambiguous - it also refers to the Northern Dvina. Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Indigirka River

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom; non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Google Books search results:
 * Google Books search results:


 * "Indigirka" — 39,000.
 * "Indigirka River" — 5,070. --Igrek (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Saint Lawrence Seaway

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Has superseded the Erie Canal as a major artery for North American commerce. Cobblet (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support p  b  p  16:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 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)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Queen Elizabeth Islands, Add Aleutian Islands
The former is subsumed by the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. And the latter's probably better known anyway.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: p  b  p  16:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Adirondack Mountains

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 3 August 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 Neljack (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose without more information, see issues below. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

What's the logic behind this removal? I know almost nothing about the Adirondacks except that they expose billion+-year-old Grenville Orogeny rocks; and, this, might be vital. I need more information about the reason for removal. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion
 * From a geologic standpoint, wouldn't Laurentian Mountains be the better article to include? And from a physiographic standpoint, why should this region be included over the other 24 American physiographic provinces, and other physiographic regions around the world? This is also my reason for wanting to remove Sierra Nevada. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove North American Cordillera
Technical umbrella term that the article mentions may not be precisely defined; we already have its largest component, the Rocky Mountains.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 3 August 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) 23:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove American Cordillera
It's a stub.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Not vital. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 3 August 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) 23:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove 5 North Asian mountain articles
Specifically Mongolian Plateau, Central Siberian Plateau, Sayan Mountains, Verkhoyansk Range, Sikhote-Alin. We do have the Altai Mountains.
 * 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) 23:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove 3 West Asian mountain articles
Namely Alborz, Pontic Mountains, Taurus Mountains. The largest mountain range in Iran and Iraq, the Zagros Mountains, is already on the list. So is the Iranian 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) 23:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Mount Logan and Mount Whitney, Add Krakatoa and Mount Pinatubo

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The former are not vital; the latter are sites of noteworthy natural disasters. Cobblet (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - A fine suggestion and an obvious improvement to the list, well done! 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) 23:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose: Krakatoa is important and should be on this list. So should the 2nd-largest mountain in North America (largest in Canada) and the largest in the lower 48  p  b  p  22:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89, Mt. Whitney definitely doesn't merit inclusion; even if you ignore the 18 taller mountains in the Alaska/Yukon area there are also four taller mountains in Mexico, including the third highest peak in North America, Pico de Orizaba. And I don't think even Mount Logan should deserve consideration when there are many taller mountains not on the list (e.g. Kanchenjunga, third tallest in the world, and dozens of 6000 m peaks in the Andes) and other parts of the globe that aren't represented, e.g. Mont Blanc for the European Union. Granted, Pinatubo might not have been the absolute best replacement; if this proposal passes I'll consider nominating Mount Tambora to replace it. Cobblet (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Patagonian Desert, Add Chihuahuan Desert

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The former is contiguous with Patagonia, while Aridoamerica deserves better coverage. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Add Visayas
I have to say, to not have this on the list is a bit like having North Island but not South Island. Or Wallachia and Moldavia but not Transylvania. And Philippines is part of the English-speaking world—on the English Wikipedia, its geography shouldn't be underrepresented relative to other nations. Cobblet (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. We already have Luzon and Mindanao; why not add the third major division of the Philippines? Cobblet (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Because we already have Luzon and Mindanao - and because we are several hundred articles over the 10K mark. It is 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· 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Maunus. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The articles cover the island groups as well, but Luzon and Mindanao are notable as islands rather than groups IMO, especially Luzon.--Rsm77 (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove Alaska Peninsula
It looks like we're going to keep Alaska. I'd like to know why need this as well. p b  p  17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support p  b  p  17:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Well, they're not the same thing. Agree though that this is one of the weaker articles in the physical geography section. Cobblet (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Angel Falls

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Tallest waterfall in the world. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--Melody Lavender (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Northeastern United States, remove New England

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - The "Northeastern United States" is poorly defined and not particularly cohesive. New England is a very distinct region with its own history and identity. john k (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per John K p  b  p  19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New England is part of the Northeast. Since we already have the West, Midwest, and South, the only region not included now is the Middle Atlantic. -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I considered this too, but Northeastern United States is a pretty poor article. This is also the part of the USA with the longest history and largest political, economic and possibly even cultural significance, so it deserves more detailed coverage. Since people don't like the idea of keeping Pennsylvania, I'd suggest keeping New England and New York and adding Mid-Atlantic states. Cobblet (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Chagos Marine Protected Area

 * Support
 * 1) Support p  b  p  19:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, deasn't seem vital. Article only exists on English wiki. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We have neither Chagos archipelago, nor British Indian Ocean Territory, nor Diego Garcia. This is the second largest protected area in the world and the largest protected marine area. The notability of the topic is obvious to me, even if the other Wikipedias haven't gotten around to writing about it yet. Cobblet (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Tumucumaque National Park
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Largest tropical rainforest park in the world sounds important enough to me. Plus South America deserves representation. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Cobblet. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Cobblet. -- ELEKHHT 21:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Kaziranga National Park, Add Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. India is represented by Sundarbans National Park. China and Asia as a whole deserve some coverage though. Cobblet (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I certainly oppose the removal. This park looks even more vital than the Sundarbans National Park, which I also think should stay incidentally. Whereas I don't think the Yunnan article has all that strong a case. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose removal of Kaziranga, due to its large mammal species preserve status. Approve addition of Three Parallel Rivers. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion

Remove Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park
Support !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) 23:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Central Kalahari Game Reserve
Support !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) 23:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Remove Wood Buffalo 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 Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest replacing this with Banff National Park. Cobblet (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Białowieża Forest and Giant's Causeway, Add Lake District

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. The Lake District is not only a significant natural area but has had an influence on English literature as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Lorentz National Park, Add Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Ayers Rock is probably Oceania's most recognized natural landmark and is spiritually significant to the surrounding Aborigines. Alternatively I'd propose adding Uluru, but that would have to go under Land relief, I suppose. Cobblet (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, although I would prefer Uluru, instead of the park. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Rsm77 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra
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 as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove 4 African parks, Add Royal National Park and Banff National Park
The parks to be removed would be Aïr Mountains, Selous Game Reserve, Salonga National Park, Banc d'Arguin National Park. Africa would still be represented by Tassili n'Ajjer, Serengeti National Park, Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and maybe Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. Meanwhile the additions are respectively the second and third oldest national parks in the world, and the latter is also one of the world's most-visited parks. Plus neither Australia nor Canada are currently represented (Wood Buffalo is up for deletion.) Cobblet (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) It's a complex swap. I'd certainly support adding the two parks for Selous and Salonga.--Rsm77 (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) The others I'm not so sure about removing. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Several Suggestions
I have several suggestions for this section, particularly the "Fiction of the Modern Era" subsection. Firstly, A Tale of Two Cities seems like an odd Dickens choice to me. If we're going to include just one Dickens novel, I think it should clearly be Great Expectations, which has similar popularity and is much more highly regarded critically. Second, And Then There Were None should be gone. Christie herself probably should be on the list in the people section, but no individual work by her is significant enough to be on here. Other questionable entries are Ficciones (Borges deserves to be on, but an article on a collection of short stories that all have their own articles seems inessential), Darkness at Noon, and The Crucible. I'd suggest that Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Middlemarch, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre are all more worthy than any of these (perhaps The Portrait of a Lady and Vanity Fair, too), and really more worthy than several other works that are included (I'm not ready to say that On the Road and The War of the Worlds don't belong on the list, but I think they clearly belong less than the works I'm suggesting). I realize that skews the list more towards the 19th century, but I think there's generally much more agreement about the "canonical" novels of the 19th century than those of the 20th. Also, in terms of organization, wouldn't it make sense to separate plays from works of narrative fiction? john k (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * These look like good suggestions to me - we are 70 articles over our self-imposed quota of 600 articles for the arts, so a critical eye needs to be cast here. Could you make specific proposals for swaps/removals? Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think On the Road and The War of the Worlds should be replaced by Tess of the d'Urbervilles and Middlemarch just because the latter are more highly regarded by academics. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Oh sorry, you're trying for Middlemarch to replace And Then There Were None. I'll abstain there for the moment. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Different part of the list I know, but Howl and Other Poems looks much more worthy of deletion than On the Road. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC) And one final commment - The War of the Worlds has a much clearer case for inclusion than Stranger in a Strange Land. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other modern short story collections worth including? Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The Sun Also Rises is the book that made Hemingway famous, and its subject matter - expatriates in Paris, bull-fighting, post-WWI ennui - is typical of why Hemingway is an important writer. It's also the Hemingway novel ranked highest on the Modern Library list (and the readers' list, as well), and the only Hemingway work on the Time 100 novel list. If a Hemingway work is going to be removed, it should be The Old Man and the Sea, which should probably be prioritized after not only The Sun Also Rises, but A Farewell to Arms, as well. john k (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are different points to be made for different Hemingway novels, but my essential point would be that he only needs one novel on this list. I'd like to replace one of his novels with The Scarlet Letter.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

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) I moved it into Literature. Cobblet (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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: Add The Raven, Remove Howl and Other Poems

 * Support
 * 1) Support The Raven is perhaps the most famous American poem. Howl and Other Poems or even just Howl is not important enough to be on this list. --Rsm77 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  14:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--V3n0M93 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Swap: Add The Wealth of Nations, Remove The Art of Computer Programming

 * Support
 * 1) Support The Wealth of Nations is a core text in Economics and has been influential since its publication in 1776, gaining interest of people in other fields too. The Art of Computer Programming is not important enough for what is a rather short list. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  17:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Ypnypn (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, per Cobblet: support add, but oppose removal.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Prefer just the add here. Cobblet (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Add The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Remove The Second Coming

 * Support
 * 1) Support The Rime of the Ancient Mariner is more famous and influential than The Second Coming. It was deeply influential on the Romantic movement, and is still well-known today. --Rsm77 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--V3n0M93 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Add The Scarlet Letter, Remove The Old Man and the Sea

 * Support
 * 1) Support The Scarlet Letter is one of the most important American novels and needs to be on the list. Hemingway is not important enough to have two books on the list. Based on John K's argument that The Sun Also Rises is "the Hemingway novel ranked highest on the Modern Library list (and the readers' list, as well), and the only Hemingway work on the Time 100 novel list" I nominate The Old Man and the Sea to go. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The Old Man and the Sea is possibly my favorite book, but I agree wholely with literary critics that The Sun Also Rises is his masterpiece; and, since OR is not supposed to hold sway, Old Man can go. The Scarlett Letter is considered by some to be the most importan American novel, and, although not one of my personal faves, again, the critics are our voice here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I don't think we need two Hemingway works. Neljack (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Move Book, Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus to "Society and social sciences"
Specifically under Mass media (which we should maybe rename Media). They're not really literature per se and the Literature section is crowded enough as it is. I'd like to be able to add things like almanac, citation and diary, for example.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I even considered moving out works like Encyclopædia Britannica and A Dictionary of the English Language, but it's probably easier to find them if we keep them together with the rest of the non-fiction. Then again, political treatises are placed somewhere else too, if I'm not mistaken. Let me know what you guys think. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Move Fictional worlds to "Philosophy and religion"
Specifically under mythology, since there's already obvious overlap with that section (Jinn, Pegasus.) Only exception I can see is Superhero, which should go into Fictional characters. This would make the Literature section more comparable with the other arts sections; right now if you look at the article count literature seems overrepresented but that isn't actually the case.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Années de pèlerinage, Add National anthem
Support !votes Oppose !votes Why are people opposing this? It's not even obvious that Années de pèlerinage is Liszt's most significant work, despite the unsourced statement in the lead of that article—a case could be made for the Piano Sonata or his symphonic poems. Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The latter has much more significance to people and society. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, but only if the article highlights La Marseillaise and God Save the Queen, highly notable in their own right.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  15:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support And the article should highlight La Marseillaise and God Save the Queen. I think that is a secondary issue; the list should then have the articles categorized and we should try to get the WikiCup or some contest to focus on necessary improvements to vital articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 6) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Electric guitar

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. Electric guitar is subsumed by guitar, which is already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Would rather remove bass guitar instead. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Goldberg Variations, Add Mass in B minor
A swap of Bach works. The latter is more vital, particularly when we also have The Well-Tempered Clavier to represent his keyboard works. I'll also note that with the removal of Mozart's Requiem, Western church music is currently unrepresented.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support this particular change, but way too much Bach. Mass in B minor should be the only Bach piece. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support I would like to see both in there, but the Mass in B minor is more important. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that we should have fewer Bach works. He is widely regarded as the greatest composer of all time and he produced many highly important and influential works, so it is entirely appropriate that we have several works by him. Neljack (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose perhaps remove but not add. Classical works need to be cut overall.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, your vote implies that you think the Mass in B minor is less important than Peter and the Wolf. Care to explain? Cobblet (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Comment: If we're going to add some sacred music, we should add a medieval or renaissance piece. We have no medieval or renaissance pieces of sacred music  p  b  p  15:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which one do you have in mind? I thought about this, but couldn't really see anyone that stands out from the others in terms of significance, and I don't think any of them could be argued to be more significant than the Mass in B minor or the St Matthew Passion. I'm open to suggestions though. Cobblet (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose Missa Papae Marcelli by Palestrina would be a possible candidate. You could make a case for including it in addition to the Mass in B minor, but I think that the latter is undoubtedly more important - it is widely regarded as one of the great masterpieces of classical music. Neljack (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove As Time Goes By (song)

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:41, 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 OK, then. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Candle in the Wind 1997

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support On the swap thread I tried there was general consensus to remove, so here's a straight removal suggestion. --Rsm77 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Zither

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose This instrument family is significant in Eastern European and East Asian culture. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest we remove one or two of mandolin, lyre or lute instead. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev), Add Tristan und Isolde
Prokofiev's ballet is probably best known for the tune in Montagues and Capulets; that isn't enough to make it vital when we already have The Nutcracker and Swan Lake. (Prokofiev's also represented by Peter and the Wolf.) Though we have Der Ring des Nibelungen, Wagner is surely important enough to be represented by two works (Bach has four; Beethoven three.) And Tristan und Isolde was probably the single most influential work of Classical music in the second half of the 19th century.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Requiem (Mozart), Add La traviata
Mozart's represented by five works, more than any other composer (and only Bach has four). I think the Requiem has the weakest case for inclusion - the other four on the list are The Magic Flute, the Jupiter Symphony, Don Giovanni and Eine kleine nachtmusik. Verdi isn't represented at all, even though he's the most popular opera composer today, and La traviata has been |the most frequently performed opera in recent times.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  14:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove We Are the World

 * Support
 * 1) Support The article 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia is not considered vital (though admittedly Ethiopian Civil War is on the list). Artistically, the song's merits are weak and compared with actually important historic events it doesn't have much merit for its impact either. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support 98.111.148.95 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

So it sold a lot of records. Have you seen the List of best-selling singles? --Rsm77 (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Kabuki, Add Waltz
For the English Wikipedia the latter is more vital than the former.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, support add, oppose removal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, support add, oppose removal. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, support add, oppose removal. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There must be better places to cut. This is a whole tradition which has definitely exerted an influence on western culture. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Noh, Add Tango
For the English Wikipedia the latter is more vital than the former.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, support add, oppose removal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, support add, oppose removal. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per V3 and Rsm  p  b  p  23:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd look to some of the weaker individual songs rather than do this kind of replacement. Or I don't know why you can't do a straight add. We just deleted a Finnish tango (!) and a bunch of individual dancers. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Because of the quota. Then again, I'm of the opinion we should be raising our quota of 600 arts articles to at least 650. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with raising the quota. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Le déjeuner sur l'herbe, Remove The Sleeping Gypsy

 * Support
 * 1) Support The Sleeping Gypsy doesn't seem quite famous/influential/critically regarded enough for this list. Certainly not as famous/influential/critically regarded as Le déjeuner sur l'herbe --Rsm77 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Wheat Fields (Van Gogh series)

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Art category needs pruning to reach our target number of articles. Cobblet (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support There are actually three Van Gogh paintings including Sunflowers and The Starry Night, so don't need this. Perhaps would like to see a replacement coming in though. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Lovely article, mostly the work of one dedicated user though. Article appears in no other languages. We have Van Gogh himself and his Sunflowers already. Carlwev (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Discussion about topic: visual art
I got futurism added earlier, and I am trying to get calligraphy and Turner in at the moment. I am not trying to reduce art to increase other sections, but I believe whole visual art forms/genres and top painters are, generally, higher priority than individual paintings are. I believe there would be books, or articles about art forms and artists more often than single paintings. I am also not sure if the 24 painting we have are the 24 most vital paintings either. We obviously need some, like Mona Lisa and perhaps Scream, but I think we can lose some others. Paintings appears to be one of those lists like TV shows that has grown with no one keeping an eye on it. I looked through the edit history, a while ago and noticed several paintings were added in one go by one user, there's no discussion of this in talk page archives, so they were only added through one user's opinion. [|see here]. The whole original list was made by edits like this, so I'm not saying the user was wrong to add them, or we should remove them all but still needs to be looked at. Carlwev (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove The Blue Boy

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion about Film topic

 * I don't think films should be divided into genre at all, and the way they have been divided into genre at present is very badly done. Like, for example it has "Children's films" with a score of 0, implying they are unrepresented when Snow White is elsewhere in Animation. Vertigo has maybe elements of mystery, but seems out of place in that category, and similarly for La Dolce Vita with comedy. Anyway, I would like to see this reverted and not changed again without discussion. --Rsm77 (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought the same. The listing of films by genre has loads of problems. Films can be in more than one genre, and they are not always agreed on either. Snow white is animation and childrens, Wizard of Oz is childrens, musical and fantasy, Vertigo is a mystery and romance, Psycho is thriller and horror and mystery. This is based on their present categories not just my opinion. There is also zero horror but that could include psycho, and maybe King Kong. There are zero adventure films but, King Kong, Wizard of Oz, Lawrence of Arabia, Star Wars and probably others are all described and categorized in their articles as adventure films. Epic and Historical and War films are very interchangeable or overlapping into each other. I could go on but I'll leave it there. Yeah I agree with Rsm77, put it back and discus any alterations. Carlwev (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree - I'd like to have them subdivided in some way. I noticed La dolce vita was miscategorized, that should be easy to change. Vertigo should be in thrillers, Psycho in horror, King Kong in fantasy, Wizard of Oz in Musicals, Star Wars in Science Fiction, Lawrence in Arabia is Historical. Most films have one obvious category that they go into. An alternative method to categorize could be country (or continent) they were made in - that would help with worldwide view. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably my main problem with the way it's been done is the categories with 0 entries. Are there any other parts of the list with categories with 0 members? Some are misleading as stated above, and others I don't think are major enough genres for it to matter if they're represented or not. Does it matter if there aren't any sports films or teen films? And certainly "religious" isn't a usual genre (leaving aside the fact that The Passion of Joan of Arc and The Seventh Seal have strong religious elements). I still don't agree that most films have one obvious category that they go into, but could live with a genre system if it was better implemented. I would prefer sorting by continent which would largely be straightforward, or sorting into silent era and sound era. On the other hand, it's not an excessively long list, so no sorting would also be fine with me.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the current breakdown of the Films sublist into numerous sub-sublists of very few items (or in several case, no items) is a mistake for all of the reasons others have identified above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It has changed since my previous comment with the loss of the categories with 0 films being a big improvement. Still I would remove the religious and road movie genres, putting The Seventh Seal in historical and La Strada in drama. I would also move The Godfather to drama. (Some might say the problem with division into genre is that it invites this kind of discussion). --Rsm77 (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved a few films to different genres along the lines stated in the soon-to-be-archived section above. I'd actually like to remove genres altogether, but not sure I would get any consensus on that (not that there was any consensus when they were put into genres in the first place). --Rsm77 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind some subdivisions—it's useful to be able to see at a glance that we have only one animation film, for example—but if you see any way of combining genres or other improvements, I wouldn't mind that either. Cobblet (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By country or continent is possible, but could be a headache with co-productions. I did think about splitting them into silent era and post-silent era as that is fairly easy to do, but might not be considered acceptable as they would become groups of about ten and thirty each. So if people prefer genres maybe just leave it even though several of the categorisations seem arbitrary. Or we could put some of the genres together like SF/Fantasy, Epic/Historical, Horror/Thriller, maybe even Comedy/Romance. Then put La Grande Illusion in Drama as it's not really a typical "war film" the way the genre usually is.--Rsm77 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your combinations look good, except Romance should be combined with Drama I think. Cobblet (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I made the changes above, except I left Romance as a separate genre. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Documentary film, Remove The Blue Boy (painting)
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

'''Oppose ! votes''' I don't know if documentary belongs in Movie or TV, because it applies to both. (Just shows why I think movies and TV should be together. I am proposing to merge Movies and TV among other things right down the bottom of this talk page by the way, take a look and give your opinion on that too.) Carlwev (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - Apples and oranges. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, would support it if it replaces a movie article. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

People not liking cross swaps. Not being a movie expert I don't know which if any movie topic could make way for this. With film in the vital 100 and many articles here dedicated to the medium of film be it movies, actors, directors and more. I think the article about movie theater is more vital to the topic of film than many existing articles. Articles about "venues" are not out of place we have, swimming and swimming pool, sport and stadium. We have removed many movies already in straight removals, if I thought of this back then, I could have proposed a swap with one of them. I think this belongs, if others don't fair enough lets vote. If anyone can think of a good swap that I cannot, bring it up. Carlwev (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think documentary would be a good add. Maybe a swap for Toronto film festival if it has to be a film topic swap. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Movie Theater

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Regrettably, but until we are under the pre-set limit of 10,000 articles, I think topics like this should wait. After we are under 10,000, we should then set about searching for glaring omissions, but not now.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discusson

Remove Holden Caulfield and Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)
The Catcher in the Rye and Nineteen Eighty-Four are already on the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Indian philosophy, Chinese philosophy, German philosophy, French philosophy, American philosophy
We already have Eastern philosophy and Western philosophy as well as sections on religious philosophies and philosophical schools. In light of that, discussing philosophies by country doesn't seem so vital to me. Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose

In no other humanities discipline do we have articles by country: articles like English literature, Italian music or Chinese art are all plausible, but judging from their absence from the list it appears we don't consider such articles vital enough. Instead we prefer to limit our selections to notable people, stylistic movements and works. I don't see why philosophy should be treated any differently from the rest of the humanities, or all other academic disciplines for that matter. Imagine what would happen if we had to start considering things like German engineering? Cobblet (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I now see at least two places where we also do something like this: cinema and cuisine. In these two cases it seems more appropriate, since there really isn't any other way to classify cinema or cuisine. I still feel that whenever possible, we should stick to classifying the humanities by "movements", "schools" or supranational entities (e.g. African art) and avoid breaking topics down by nationality. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove Pre-Socratic philosophy
Covered fairly extensively in Ancient Greek philosophy, of which it is a part. Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Injustice
Unsurprisingly a stubby article. Justice is already listed under Law in Social Sciences.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Mithraic mysteries
Support !votes
 * 1) As nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Add Greco-Roman mysteries instead. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest adding Greco-Roman mysteries instead. Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Eros, Add Maya religion
Greek mythology is overrepresented. Maya religion is a vital topic.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC
 * 4) Support Ancient Greece is seriously overrepresented and Native America severely underrepresented. Good swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Support removal, Oppose addition. john k (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Christian mythology and Jewish mythology
We recently removed Islamic mythology on the grounds that Islam ought to cover it in sufficient detail. I think the same argument should apply to these cases.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Nontheism
We already have atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, and post-theism.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support john k (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Antitheism
We already have atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, and post-theism.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support john k (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Garden of Eden
Given that we can't seem to find room for any individual Bible books, I'm puzzled why we'd include an article on a subject that only comes up in two chapters of one of them.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. john k (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The Garden of Eden is a pretty big concept in Christianity and has been expanded on since the Bible. Similar to the way Noah's Ark gets very brief mention in the Bible but has come to occupy a larger position. --Rsm77 (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * For those saying the Garden of Eden "is a pretty big concept in Christianity," take a look at the enormous range of topics that are much bigger concepts in Christianity that are not included on this list. john k (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Either Book of Genesis or Genesis creation narrative would be a better article to include. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove Native American mythology
The article is a list.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Native American religion might be a stronger candidate for inclusion. Cobblet (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Parapsychology
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Northamerica1000(talk) 07:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) support Not at all a vital topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, important topic. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)c
 * 2) Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Important as a historical topic. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The nomination seems to be "remove because it is what it is," so I see no reason for removal. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Discussion
 * Parapsychology is a pseudoscience at best, which erroneously uses the term psychology so as to imply its an actual study of existing things. At worst its a con game and its certainly not a vital topic. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is still widely spread term. Even thought it isn't real, I think the article is still vital. --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Cherokee people
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. - Per Maunus. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes


 * Discussion
 * Again you are arguing that because we can't include the full spectrum of global diversity we should keep the current status quoe with its bias in favor of topics related to the US and Europe. That is of course an incoherent argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Navajo people
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)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Add Inuit
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)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Add Yoruba people
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)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Add Maasai people
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)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes


 * Discussion
 * Maunus, I've reconsidered my !votes in light of the recent support for mass trimming of the bloated and poorly constructed sub-lists, but I wondered why you didn't also suggest adding Dinka people. Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support Dinka people, or Nuer people.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Bushmen
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)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Add Khmer people
Support votes oppose votes
 * 1) support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, covered by Cambodia. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - There just isn't enough room to include all of these. Also, there are dozens that are being looked over in their favour.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per V3n0M93. Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose already covered in Cambodia. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Hmong people
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)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Add Uyghur people
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)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Add Tibetan people
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)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes Now that we're keeping Tibet and Xinjiang, is it still necessary to have articles on the Tibetans and Uyghurs? Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Add Lakota people
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
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Maunus, did you have a reason for including this and not the Sioux? Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Because Sioux is not a people but several people and because the word "sioux" is not their own name for themselves has been rejected by the tribes as offensive.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But on a list of 10,000 articles we should certainly be considering adding articles on groups of peoples (we have Aboriginal Australians, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Maya peoples and Slavic peoples, among other examples), especially when the specific people in question are relatively small in number compared to other Native American peoples not on the list such as the Cree, the Choctaw and the Ojibwe. If Sioux were moved to Očhéthi Šakówiŋ, I would prefer to include that article instead. Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Miao people
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 I have reservations about including this one, since this is a label applied by the Chinese government and it's unclear whether the people regard themselves as a single ethnic group. Cobblet (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Sami people
Support votes
 * 1) support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes Right now Sápmi (area) is listed under the new Regions list. I don't know whether it's better to replace it with Sami people, or to even have both articles. A similar issue is whether we should include Kurdistan and/or Kurdish people. We currently have the former but not the latter. Cobblet (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Turkish people
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support Seems quite an arbitrary selection. Why include Turkish people and not say French people or Japanese people? --Rsm77 (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A strange choice indeed. Perhaps Turkic peoples was meant? Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, I was going to nominate that - I think it's a mix-up with Turkic people, like user Cobblet says. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support – Ypnypn (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Discussion about topic area: Ethnology

 * These ethnic groups in spite of not being in control of a nation state are all well known and notable and quite large.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

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)


 * Oh dear. I think most of these add proposals are excellent additions. But we're going to have a big problem here which I'll bring up in the general discussion too. Many users will not vote on straight adds, because they are straight adds. There are many proposed additions here and users probably don't want our grand total going up by another 15 articles in one go when we've all worked so hard to get it down. Users like this only like swaps. But another problem is, there are not really 15 peoples/races/tribes/ethnic groups that can come off. If we are going to do this this section will have to grow, and one or more other sections will have to shrink to compensate. Some users are fine with that, including me, there is some agreement as to where is too bulky. But other users seem to oppose swaps if they are not of the same thing. So by that logic a topic list which truly is to short and truly does deserve more articles will be doomed to stay under represented as you can't increase it by swapping in an article and removing one.


 * Having said that I will still try to think of alternative swaps for these at some point. A few things on my mind. Should it be Lakota? would Souix be better instead or as well, Souix encompasses Lakota I believe? and seems to be a better article and in more languages. Why not Iroquis too? Inuit or Eskimo, I know their meaning is not identicle. In English Inuit is the better article. But Eskimo is in more languages, so I don't know, Eskimo seems to be over encompassing, I think both terms can sometimes be considered offensive more so with Eskimo, but most of the time not I think. Both would be good but I don't know which is better. Obviously this is not all peoples but it would be a good start, the quotation that, these peoples do not have a nation article to represent them. True. Tibetan people, stand out, as we should have Tibet not as nation but as a region somewhere (I've just spotted Tibet is not listed WOW, I'll have to fix that.) Kurdish people was also one that came to mind, as, how true or not, have been quoted as being one of the largest ethnic groups without a specific nation of their own. But again we have several Kurdistan articles listed, although Kurdish people is probably still better to have than Turkish Kurdistan which is included. I'll return here a bit later, but great ideas. Carlwev (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sioux (note spelling) is basically an outdated way of saying Lakota. When talking about languages the Siuoan languages include Dakota, Nakota and Assiniboine. Iroquois could definitely be added. Definitely Inuit. Eskimo is offensive to most Inuit and linguistically include also the Aleut speaking groups and the Alaskan Yupik. I would support adding Kurdish people as well.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We just don't have room for all of those. We have to draw the line somewhere or set up some kind of criteria for inclusion. Like peoples who don't have a separate state go on the list. That would exclude Turkish people and include Kurdish people, for example. Maybe there are main articles that will save us to include every tiny subgroup: like the article on Native Americans includes many of the above. The detailed sub-articles then can go on the 100.000 list. It might make sense to start the 100.000 list soon because we have valuable material here. Many of the articles we have to remove here could just be moved to the extended expanded list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are all people who are both vital and don't have their separate state. Many of these groups represent more people and more unique and historically significant cultures than several nation states that are represented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Maunus, I absolutely agree with your point. However, I feel that for the purpose of compiling a list of 10 000 articles, this section should be treated as a "wastebin" section. In other words, it might be best for us to first decide on what other articles to include that might be related to these groups (Kurdistan, Nunavut, Aztec religion, Uluru, Hausa Kingdoms, etc.) before we make a decision on which cultures need representation in this section, because clearly we won't be making an exhaustive selection here. Cobblet (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards supporting some of these ethnic groups that are not represented in other ways. But I find it difficult to square this way of thinking with existing articles on the list like Arab people, Han Chinese, Slavic peoples, and Turkish people. Do people think these articles should be on the list? Certainly the Turkish article has been mentioned a couple of times as a potential remove. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC) OK, I have nominated Turkish people for removal. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with including well-defined multinational peoples like the Arabs and the Slavs. Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Latin script, remove Latin alphabet

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support better article on the same general topic --Rsm77 (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The former article is more general; the latter only talks about its use in Latin. Cobblet (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Altaic languages
Not widely recognized by linguists.


 * Support !votes
 * 1) john k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Coptic language, Add Old English, Middle English
I don't see how there's any doubt which of these is more vital for an English language encyclopedia.


 * Support !Votes
 * 1) john k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !Votes
 * 1) I also don't see any doubt. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Really? An extinct liturgical language, used by a fairly small religious community, is more important for an English language wikipedia than the two direct ancestors of modern English? john k (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have Egyptian language on the list. Cobblet (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove Zulu language, Shona language, Add Bantu languages
The Bantu languages are really important as a distinct group. Besides Swahili, I don't think any of the individual languages are all that important (although I'd support adding Zulu people, and perhaps some other articles on individual Bantu ethnic groups)


 * Support !votes
 * 1) john k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) oppose We should have both the individual languages and the language family.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Bhojpuri language, Chhattisgarhi language, Maithili language
These are officially considered dialects of Hindi, and, while widely spoken, don't have much in the way of a literary tradition. There's already a ton of Indo-Aryan languages


 * Support! Votes
 * 1) john k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose! Votes


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Catalan language, Add Danish language and Norwegian language
Catalan is (very slightly more spoken), but Danish and Norwegian are official languages of significant European countries, and have a much larger literary tradition.


 * Support !Votes
 * 1) john k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !Votes


 * Discussion
 * I don't actually care about removing Catalan - I'd be reasonably fine with keeping it, although I don't really think it's vital. But Danish and Norwegian are clearly more deserving. Who's the Ibsen of Catalan? john k (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We should have all three of them. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Prefer to either have all three or none of them. Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Writing system

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Ypnypn (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Dari (Persian dialect), Add Xiang Chinese
Dari is the name for the modern Persian language in Afghanistan, and is covered in the latter article. Xiang Chinese is the most spoken language whose status as such is not disputed (compare Jin Chinese) and is not already on the list. With 35-40 million speakers, it is spoken by approximately as many people as Polish, Pashto, Kannada, Malayalam and Sundanese, all of which are on the list, and is more widely spoken than Hakka Chinese, also on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose Errors should be simply removed, not discussed for six weeks as if there was ever an intention of their being there in the first place. Dari is a dialect, and it should not be listed as an Iranian language, because all dialects of Western Iranian Persian are part of Persian. The number of speakers of Pashto does not impact the importance of Xiang Chinese.
 * You want to revert my removal of "dicots" and we can spend six weeks debating the virality of an archaic botanical term with non plant scientists? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Discussion
 * Comment It should just be removed. When something is in the list due to lack of knowledge of the list maker, spending time discussing it rather than weighing important issues which require insight, knowledge and discussion, simply assumes that no one on Wikpedia has anything but time and desire for social networking. Are we building an encyclopedia or hanging out with our buddies? We could really monkeywrench the whole issue, though, by inviting Afghans to debate, and they may suggest that Afghan Persian is a purer form of the language. (AfadsBad (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC))
 * If you want to remove the article on Dari, your oppose !vote is only making that more difficult. Changing a heading can be done without necessarily starting a discussion here, but adding and removing topics (except for the removal of exact duplicate listings) must be discussed first on this page. It is absolutely possible that Afghan linguists could join the conversation—we would welcome it if they did. Whether this project is worth your time is for you alone to decide. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are offering an exchange, not a removal. Are you saying if I vote for your exchange it will make removal possible, and nothing else will? Are you going to revert my dicots removal? Thanks for letting me know that you aren't the dictator of my time reources. I was very concerned, there. Except, there are actually overall time resources on Wikipedia, and you knew what I meant, but thanks for showing which side of the infinite resources you are on. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing economically and well rather than playing games. If Afghan Dari is supposed to be on the list, if low level dialects belong here, it should be swapped out for something similar, not a completely unrelated, much higher level and more diverse dalect. Or maybe another actual Iranian language would maintain the diversity of Iranian lamguages, since i is not possible a human made a mistake including Dari to begin with. I suggest it be swapped out for Balochi. Well, I would invite Afghans to discuss the issue, but I doubt we have Afghan linguists, who would probably be more likely to participate in a discussion on Pashto. --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC))
 * No, and please don't put words in my mouth. And Dicots was a heading, so no. As for the matter at hand, having read the articles, it would appear to me Xiang is a more significant language than Balochi—not only is it spoken by a lot more people, but it is of interest to the study of historical Chinese phonology as well. The Indo-Iranian languages (and the Indo-European languages as a whole) are much better represented on the list atm than the Sino-Tibetan languages—disproportionately so, I think. Cobblet (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see your arguments and numbers for the disproportionate representation of Indo-European languages, can you link? Linguistic diversity isn't a matter of numbers, anyhow. Adding 27 California Indian languages would not begin to represent its linguistic diversity. So, here we are, for some reason, a mistake can be corrected in flowers, but not in languages. There is no numbers count and data that the Indo-European languages are over-represented. Myslf, a minor dialect was an error, but if it is significant enough to require sx weeks of discussion, I think it needs replaced with another Iranian language, not a Chinese dialect. Please don't go by our rather poor article on Balochi, the language is far more histirically significant and interesting than it seems on Wikipedia, as is Somali, oddly enough. -(AfadsBad (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove French 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)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Carlwev (talk)
 * 2) Oppose Ranking is what this page is all about: we're looking for the 10,000 most vital articles. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Chewing gum
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. p  b  p  13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes You know what I'm gonna support this. I thought about bringing it up my myself, it's fairly wide spread, widely consumed. It's more vital than some plants we have. But, I have a strange feeling in belly not from swallowing gum, but a strange feeling this is gonna get a load of opposes, if not for being a lone add, for being, well, "only gum". Carlwev (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - Common and vital are not synonyms. Also, rice is not currently in foods, which I think is far more vital than chewing gum, not? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Re:Gabe on rice: Rice is in the biology section, I believe, as are most other grains p  b  p  22:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are currently three grains listed under food. I would think rice is more a foodstuff than an organism that belongs in Biology. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, then propose that Rice and the other 12 grains be moved to food p  b  p  16:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Lavender
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Not vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: Certainly doesn't belong on this list as a foodstuff.  Plant, maybe.  Foodstuff, no  p  b  p  13:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Not my favourite article but I would prefer to move this to plants before moving it of the list altogether, it is more notable than many species in plants, it'll probably get removed anyway. Carlwev (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

While I'll don't consider this top top importance, we're attacking the wrong lists first. Maybe this should be moved to plants, and we can start trimming the truly obscure plants, and leave the moderately well known ones to discus after. the whole plant vs food issue needs to be addressed
 * Discussion

Remove Distilled beverage
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) We already have Alcoholic beverage in the same sub-list. Are these two really unique enough to each other to justify listing them both when we are 400+ articles over the limit?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Potato chips

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Not vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support ELEKHHT 02:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose I would prefer to keep this, very widely eaten, not top 20 but top 120 foods probably, we should cover all eating habits, have snacks as well as cooked meals, we have candy chocolate biscuit cake. I will wait for consensus on this. Carlwev (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Carlwev, I think what we really need is Snack. I feel this isn't vital because it's really a method of preparing potatoes, much like pilaf is in relation to rice. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Chopsticks
If fork and spoon are on the list surely this is vital as well.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  23:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Pub
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) We already have Bar (establishment).  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I would prefer to keep this, important European cultural and historical establishment, kind of covered by bar but not exactly, I see it as more vital than certain drinks like liquor and cocktail. Consensus will decide, it may end up going anyway. Carlwev (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Northamerica1000(talk) 07:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose p  b  p  15:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Cocktail
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Not vital. Also, we already have Alcoholic beverage and Distilled beverage.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support Carlwev (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: We've cut all the specific cocktails, but we should keep the general concept.  Cocktails are not exactly covered by alcoholic beverages  p  b  p  17:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * We'll have to disagree on this and wait for consensus, Having removed mixed drink, and several cocktails (Piña colada, Old Fashioned, Mohito, Martini and more) this has been stripped as far as I think it should be. There are 2 alcoholic drinks (beer and wine) in 1000, I think there should be more specific examples in the 10'000, although clearly less vital than whisky wine beer rum etc I think it may still deserve a space, DL1 and pbp were reluctant to lose martini and Old Fashioned at first....Having looked at cocktail again, not a great article, could be swayed in future. no vote now, I don't feel strong on this, I lean slightly to keep, but if I support any alcohol to go this will be one of the first. I would prefer to lose this than pub. Carlwev (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Having rethought, it has less cultural history than other drinks, and is less vital than other alcoholic drinks there, and other foods in general. I will meet gabe half way. Part of me does want to keep this, but if we remove anything from food and drink, I think this looks like one of the first in line. Carlwev (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Dairy, Remove Casserole

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Casseroles are as widely eaten as potato chips and are certainly more vital to feeding people than chewing gum.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We already have dairy farming under Technology. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Shaving
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. We already include beard on the same sub-list.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:54, 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)
 * 1) Oppose I would prefer to keep this, every day life should contain every day things, shaving is common, throughout history and the world, some importance to culture, sexuallity hygene fashion. There are many products just for shaving. I can see the argument for removal though, if it goes it goes. Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose An important part of personal grooming, performed by both sexes. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Table (furniture)
Support !votes Oppose !votes All Furniture - I'm not of the opinion of removing all furniture as redundant to furniture itself, furniture was in the 1000 until January I didn't like it being removed there was no discussion. Furniture is a very broad term, as well as very wide spread world wide and history wide. I would prefer to keep some specific examples. I know they're not very scientific, artistic or technical, but the everyday life section was made for everyday things. I'd like the main items to stay, we could maybe lose some though, I feel more comfortable having 8 items of furniture than say 8 figure skaters. Maybe some can go I will look one at a time, I don't know if we need chair and bench, table and desk, willing to compromise on similar furniture types already covered. There may be difference of opinion on this one, I would prefer to keep some, but I am only one opinion, consensus will decide. Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose see discussion, Carlwev (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Curtain
Support !votes
 * 1) As nom. Not vital.  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 ELEKHHT 02:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I would prefer if we kept this, lets wait and see Carlwev (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

See Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life for a list of topics in this category.

Swap: Add Sailing (sport), Remove Dorothy Hamill
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support add, note that Hamill has already been removed. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Apples to oranges.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding a sport, while not hugely popular, definitely not obscure either, and removing a sportsperson, one of the 8 ice skaters. Not really balanced to have 8 ice skaters but not even mention some other sports at all. We have canoeing and rowing, this shouldn't be ignored completely Carlwev (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Daylight saving time

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom. Non-vital and anglo-centric; most of the world does not use DST.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose, most countries have used it at some point. Definitely not anglo-centric. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Northamerica1000(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Proposal: move Colors to Arts
I propose moving the 13 specific colors and the 8 other topics related to color to Arts, where Color theory is. Thoughts?


 * Support
 * 1) As nom  p  b  p  21:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Per my comments below.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If anything, we should only include the primary colours cyan, magenta and yellow. The rest are covered by Visible spectrum. Also, the proposal sounds like a good way to help Arts look bloated. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and propose the deletion of the other 10 colors, which I will oppose for the reasons I laid out awhile back during the tan drop proposal. I can give a pretty good reason for all of them (except maybe pink and gray) staying.  I'd also note there are portions of bloat in Arts already, with or without a few color articles added to that section.  p  b  p  00:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove ExxonMobil, Petrobras and Royal Dutch Shell, Add Standard Oil
In all, we have nine companies listed in this category, and there are a lot of large oil and gas companies these days. I think Standard Oil tops them all in historical significance—it was the precursor of both ExxonMobil and Chevron, for example, and its dissolution was a landmark case in antitrust law.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose addUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Nestlé
We removed Procter & Gamble recently; none of the major consumer goods companies need to be on this list, IMO.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- ELEKHHT 02:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Add University of Paris, Remove Sorbonne
Sorbonne now redirects to Sorbonne (building). The page for the university is University of Paris.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Television in the United States
While I don't think any of the independent American TV companies are notable enough to be included on this list (see below), there's no denying that American television has had a lasting impact on global culture.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, I don't see how the US is more deserving of an article than any other countries. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove American Broadcasting Company

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove CBS

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove CNN

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove NBC

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove PBS
If we didn't want to remove all of these, we'd have to include Fox Broadcasting Company as well, for starters.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove ITV (TV network)
I can see an argument to be made for BBC to remain on the list (we can discuss that), but this should go.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Serfdom remove Labelling

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Ypnypn (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Apples to oranges yet again.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The latter article looks pretty weak to me and I think it should be removed regardless. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Nomad

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Military science
Until the 20th century military science was considered an academic discipline in many countries, and military academies still exist of course. We do cover many of its fields in separate articles, but the overarching term seems vital to me as well.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

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

Add Demonstration (people)
Support !votes
 * 1) Weak Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - Lets first trim the list to 10,000 or less and then look for glaring omissions.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Civil service
An essential component of government.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  16:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Molecular biology
Obviously vital. This has been proposed for the Level 3 list as well.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Add Anabolic steroid, Remove Airbreathing catfish
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. - Apples to oranges. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per GabeMc. But I would support removing airbreathing catfish. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Discussion
 * Off topic suggestion while I know people are watching, do you think we should have Steroid and/or Anabolic steroid, not sure on this, probably would? thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Carl, if you can find another obscure bug or non-notable biology topic to propose a swap, I will support adding anabolic steroids as a vital topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK how about this fish?
 * Prefer adding steroid instead. Cobblet (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Swap, Add Neuron, remove Olfactory system (already have nose and olfaction)

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose votes

The sensory system list in biology is well laid out into systems, this would mess up the nice laid out list, but there is overlapping content and I think the "system" articles listed there are the less fleshed out articles on Wiki compared to the other. We have nose, Olfaction and Olfactory system. The less fleshed out and less represented language wise of these 3 is Olfactory system, quite short no references either, pretty much all content there is covered in olfaction, and in more depth too. My own biology encyclopedia has an article named smell which means olfaction but not one named smell/olfactory system. Neuron (or nerve cell) is missing and quite important, review the article. Carlwev (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Add Sperm, Remove Psoralea esculenta
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose, Spermatozoon or Semen seem a better choice. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought sperm would have already been in, but it's not. Well it is well studied, we all passed by it in school, Universal to many species, vital topic to biology? I think so. My only thoughts are, at first I thought the best article to cover the topic would have been sperm. But after looking, there seems to be more content at semen, and semen appears in many more languages, although this may be translating issues, just how Wikipedians translated and interlinked articles from different languages, or even if other languages have separate words for the 2 things? who knows? I don't know if we necessarily need both sperm and semen, I couldn't decide which to nominate, so I did both, but they are both more vital than there swap counterparts I believe. Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * We don't need sperm and semen.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I must disagree. And sperm is even more vital than semen, I think. Cobblet (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, but not a fan of swapping subjects from two different domains. Psoralea esculenta is a very good candidate for removal, but I think should be a separate proposal. Camas, and Acorn were also important wild gathered food sources for Native Americans. Mongongo is important in South Africa. But the list is missing many cultivated plants of greater importance. I don't think there's room for wild gathered foods even if they are staples for a particular culture. Plantdrew (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Epilepsy, Remove Gustatory system(already have Taste)

 * Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose. - 1) apples to oranges, yet again, 2) Epilepsy is not vital. 3) Carl, why don't you want to reduce the list back to 10,000 or less entries? It seems to me that you are more interested in swapping out topics you aren't interested in for ones that you are. Consider adding more removal threads than swaps.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

We already have Taste which is a much longer article covers everything Gustatory system does in better depth and more, and appears in more languages. The article in my own biology print encyclopedia uses the title taste. Epilepsy, is very well documented and studied and effects 50 million people world wide according to the article. Carlwev (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * You know gabe every thread is not another media opportunity to put others down who don't agree with you. You asked me to tone it down so I did, What happened to "I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should propose" because that's now exactly what you're doing, telling me I shouldn't do these kinds of swaps, telling me I shouldn't start swaps at all. People have different views live with it. Adding my favorite topics? I'm a fan of Epilepsy? really? I happen to think medical conditions may be encyclopedia material, instead of "Beatles, greatest selling band ever can have 2 albums" not a topic you're interested in obviously. We have all started and voted on swaps adds and removals. You're trying to add Rickenbacker guitar guy, not trying to reduce there, perhaps trying to get another music topic that you're interested in on board? maybe, but who cares? no one left you a nasty message about it. what happened to trying to get along, you seem to love putting others down, the atmosphere here has made me lose interest in the project, was that your aim all along? Carlwev (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap, Remove Urinalysis, Add urinary system
Support !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 Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes


 * Discussion
 * Is this taking the pee, sorry couldn't resist. Odd to have urine test, but not urine the thing its testing, or urination or even urinary system perhaps that would be better. Swap or remove not bothered, lets vote. Closet things to this? we have is bladder, the organ, and flushing toilet. Not the same, as Blood is obviously more vital, but I doubt we would have blood test before blood. Urinary system is more likely a topic in a real encyclopedia, more scientific, and a top importance anatomy article here to. Carlwev (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add the 1000 contains the Circulatory system, Nervous system, Immune system. Plus in the 10000 we also have a load more systems, Endocrine system, Integumentary system, Muscular, sensory, auditory, visual, Gustatory, olfactory, Somatosensory, Respiratory reproductive. I think we should maybe have urinary too. Carlwev (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Urinalysis has been removed by a different proposal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Swap, Remove Custard-apple, Add Annonaceae
Custard-apple redirects to a disambiguation page. The page for the tree and fruit is Annonaceae.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--remove both Not the most major family, botanically or agriculturally. Also, the article might need checked for copyvios. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Custard apple was removed by a different proposal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. Tropical plant families are underrepresented. I think Annonaceae is more vital than some existing plant entries, but there are even more important articles that aren't on the list. Annona is probably a better choice for covering the several species which produce edible fruits (which I think should probably not be listed individually). Plantdrew (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for articulating what I was thinking. I think we'll get a better sense of whether this needs to be added once we take a more critical look at what edible plants we've included—it wasn't that long ago that I had to propose removing Ribes, redcurrant and white currant, and I'm not even sure blackcurrant ought to be among the vital 10,000 topics. Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove plant orders
Delete Alismatales, Asparagales, Liliales, Poales, Ericales, Asterales, Gentianales, Brassicales, Cucurbitales, Rosales, Lamiales, Malpighiales, Myrtales, Fagales, Sapindales, Proteales, Cornales, and Fabales. These are very obscure articles, and will never attract more than a handful of views. To botanists, the orders of plants are far less important than families, in spite of the higher taxonomic rank. To the general public, these are articles that are inherently highly technical and will not be very interesting. There are many articles on families and species that are of higher interest both to botanists and lay readers which be better included here than the articles on orders.

Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Generally support I would be okay with keeping Malpighiales and Liliales as important orders, although I have not checked the articles. The others, in spite of containing important families, genera, and species, simply are not widely studied at the order level. Yes, families are generally of more important than orders. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 3) Support per nom --Rsm77 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Move all plants listed under Food and drink to this section
We've moved most of the organisms out of that section but a good number still remain, specifically potato, rice, hazelnut, pine nut, walnut, anise, basil, black pepper, cinnamon, fennel, garlic, horseradish, lavender, liquorice, mentha, onion, paprika, parsley, parsnip, sage and thyme. Also I propose moving Nut (fruit) to Biological processes and physiology, where fruit and berry are also listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Generally support, but see my comments in discussion below. Plantdrew (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion
 * 1) Cardamom and Ginger are double listed under the "Monocots" section of plants and  in the herbs section of "Cooking, food and drink". Several other food plants are listed under the taxonomy sections, that I'd suggest moving down to the foods section of the plant list. Namely Coconut, Arrowroot, Brazil nut, Cucumber, Muskmelon, Pumpkin, Watermelon, Almond, Chestnut, Pecan, Cashew, and Macadamia.
 * 2) Mint is a DAB. Mentha is the article about the herb (which I supporting listing here).
 * 3) Mustard (condiment) is the article on the Food and Drink list, and should stay there. Mustard plant is the article about the plants. I'm not sure if Mustard plant (a stub about the 3 species used to make the condiment) should be added. I'd lean towards maybe adding the articles on the most important mustard species. There are some other cases where a plant product is derived from multiple species, where the articles on the species may also be Vital (e.g. Rice/Oryza sativa), although that should be another proposal. For now, I'd suggest leaving mustard in Food and Drink and not added the plant article here.
 * 4) Thanks for checking. I updated the proposal to reflect these suggestions, and have removed the duplicates on the Food and Drink list. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I think Nut (fruit), Fruit, Berry, and Seed might be better in Vital_articles/Expanded/Biology_and_health_sciences than the "Biological process and physiology" section.
 * 6) The edible plants should be reorganized. Scrap the groupings by taxonomy (e.g. Asteraceae, Monocots, etc.). Group by function/culinary use. As a starting point, I'd suggest sections: Fruits, Nuts, Herbs and Spices, Root Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables, Other Vegetables, Grains and Pulses.Plantdrew (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with these suggestions as well. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ankylosaurus
Support !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 Bedrieger (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, although a GA and an "archetypal armored dinosaur". We'd still have the FA Triceratops on the list for such armored dinos (even though not that related taxonomically). Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. A well known dinosaur, but if the goal is to reduce the dinosaur list, this is a good candidate for removal. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

How many dinosaurs do we want, and which ones do we want Maiasaura and Camarasaurus look less known than T rex and Triceratops? Thoughts? Carlwev (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I think that 10 is enough. Ankylosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus and Maiasaura look like least important of the ones on the list.--V3n0M93 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Camarasaurus
Support !votes Oppose !votes But we have no other articles on types of dinosaurs, only articles on specific genera. Cobblet (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 Cobblet (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Surely we don't need three separate articles on individual genera of sauropods. john k (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I can support if swapped with Sauropoda. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Aspergillus nidulans
Another missing major research organism.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose other model organisms are more vital (e.g. S. cerevisiae) Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If there's one species of fungi worth including because of its value as a model organism, surely it ought to be Saccharomyces cerevisiae, whose importance also extends to fermentation. And there's also Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Neurospora crassa to be considered. Cobblet (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Smoking

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support - Support due to historical significance; support weakly because most people don't smoke. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, smoking is still widely done. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support p  b  p  16:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap Cannabis (drug) with Cannabis
Cannabis focuses on the plant, Cannabis (drug) focuses on the drug uses of the plant, and is the more relevant topic to health and fitness. The article on the plant doesn't seem to be a vital article (although the article on the other major use of the plant, Hemp, might be).


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

So, remove Cannabis and add Cannabis (drug)? I have to think about it; but, I think that you are probably right that it's use as a drug far outweighs any other aspect of it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion
 * I lean toward opposing this proposal. To make an analogy, I'm not even sure mushroom should be replaced by edible mushroom and psilocybin mushroom, and those involve different species of mushrooms; here, we're talking about two uses for the same species. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What about moving it to the plants section? The other listed Drugs in the medicine are about plant products, not the plants themselves (Tobacco from Nicotiana, Opium from Papaver somniferum). Plantdrew (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think that would be a good idea. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Scientific theory
We have theory in philosophy, but the use of the term in science to denote a well-substantiated explanation of experimental observations deserves separate treatment, I think.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Enceladus (moon), add Rhea (moon)
Rhea is a bigger moon than Enceladus
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose; Enceladus is much more interesting; while Rhea is pretty similar to any other moon around Saturn, Enceladus has many unique features. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. Cobblet (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Ara (constellation), Add Serpens
More important and interesting constellation.
 * Support
 * 1) Proposed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Caldera, Volcanic crater, Volcanic plug, Lava dome

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose

This is Wikipedia 10,000 vital articles, not "Everybody loves everything about volcanoes," and this is a ridiculous number of extrusive igneous landforms to include among only 10,000 articles that include arts, history, geography, physics, chemistry, philosophy. None of these other articles are even in the same ballpark as volcano and mid ocean ridge. It's universe versus piece of dirt behind home plate. But, very American tourist centric. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion
 * I've taken the liberty of separating the removal of geyser as a different proposal. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove Table of nuclides
Support !votes Oppose !votes Didn't even look at the article? Sigh. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose this article is not a table. Are we removing periodic table for the same reason? The table of nuclides is a major tool in astronomy and nulear chemistry for undertanding the origins of the universe and its composition. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * As essential to nuclear chemistry as periodic table is to chemistry as a whole. This is not the list of nuclides. Cobblet (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Add X-ray crystallography
The most commonly used crystallographic technique, with extensive applications in chemistry and molecular biology. It basically allows scientists to "see" molecules. Numerous Nobel Prizes in Chemistry have been awarded for the determination of molecular structures using this technique, e.g. that of the ribosome in 2009.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. We already have 5 Crystallography articles. I would support a swap. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Planck time, add Planck units
More general overview article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: remove Thermodynamic state, add Second law of thermodynamics
Thermodynamic state is a weird collection of stub/definition topics that someone put on the same page for some reason which is hard to discern. The 2nd law article is one of the most important topics in thermodynamics, and it's fairly well written.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support certainly a good swap. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. The notion of a thermodynamic state is important. I don't see it as weird.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Auger effect, add Particle
The Auger effect, while important, is hardly something I would expect anyone but physicists and chemist to care about that. Particle on the other hand, is a truly vital and fundamental concept of science.
 * Support
 * 1) Support, as nom. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I don't see why the Auger effect does not deserve an article. I don't see why physicists and chemists should be ignored.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a debate about whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on the Auger effect. It clearly needs that article. The discussion is about presenting vital, i.e. the most important, aspects of science/physics to readers. The concept of particle clearly beats the Auger effect in terms of importance. In the same way Albert Einstein beats say Paul Corkum. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Square kilometre
Already have Square metre.


 * 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. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I'm not sure why we need any articles about units of measurement. john k (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes


 * Discussion

Remove Centimetre, Kilometre and Millimetre
Already have Metre.


 * 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 I don't see why we should oppose removing unnecessary metric system articles because we haven't yet removed unnecessary imperial measures. john k (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes
 * 1) Oppose Kilometre,Support Centimetre and Millimetre The kilometre article is quite interesting. Also why get rid of all these metric measurements and leave inch, foot, yard, and mile? --Rsm77 (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes the US-centric nature of this exercise more blatantly obvious than ever. I'm surprised nobody is insisting on changing the spelling to the US form. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the League_(unit) article looks really weak. Mainly just a list of how it has differed by region followed by one of those terrible "in popular culture" lists under another name. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Kilometre may be an interesting article but it isn't vital when we have the base unit metre. You guys are more than welcome to suggest removing the US units as well. Definitely most of them should go - I just can't decide which ones to keep. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will get round to nominating some imperial units for removal at some point. --Rsm77 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Metre is the base unit, I don't see why the others should be on the list. As for the imperial units I have no knowledge of them and couldn't decide which were important. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove League

 * Support votes
 * 1) Support Don't see why we need this obsolete unit. Mainly just a list of different lengths for the league in different areas followed by an "in popular culture"-type list. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Unbelievable that this was included at all. john k (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes
 * Discussion
 * Discussion

Remove Light-second
Already have Light-year.


 * 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. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Seriously? john k (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes


 * Discussion

Remove Quart

 * Support votes
 * 1) Support We have gallon and I'm not sure this term has much use outside North America. Not commonly used in the UK (in the last 50 years at least).--Rsm77 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support How on earth did all these ridiculous units of measurement get added in the first place? john k (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Troy ounce, Add Troy weight
We need the measurement system, not one of its units.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support, would prefer a straight remove. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Fathom, Rod (unit)
Both largely obsolete.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support john k (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Electronvolt and Atomic mass unit
Commonly used units in physics and chemistry/biochemistry. Both are non-SI units mentioned in the SI.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Orders of magnitude (mass)
Obviously non-vital.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Street, Add Urbanization
I was shocked to find that street isn't simply a redirect to road (which we have), but is defined in the article as essentially an urban road. Still I'm not convinced it's vital; we also have town square for instance. Let's replace it with the phenomenon of urbanization itself.

Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Cobblet (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose We should have both p  b  p  01:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Pbp, I just wanted to clarify: are you suggesting we should have both street and road? Cobblet (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The powers that be have interpreted "street" to refer to urban roads and "road" to refer to rural streets. As such, they are enough different to justify having both  p  b  p  16:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Move Cotton to Crafts/Materials
Cotton is the only specific crop listed in the Agriculture/Crops and livestock section. It would be better listed with similar articles on textile fibers (e.g. silk, wool, nylon) in the Crafts/Materials section of the Technology list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk)
 * 2) Support a foundation material for various civilizations. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Refrigeration
It didn't just start with the refrigerator, which is all we've got right now.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - quite vital in relation to the overall evolution of food storage, processing and globalization of foodstuff availability. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Interchangeable parts
The crucial idea that made assembly lines possible. I think this is the sort of topic the Technology section is really lacking at the moment.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  04:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Production line, Add Assembly line
The latter article's much stronger.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 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 --Rsm77 (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Assembly 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 Cobblet (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Discussion

Remove Driving
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Support. Odd redundancy listed immediately under Automobile.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - We have too many of these action type entries. How about walking, jogging, running, swimming, jumping, sailing, flying, motorcycling, bicycling, climbing, etcetera. Where would it end?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Now that we're under quota overall and especially in Technology, I'd like to not remove this until we make some more additions. Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Redundant listing. Not quite as redundant as "motorcycling," but pretty darn close.  We cannot afford such odd redundancies when we are trying to remove 300+ articles from the VA/E list.  And, no, "flying" and "sailing" are not listed under "aviation" and "naval transport."  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a major cause of death, an everyday activity, driving has huge social implications and it marks an era. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Melody. This is a huge human activity. Leaning oppose. Jus  da  fax   07:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the article on driving needs improving that is the point of having this list, to show which articles are vital and improve them. There is a lot which can be added on driving. There are books or articles about the car or specific car. There are books and articles about driving, they are very different. You can learn how to drive and do it well but not know much about cars. Or like me you can can learn/know a lot about cars (and bikes) like a mechanic, engineer or inventor, but not actually know how to drive. Millions of people can drive, there are lessons, tests, licences, sports and loads of books on it, the article is terrible but I'm still leaning toward a keep, sorry. Carlwev (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the last three comments here. This is the one piece of heavy machinery many people know how to operate. Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Support !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 Cobblet (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, thanks for listing this, V3nOM93, I suggested it in a discussion and never got around to suggesting it. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes
 * 1) Oppose See comment below. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

I will honestly give these some thought later, but at the moment before I've researched this I cannot see these programming languages as vital, it's only my opinion, and I don't want an argument over it, just let people vote and comment as normal. We have a lot missing from regular language also, may or may not get addressed? I think search engine may actually be better, everyone now a days uses google and others, c++ not so much. I will read about this later. Carlwev (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * There is already Web search engine on the list, thats why I feel two articles are redundant. As for programming languages, everything use on a computer is made using a programming language. C one of the most influential languages, Java is currently one of the most popular and assembler is the one use for drivers and other programs that need to interact directly with the hardware and is of a historical importance. If there is space on the list, there are many more that can be added, but this in my opinion are the most vital.--V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How about just Programming language? I think that programming languages and their development over the past 80 years have created the infrastructure of the cyber world we inhabit. Assembly is a good choice; but I think two would be better, and I think really the article that should be developed as vital, in addition, is just the programming language article, not any specific article.

Add Flight
Vital.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Sailing ship, Add Sailing
Support !votes
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Carl - the latter is a much better article. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes Clearly the wrong article was chosen to represent this topic, assess both articles, all important information by far is located at Sailing article not Sailing ship. Sailing ship is only in one other language, Sailing itself in about 45 other languages. Carlwev (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I believe an article on how humans use sails and the power of wind to propel water vessels, is vital. Comparing to other transports, and what I believe the best article to represent a subject, and what a print encyclopedia would have. Automobile is better than driving. Bicycle is better than cycling. airplane is better than piloting. I think this is probably the only time where the "activity" kind of word is better than the "object/vehicle" word. The closest thing we have already is ship, and wind power, both of those are already in the 1000 too, so it's not out of place to expand upon the area here. Automobile has been expanded to several car companies, Ford, etc, several car types sedan, sportscar etc, and the engine is included too, we have aviation and aircraft and several aircraft types plane, balloon, helicopter. Sailing in addition to ship, which covers all ships. I can understand why one may not want it, but, I think belongs for the reasons I said. Carlwev (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Rocket engine
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. I presume this is already well covered in Rocket, which is already included.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, Rocket engine is vital, Rocket is a general term and Rocket engine types do not covered in Rocket. --Igrek (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Launch vehicle
Support !votes Oppose !votes Rockets include missiles as well. Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) As nom. Isn't this just a different way to say Rocket?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Rename category to "Military technology"
"Weapons" is clearly not the right name for a category that includes War elephant, Tank, Bomber and Battleship.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Nunchaku

 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support non vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:29, 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 as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose, with the exeption of katana, the most well known internationally Japanese weapon. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

V3n0M93, outside of Kung-fu movies, where are Nunchaku currently being used in any organized way (not just teenagers in an alley)? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * It's used in various martial arts. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I used to be pretty good at them myself, having been an ardent Bruce Lee fan. I meant: "where are they being used in any organized fashion as a weapon", versus a training instrument for sport and recreation. There are literally dozens of martial arts weapons that we do not include, perhaps this one is the most notable, but I think that Shuriken are equally notable for example. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia should have both historical and contemporary articles. I see no reason to remove the article, just because it isn't used in modern times. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But why does the English-language Wikipedia need two types of Japanese weapons? I don't think it even needs one. Cobblet (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The English encyclopedia isn't just an encyclopedia for the English-speaking nations, its an international encyclopedia. The list should cover articles about the entire world, not just the English-speaking nations.--V3n0M93 (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove Dagger
Wasn't this article the reason you wanted to remove Knife --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Supports
 * 1) As nom: non-vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Opposes
 * 1) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Hmmmm ... I'm not that sure it was the reason, but I really don't think that we need both knife and dagger under weapons, do you? It seems that several editors have blocked the removal of knife, so why not try to remove dagger as subsumed by knife? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Dagger is more important as a weapon than knife. The knife article focuses on the tool, not the weapon. The weapons list seems about right in size, while other sections are bloated. Maybe we should focus on them first. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, and I agree, but PbP and Carl have blocked the removal of knife from weapons. Also, please don't give me that "I think this section is right-sized", okay? I don't buy into the pre-set limits and will continue to add removal threads wherever I see fit, but FTR, which section would you have me work on, if it were up to you? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO People and Geography have a lot of non-vital articles. I think we should focus on the non-controversial removals first. And after that depending if we are above or below 10 000 we should either start removing the controversial articles or start swapping to improve the quality of the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you about Geography being bloated, but FTR User:purplebackpack89 has supported only one removal from that section. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Club (weapon)
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) Not vital.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, club is more vital than Tomahawk, Nunchaku, Boomerang and it has many types of weapon (baton, mace, nunchaku, jitte, etc., see Club (weapon)).--Igrek (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I am wondering if Mace (club) is better. Carlwev (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Stealth technology

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Remove Space station
Support !votes Oppose !votes
 * 1) As nom. We already have International Space Station.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Respectfully, I would think that space station, as the general example, should be kept, and the ISS, as the specific, should be on the block p  b  p  20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Space Shuttle, space station and International space station, presence in 1000 and 10'000 lists?
Because threads for Space Shuttle and space station removal have been posted, I will start this. Both those articles are also in the vital 1000 list, so keeping with the logic of the vital articles project, articles that are present in the 1000 list cannot be absent from the 10'000 list. People should be able to vote on those articles but logically bearing in mind they are present in both lists. I will expand the thread, to give people the option to vote on whether the articles should be in both lists, only the 10'000 but not the 1000 or remove them from both lists.

My belief is for a 1000 list space shuttle is not needed as we have space flight. We only have one article, aircraft to represent flight, and one article, ship to represent that area. Space flight probably doesn't need more, than transports that are much more widely used at the 1000 list. At the 1000 we have both space station and International Space Station. At least one of them should go I think, at a stretch both, I'm not sure which one should go, leaning toward removing space station, the specific example looks better than generic term for a 1000 list. I will bring up the International Space Station as a thread too as it is in the same vein. Within a list as big as 10'000 I think the topic of space flight should be expanded and cover these articles. I think they should stay in the 10'000 but maybe not the 1000, only my opinion.

Space station
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list

Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list
 * 1) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

International Space Station
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
 * 1) Support p  b  p  20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ypnypn (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list

Space Shuttle
Have on both 1000 and 10,000 list

Keep on the 10,000 list, remove from the 1000 list
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove from the 10,000 list and remove from the 1000 list

Discussion about topic, space technology

 * The topics Space station and space shuttle are included in the 1000 list, again, like several of your other proposals also, it is illogical to remove such topics from the 10,000 list first, but leave them in the 1000. I am not sure about removing these space topics from the 10000 regardless of that fact, I would however probably agree to remove space station and space shuttle from the shorter 1000 list, as that list is tighter and there we already have space flight and international space station also. Space shuttle has an article in my print encyclopedia by the way, which is shorter than 10,000 articles. Just because space shuttle was retired in 2011 does not mean it wasn't important. Many articles from history, bios and techs are exclusively in the past. There are articles on specific individual space craft, missions, or bases which stand out more for removing. I could be maybe be persuaded to remove launch vehicle and possibly rocket engine at a stretch. Carlwev (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Including any of these articles in the 1000 list is insane. john k (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. Apart from the Apollo mission and Armstrong nothing related to space missions this remotely vital enough for the 1,000 list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Add Arabic numerals

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  15:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Roman numerals

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  15:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Binary number

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  15:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Positional notation
We don't have the concept of a numerical base system.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Average

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Ypnypn (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose See comments below. Cobblet (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Probably mean arithmetic mean rather than average. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

"Mean" is listed, but the actual article linked is Sample mean and sample covariance, which doesn't seem to be the best article on the concept. Nor is average, which talks about median and mode as if they were also averages, which they aren't. (They're different measures of central tendency.) I think the best article to include on the list is either mean or arithmetic mean. Cobblet (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Too many organisms, can we remove some?
Now that the Geography section's being trimmed to a manageable size, I think we need to tackle the most over-represented section of the list: organisms. We have 1064 of them, more than 10% of the entire list. Anyone familiar with the Leptodactylidae or the Tapaculo? Or the Callitrichidae or the Potamogetonaceae? And looking at the subsections, it's obvious certain groups are disproportionately represented: 110 insects, 158 birds, 160 fishes and 170 mammals, but only 50 reptiles (including 14 dinosaurs) and 10 amphibians. I think I'd prefer keeping something like 50 insects, 50 birds, 50 fishes and 100 mammals, which would mean cutting ~250 articles. We also have 258 plants, which include a lot of edible nuts, grains, fruits and vegetables. That will need trimming as well.

I'm interested to hear what people think - I'm looking at you, User:GabeMc, User talk:Maunus, User:Purplebackpack89, User:Jusdafax, User:Rsm77. If there's support for major cuts I might try to come up with a mass deletion proposal tomorrow - it would take far too long to take things out one by one. I'm not a zoologist but I feel strongly that something drastic needs to be done; apart from freeing up space for other areas of the list, there are topics within biology and the health sciences like genome, food web, origin of life, computational biology and epidemiology that ought to make it in. Cobblet (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about it for quite awhile. I don't know much about biology so I haven't proposed any removals. Biology overall seems very bloated. It's 15% of the entire list. I think something along the lines of 1000-1200 articles is about right. We can use the removed space to add to some underrepresented sections. Considering the size of the list I don't think a mass deletion will gather any support, because everybody will think different articles need to go. We might have to do the deletes one by one. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully expect there to be disagreements on which specific articles to cut. With regions what we're doing right now is letting people nominate articles to keep (which other people may contest) and tossing the rest, since the we're planning to delete more articles than we're keeping. Here, since I'm proposing to keep more articles than delete, I'd suggest the reverse: I'll nominate a list of articles to delete (which people can contest) and we'll keep the rest. What do you think? And if you can provide some sort of opinion on how many of each type of animal to keep (I think I'll work on just animals for now; I made my own suggestion in the first post) that would help me decide where to cut. And by the way, it's not that I really want to do this myself, just I'll volunteer to do it if nobody else wants to. Cobblet (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a fine suggestion to me. Nice work once again! You're doing a great job here and we are all thankful for your participation. While I'm also not a zoologist, I think that this sub-list should probably be cut to around 800 or so. Cobblet, this proposal has my tentative support and FWIW, I don't think that we need to do this one-by-one. Its far too time consuming and tedious and those who most strongly advocated for this approach are no longer actively participating here, so there is no obvious requirement that I can see to do everything here the slowest way humanly possible. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:GabeMc, I agree with you that it is very time consuming. How do you propose we proceed. The regions method seem successful, but the list was 4 times smaller. I'm trying to think of another method, but I can't figure anything out. Any suggestions? --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, V3n0M93. Is there an obvious way in which we could sensibly subdivide the list and !vote sub-sections? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Cobblet, it seems like a good idea. Everybody should suggest articles for deletion so we can compile a list. After that we can say which of those articles we want to keep and vote on them like with regions proposal. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sound good to me Cobblet! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Cobblet, User:GabeMc, I have drafted a proposal. What do you think. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, User:V3n0M93 and User:GabeMc. Just so we can agree on a target (I don't want to cut too much or people are bound to get upset, but cutting too little would be pointless), does cutting ~250 organisms sound reasonable to everyone? I think the sections that are the worst offenders are the birds and fish, followed by insects and plants. Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with cutting ~ 250. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, it looks like the person who made the animals list leaned towards picking animal families (including obscure ones) over individual species, while whoever made the plants list leaned toward including individual species and was extra careful to include ones from all over the world, not just the one people in the West might be familiar with. I don't necessarily agree with either approach, but it's worth bearing in mind as we decide what to cut. Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that as well. IMO the organisms are more important than the families. We should keep only the most important ones and delete the rest. I'll take a closer look on the list tomorrow and post the articles which I think should be removed. I don't think we should set a limit to how many articles to remove. Looking at the list they are many articles which are not vital. I don't see a problem with removing more articles, and adding some later. We should focus on quality and not quantity. --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:GabeMc, User:Cobblet, I've been going over the list, but since I don't know much about biology I find it hard to make list of articles to remove. I would appreciate your help. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't had time to get around to it. Maybe this weekend. Cobblet (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to mass delete organism articles

 * 1) Until this proposal passes articles will be added to the remove list. Editors can choose to keep an article by contesting the removal (writing "(contested)" next to the article on the list)
 * 2) After the proposal passes articles will no longer be added to the Remove List.
 * 3) From then on editors will have 5 more days to contest the removal of articles.
 * 4) After 5 days pass proposals will be started on whether to remove or keep the contested articles.
 * 5) After all the proposals are closed and we are left with the final "Remove List" those articles will be deleted from the Biology list.


 * Support votes
 * 1) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Bedrieger (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose votes
 * 1) Oppose  --Igrek (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * What do you think of this Jusdafax? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what this proposal actually means. I'd agree that there are too many organisms of certain types. 16 rodents for example. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, thanks to Gabe for alerting me. I lean towards this being a very bad idea. The list appears to be constructed with care, if perhaps a bit too much detail. But mass delete and start over seems at first glance to be an extreme over-reaction. What do we know about the founders of this vital articles project? Are any still active on Wikipedia? I'd like to know their opinions of this ongoing makeover. Jus  da  fax   06:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response, User:Jusdafax. I do agree that the list of plants seems to have been carefully chosen and that we should tread carefully there. On the other hand I'm pretty sure the animals list is the work of multiple people - or perhaps one person began to expand certain sections of an older list but never finished. Again I point out the imbalance: 110 insects, 158 birds, 160 fishes and 170 mammals, but only 50 reptiles (including 14 dinosaurs) and 10 amphibians. I don't see why the former categories are so large compared to the latter - do you? I should also note that in a list of over 1000, deleting ~250 articles is certainly significant, but hardly "starting over." Cobblet (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Going over the list, I am starting to think that just removing articles won't do anything. The plants sublist is ok, there is no need for a mass deletion proposal, just a few tweaks here and there. The problem is the animal list. 60-70% of the articles are basically a list of the subclasses of that particular class. We have to many articles about families, orders and classes and not enough about the species themselves.--V3n0M93 (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've looked through the insects and fish and while some classes and families should just be removed, some could be replaced by a particular species more familiar to us. And since it looks like some people are uncomfortable with these blanket proposals, maybe a mass deletion is not the best approach. It'll take longer (and this page is going to balloon in size) but I think I'll start proposing individual removals and swaps instead. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Over 90% of the animals identified on planet earth are insects, so, yes, 110 insect articles seems unbalanced, but by under-representation rather than over-representation. The plants do look well thought out, but some of the orders are not necessary. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC))
 * But we're looking to include the most significant species of organisms on this list; we're not looking for strictly proportional coverage. The vast majority of insects are not of vital importance to Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, a much larger number of insects versus non-insect animals are important to human beings, so I'm not sure why they would be so unimportant to Wikipedia. Human and crop disease vectors, pollination syndromes, economic destruction. The lepidoptera are a bit overdone, but, really, mosquito, cockroach and tse tse fly? Many insect species are much more significant to humans on a global basis than many of the mammals, birds, and amphibians already on the list. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I agree the ones you mentioned are worth keeping. What I'd like to remove are articles like Embioptera, Mecoptera, Megaloptera and Snakefly. Cobblet (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with removing specific organism articles, with some input from knowledgeable editors; but that does not appear to be what this proposal is about. I also don't know a lot about beetles, except that there are many many species. If more than the main article is important, why not ask some beetle people about which are. The ones you mention seem less important than scarab and dung beetles. But, sometimes popular culture is not the best establishment of importance; for example, above there is a suggestion to replace "particle detector" with "geiger counter," but a geiger counter is an instrument with a very limited use, in spite of its greater, often incorrect, appearance in popular culture. A particle detector is a measuring instrument, a tool, and used for extensive experimentation and represents a vast array of instrumentation. I would like the organisms to be removed and changed with greater insight than just, "oh, I'm familiar with that, it's vital." To me, some beetle-lovers would be useful. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC))
 * What do we do in the absence of beetle people who care about the vital articles list? I think it's inarguable that there are way too many organism articles included right now, to the detriment of many other topics. As educated laypersons, perhaps we won't make the perfect choices as to what to remove, but I think "animals non-specialists think are important" is not a bad heuristic for which articles are vital. And information about other types that we don't have room to include will of course be given in the more general articles like Beetle. I don't think anyone is suggesting removing articles like Mosquito, Cockroach, or Tse Tse Fly. john k (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not ask at the Wikiproject? This could prevent things like having "dicots" as a subject area for plant vital articles, when the term has been out of use for 20 years, doesn't describe a clade, and grouped organisms together that ignored two decades of science. Having a vital articles list that includes archaic terms or fails to include very important articles, simply because you don't want to ask editors with expertise seems to remove the vital from the area. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC))
 * If we decide a number of beetle articles we want to keep, it'd perhaps make sense to then ask the beetles wikiproject to comment on which ones are of greatest importance. But certainly they have no expertise on the question of "do we have way too many articles about beetles in this list?" john k (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If only one is important and we suggest three or four are equally important and we suggest we keep three, what good is that? We can gain consensus better with expert editors. I just don't know a lot about beetles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Is this proposal going anywhere? Should I add some candidates to the removal list? I proposed removing all the articles on plant orders a few days ago. Orders aren't very important topics in the plant world. Orders are vital for insect classification, but are all of them equally important? Cobblet's Embioptera, Mecoptera, Megaloptera and Snakefly are small insect orders with species that the average person is unlikely to ever notice. There seems to some tendency to include higher groups of organisms (classes/orders) for the sake of taxonomic completeness rather than articles on species/genera that a non-biologist might come across every day. I think working from the top down (removing higher taxa) can be addressed by people with no special biology background; if a higher group has few species and a limited distribution, its not a vital article. It would be good to alert WikiProjects specializing in particular organisms about this proposal. Editors with backgrounds related to these organisms may be able to suggest other candidates for removal. Plantdrew (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All good ideas, bring on board experts. I think we might be better off with a familiar genus or species to represent a group. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Especially as it's a subject I don't know much about and as we do not have a burning need to massively delete articles, I would prefer not to take the mass-deletion route. I'd prefer to do this via the usual smaller-scale proposals where it's more possible to grasp the arguments for and against deletion. Experts are welcome, but invitations to participate should be expressed neutrally to avoid problems with canvassing. IMO. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think just stating that articles which your project may be interested in are being discussed at Viral Articles would be good, but good point. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC))


 * That's a very sensible idea, Plantdrew. I'd support removing plant orders. Could you propose some plant orders that are not vital in your judgement? --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Plantdrew is suggesting removing all of the plant orders.. Botanists consider families to be a more important organizational level. Also the selected orders are not necessarily the most important, except maybe Poales, Liliales, as possible, but not necessary keepers. Maybe Malpighiales. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Remove List
Articles to be removed


 * Discussion

Languages
I'm not sure where to put this, but I find some of the inclusions and exclusion of languages puzzling. For example, why is Catalan considered vital, but not Danish or Norwegian? Catalan has only marginally more native speakers, and is considerably less important as a national or literary language than the two not included Scandinavian languages. Furthermore, surely it is vital for an English language encyclopedia to contain articles about Old English and Middle English? This is especially true when Old Church Slavonic and Ge'ez are considered vital. What about Yiddish? I'd say it's cultural importance as the historical language of Ashkenazi Jewry eclipses the importance of Oriya or Sundanese, however many speakers those languages may have. There's a general lack of dead Western European languages - Old Norse, Old French, and Old High German are all significant enough to the English-speaking world for me to think they're probably more vital than Ge'ez or Coptic. Obviously, systematic bias can be a problem, but we should also keep in mind that there are problems with the other direction as well - namely, that we are demanding articles on things that don't have much written about them in English, while neglecting subjects about which much ink has been spilled. For instance, it's much easier to learn at least the basics of Old English in the US than it is to learn Shona or Sundanese. Virtually every major university in the English-speaking world will have an Old English class. Much harder to find instruction in many of these other languages. At any rate, I'd at least propose adding Old English, Danish language, Norwegian language and Yiddish language to the Germanic languages. john k (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah this section really needs attention. Given the resistance Maunus ran into when proposing to add ethnic groups, I'm reluctant to suggest additions here myself. But I'll be happy to vote on any proposals you come up with. Cobblet (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that first we should make the effort required to get back to around 9,500 articles, so that glaring omissions like the ones Maunus and John k identified can be added with less resistance. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Selection is haphazard here as elsewhere, so why don't you try some swaps? I would support Old and Middle English over any other language no longer in use apart from Latin and Ancient Greek. You could try and squeeze Yiddish in somehow as well given the three obsolete languages you mention above (they seem to be in as liturgical languages, but that's not good enough for me at least). I'm a little less enthusiastic about the inclusion of Danish and Norwegian though I'd probably support a swap of either for Catalan. I guess I'd probably support a swap of either for Shona as well, but once you get to languages with more than 20 million speakers I'm less sure. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Having said that, when you look through there are a few with less than 20 million speakers like Berber languages. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We could remove Altaic languages, which is not an widely accepted term. We could lose some Indo-Aryan languages as well. IMO they are overrepresented. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support removing Altaic. I thin it is hard to not fall into the trap of parochialism by removing lesser studied but widely spoken languages in favor of widely studied languages of mostly historical importance. Again I think it might be an idea to set a quota for living languages and another for literary ones, as well as quota for languages from different continents and language families.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, which aims to give a summary of human knowledge. I don't think there is a "trap of parochialism". I think it's a trap to think that we can avoid giving more attention to "widely studied" subjects over "lesser studied" ones. An encyclopedia summarizes what is studied, not what is. I would at any rate, support removing Ge'ez language, Oromo language, Somali language, Cebuano language, Malagasy language, Sundanese language, Assamese language, Bhojpuri language, Chhattisgarhi language, Maithili language, Dari (Persian), Fula language, Igbo language, Shona language, and Zulu language, to make room for the ones I suggested. Of the dead languages, Ge'ez seems the least relevant. Oromo, Somali, Fula, Igbo, Shona are basically spoken languages, with very little in the way of a literary tradition. I'd say for most African languages, it would be more important to have articles on the ethnic group than on the language (trade languages like Swahili and Hausa excepted, and with perhaps exceptions for a few others). Zulu people, for instance, almost certainly deserves to be a vital article. I don't think Zulu language does. I'd say that the article on Bantu languages, in general, is considerably more important than any of the articles on individual Bantu languages, except Swahili. Sundanese and Cebuano, too, are widely spoken, but not really significant literary languages. Maithili, Bhojpuri, and Chhattisgarhi aren't even recognized as full languages by the Indian government, and Assamese seems of distinctly minor importance. Dari (Persian) is just the dialect of Persian spoken in Afghanistan. Why is it vital? Let me work up some proposals. john k (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed Dari. It is also the name for Modern Persian and it was probably just a mistake, Afghan Persian is already covered among Western Iranian languages under Persian, aka Modern Persian. This is why the projects should be involved, a linguist would not have made that mistake, which I suspect was made due to the nature of our article on Dari. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I have reverted your removal, and am proposing a swap for Xiang Chinese. No topic should be removed without discussion unless it is an exact duplicate of another topic. Persian language and Modern Persian are not the same thing. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree Dari should be removed. Although not an exact duplicate, it is highly similar with Persian. Dari is one of the official language of Afghanistan and have a lot of speakers but this list isn't big enough to start including dialects. List should only have one of these: Farsi, Persian or Dari. --MarsRover (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How much of a role should hit count play in this list

 * Major role
 * 1) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support it seems to me that the most–viewed articles should be the ones considered vital. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This is not rocket science. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Some role


 * Little to no role
 * 1)  p  b  p  19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Per pbp. Cobblet (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Maybe a small role when comparing articles in tightly defined categories (eg mediaeval European composers) rather than broad categories (musicians). But it should not be something that is relied on exclusively even in these cases. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) per pbp --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I have three major problems with using hit count as a factor in this list
 * Hit count is in no way a gauge of long-term influence. Popular actors, singers and athletes outhit influential leaders and thinkers
 * Hit count is greatly affected by recentism (Clarity: very near recentism; within the past few years or so)
 * An article's hit count isn't stable. There are articles that occasionally have a tenfold spike in hit count from one day to the next

p b  p  19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: 1) a) is a personal opinion, b) is perhaps true, but I fail to see how that invalidates the method in toto, 2) is also an opinion and the concept of recentism is relevant to the observer and topic and fodder for manipulation of arguments (e.g. Nuclear weapons are relatively recent as is Space Exploration, but that's certainly not a good reason to avoid the topics), and 3) is easily adjusted for as these spikes are quite obvious to any astute observer. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When I say recentism here, I'm not taking about the 1950s, I'm talking about the 2010s. Consider the following fact: last month Justin Bieber got 664K hits.  George Washington got a third of that, 214K.  Consider how that fact affects my assertions #1 and #2.  I'm pretty sure we can all agree that George Washington has had a greater impact on the history of the world than Justin Bieber.  But if we went by hits, we'd have to put the Biebs on the list because he's one of the 150 most-hit articles on this site.  And if you went through some of the world leaders and geographical places, you'd find that there are some that are hardly hit at all.  Does that mean throw them on the ashheap?  No!  Also, I'd note the decision to use hit count as a metric is itself a personal opinion, so merely discounting an argument as a personal opinion is not the best of tacks.  p  b  p  22:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PbP, recentism is still nonetheless relative to the editor. I never once heard you say that Harry Potter was too recent, perhaps because to you he came out many years ago, but to me he is a quite recent passing fad. I.e, an editor's age plays a role in what they deem recent, not? I own guitars that are older than you, but I wouldn't call them vintage. On the other hand, I own guitar amps that are older than me, which I consider vintage. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, let me add one more point to the three I have above:
 * 4. Hit count plays into concerns about systemic bias
 * p b  p  22:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As with your selective use of anti-recentism arguments, your misuse of systemic bias here is also misleading. In Wikipedia speak, systemic bias refers to: 1) a dearth of articles on neglected topics, and 2) perspective bias in articles on many subjects. Are you suggesting that this guideline also applies to this list, which is BTW, counter to several Wikipedia principles not the least of which is WP:NOT, as this is a decidedly democratic process. FTR, according to WP:BIAS: "The systemic bias of the English Wikipedia is very likely permanent. As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not identical to the world's demographic composition, the version of the world presented in the English Wikipedia will always be the Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world. Thus, the only way systemic bias would disappear is if all of the world's population spoke English with the same fluency and had equal access and inclination to use the English Wikipedia." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Either hit count should be the decisive criteria so we simply take the articles with the highest hit count in every section (this would make making and maintaining the list soooo much easier), or it should play no role at all. We don't need more criteria that can be subjectively manipulated to favor particular agendas. The problem with hitcounts is that it becomes the systemic bias that decides what the vital list should look like. Probably we'll have to establish an entirely new section for pokemons characters and sex acts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See, I think hit count is unfixable. You forgot the Lady Gaga/Justin Bieber section, btw ;-)  p  b  p  22:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Strawman alert! Who is saying that Bieber should be included because he gets more hits than Washington? Also, who is saying that the list should include the top 10,000 viewed articles? Nobody to my knowledge has ever said this. If you gave an apples to apples example, such as Madonna vs Bieber, or Washington vs Burr, then the method wouldn't seem so preposterous, much in the way that User:Igrek posts google hits so we can compare the commonality of similar topics. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You ask who's saying that? Well to a certain extent, you, Strikeout and Joe are, because you want hits to play a major role in what's on this and what's not. As for an apples-to-apples example, Marco Rubio outhits Henry Clay. Marco Rubio didn't negotiate the Missouri Compromise or run for President in the general election thrice. He wasn't voted one of the five greatest Senators ever. And we rarely, if ever, are going to get it in a Washington-Burr situation; I can't think of a situation yet where we've had two articles of exactly equal notability where hits should be the tiebreaker. I'm taking a position you hold in the abstract and applying it to the specific  p  b  p  23:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think any one criteria should hold a disproportionate amount of weight in these discussions, but if a swap proposal is between X and Y, and X gets 1,000,000 hits and Y gets 10,000 hits, then that's just one factor we should consider, along with many others, such as is X "too recent" or is Y vital regardless of hits. The editing of this list is a subjective exercise at best, and a reflection of editor's personal tastes at worst. Just a few months ago we were arguing about the inclusion of Harry Potter, who at 16 years old is unquestionably recent, yet his popularity among millennials seemed to have been the only good reason for his inclusion, which is really just a complicated way of saying he gets a lot of hits and is therefore vital when taken in the totality of his influence on literature. In sum, there is no one factor that indicates an article's vitality, but we should consider as many factors as possible when we vote, including hits, IMO. Of course Bieber isn't more vital than Washington; that's a strawman argument. On the other hand, Bieber is certainly more vital to modern pop music than Washington, just as Washington is more vital to the history of politics. This apples to oranges example is misleading. Also, on some level hits indicate the obscurity of a topic just as much as its vitality. After all, if a topic gets 10,000 hits it could likely be said to be obscure, even if the voting editors judge it to be vital. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * People seem to forget that Wikipedia exists for its readers. Hit-counts tell us which articles our readers are viewing the most. While I personally care very little about topics like Justin Bieber and Pokémon, if that's what our readers are coming here to see, then those articles are obviously vital. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is here to make our readers knowledgeable, not to cater to their ignorance. The vital list should be a list of articles everyone should read in order to have a good broad general knowledge. We should give our readers what they need not what they want.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As soon as the servers are moved from the U.S. state of Florida to the Peoples' Republic of China. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to suffer from a misunderstanding about what and encyclopedia is. It is a compendium of knowledge and it is educational in nature, which entails tht encyclopedia writers take responsibility for deciding what readers should be educated in. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and it is not a random collection of information that people are most likely to search for on the internet.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, but what you think our readers need and what I think our readers need are often two different things and our choices are subjective and influenced by our personal tastes, hence the need for some objective indicators of a topic's commonality. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Joe makes a good point here. If the overall purpose of the Vital articles list is to identify which articles should be improved, then surely which articles are viewed the most should be at least one factor in determining the list's content. After all, according to some the number one rule of writing is "consider your audience". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Not obvious to me. I account for taste, not for some squirt-gun turtle ahead of the guy who negotiated the Missouri Compromise p  b  p  23:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to me, the number one rule is tell the truth. And, like it or not, somebody like Eleanor Roosevelt or Henry Clay had a greater impact on world history than Squirtle or Justin Bieber  p  b  p  23:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but your truth and mine are not usually the same or even similar. At any rate, this loaded poll is meaningless really, since nobody can tell anybody how to !vote and for what reason they should !vote a certain way. If an editor wants to !vote based on hits they will retain the ability to do so regardless of the result of this poll. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rsm77, I don't think anyone is saying that hits should be the exclusive determining factor for inclusion. The choices are "major factor", "no factor" and "some factor", but not "the only factor". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited for clarification --Rsm77 (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this straw poll is really a survey of semantic preferences. I agree completely with pbp's comments and yet I agree completely with GabeMc's first comment as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hit count would be at least as objective as counting the votes of the tiny number of editors who can be bothered playing here regularly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it might be useful to consider hit count, but only in very narrow, clearly apples to apples type comparisons. Even then, though, I'm not really sure. Could someone who supports the idea give an example of when it would be useful? I think we really want to avoid arguments of the "Justin Bieber got more hits than The Beatles, so we have to include him" type. Looking for more comparable cases, I tried to compare hits for John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay, who seem more directly comparable. Calhoun has about 20,000 hits, and Clay about 16,000. I suppose you could use that to argue for Calhoun's greater significance, but it seems pretty marginal. What kind of cases are we thinking of where this might be useful? john k (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How much of a role should Google Books search result play in this list

 * Major role


 * One of major roles
 * 1) --Igrek (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Major role but only for comparison within one topic and one region
 * 1) --Igrek (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Some role


 * Little to no role
 * 1) Wavering between some and little  p  b  p  19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) The same reasons as the hit count + the majority of the search results are completely unrelated to the topic searched. --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No role. Google estimates are generally inaccurate, but it's easier to see the flaws on Google Books. The easiest way to show this is to pick any topic and start by clicking page 10, then  page 19, page 28 to look through the results. For John F Kennedy the results eventually run out on page 86 meaning that despite the estimate of 2,200,000 results there are actually less than 1,000 hits. This is the biggest problem with Google estimates but there are others. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As with hit count, Google Books doesn't tell the whole story, largely for some of the reasons with hit count. For example, John F. Kennedy has a great deal of books written about him, but that doesn't make him one of the 10-15 most important figures in American history p  b  p  19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * PbP, I respectfully disagree with you about JFK: For many, he was the first modern New liberal, and he embodied the ideals that the US liberal democrats are to this day campaigning for. Also, if you look into it, you'll find that the buck on nuclear war with Russia stopped at his discretion during the Cuban missile crisis. So, if he saved the world from a nuclear WWIII just 50 years ago, then his importance to modern civilization is certainly top ten, IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated count
This as of 1700 UTC 10 August. Note: Not all subsections are listed


 * People, 1974
 * Entertainers, 150
 * Visual artists, 107
 * Writers, 237
 * Musicians/Composers, 176
 * Directors/Producers/Screenwriters, 52
 * Businesspeople, 35
 * Explorers, 27
 * Philosophers/Historians/Soc Sci, 136
 * Religious figures, 124
 * Politicians/leaders, 469
 * Military, 46
 * Rebels/Revolutionaries/Activists, 44
 * Scientists/Inventors/Mathematicians, 213
 * Journalists, 23
 * Sports figures, 135
 * History, 636
 * Prehistory/Ancient, 156
 * Middle Ages, 135
 * Early modern, 88
 * Modern, 168
 * Geography, 1376
 * Bodies of water, 206
 * Islands, 63
 * Peninsulas ,24
 * Land relief, 77
 * Cities, 426
 * Countries, 205
 * Regions, 272
 * Arts, 668
 * Architecture, 36
 * Literature, 209
 * Music, 159
 * Performing arts, 52
 * Visual arts, 99
 * Modern visual arts, 68
 * Philosophy and religion, 418
 * Philosophy, 92
 * Religion and spirituality, 92
 * Specific religions, 133
 * Mythology, 74
 * Anthropology, psychology and everyday life, 800
 * Family/kinship, 55
 * Cooking/food/drink, 148
 * Household items, 57
 * Psychology, 66
 * Language, 174
 * Games/sports, 174
 * Timekeeping, 26
 * Colors, 21
 * Society/social sciences, 564
 * Business/econ, 89
 * Education, 88
 * International organizations, 29
 * Law, 68
 * Mass media, 72
 * Politics and government, 59
 * Society, 65
 * War and military, 61
 * Biology/health sci, 1540
 * Anatomy/morphology, 95
 * Biochemistry, 34
 * Biophysics, 45
 * Cell biology, 29
 * Animals, 729
 * Plants, 281
 * Fungi, 14
 * Health and fitness, 25
 * Medicine, 110
 * Disease, 85
 * Physical sciences, 1051
 * Astronomy, 220
 * Chemistry, 283
 * Earth science, 271
 * Physics, 270
 * Technology, 811
 * Agriculture, 41
 * Construction, 73
 * Industry, 69
 * Machinery/Tools, 81
 * Electronics, 35
 * Computing/Info tech, 69
 * Media/communication, 39
 * Space, 41
 * Weapons, 70
 * Measurement, 99
 * Mathematics, 254
 * Algebra, 37
 * Calculus, 35
 * Discrete math, 21
 * Geometry, 49
 * Prob/stat, 36

We are less than 100 articles from our goal! p b  p  17:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * TOTAL: 10,093 
 * We might be close to 10 000 but our work is not even half-done. Some lists need cutting, while others need expanding. The vitality of a number of the listed articles is also questionable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with V3. While we might be close to 10,000 or less entries, many of the ones currently listed should be removed and many more glaring omissions should be added. Also, PbP did you count each and every sub-list, or did you assume that the current sub-tallies were accurate? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume the subtallies are accurate, but I'll check them again to make sure. Or better yet, why don't you check 'em?  p  b  p  21:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No thanks! Isn't there a bot that could count them for us? I just wanted to point out that many if not most of the sub-tallies are not accurate, IME. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've checked the people one manually, and I'll color others I've checked manually in red p  b  p  23:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This means we're actually under 10,000 articles, since we've already agreed to cut the 272 regions to at most 141 if we keep everything that's being voted on right now. Nice work folks. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked History. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) It added up to 636 not 635. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked Philosophy & Religion. Of course some of these figures will move around as additions and removals continue. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wanted to point out that we're now at 1198 articles in Geography, a full hundred less than the original quota. I think it's probably time to revisit those. Cobblet (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked Mathematics. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to directly update the counts on Vital articles/Expanded. We are at 9872 articles. Cobblet (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Move surveying back to geography or general geology
Surveying was moved to geophysics, with a edit summary about moving it to geodesy. This doesn't make sense. Surveying in general is a very small part of geodesy, but it is a very large part of cartography, geomorphology, geology, geography. It does not belong under geophysics. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I moved it into basic geography. Feel free to move it somewhere else if you find a better place for it. Cobblet (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Surveying is a technical skill with many techniques and multiple applications; but geophysics is far too narrow, and its use in geodesy is fairly limited, both within that science and compared to its use in either geography or other areas of geology; geography is fine. --(AfadsBad (talk))

Dino reptiles
I don't know how it was decided, but I am a cladist at heart; let's not call dinosaurs extinct reptiles in the list. This list has the potential to be public, and errors as big as birds as reptiles can attract unpleasant commentary and remove the focus from content. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
 * What do you think the section header should be given that a synapsid (Dimetrodon) is included? This might be heresy to a cladist, but how about a section for paleontologically significant organisms? There are quite a few organisms that went extinct prehistorically on the list (and yes, dinosaurs aren't really extinct); it might be better to group these separately from living organisms. Plantdrew (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Prehistoric animals? Dimetrodon should not be in a goup of dinosaurs, but putting it there does not turn the dinosaurs into reptiles, particlularly bird ancestors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I was just being bold as usual. Originally it was "Dinosaurs and prehistoric reptiles"—feel free to revert. Accuracy is always more important than conciseness. Cobblet (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your boldness has generally moved things along, but, yes, please revert. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC))

Guideline amendment
IMO, the current wording for add/remove/swap threads is a bit lacking:

''Individual topic discussions may remain open for 90 days or more, but will be archived when it becomes apparent that consensus is unlikely to be reached. We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed as a consensus change if (a) a 5−0 (or greater) unanimous !vote has been achieved, or (b) six or more editors have participated in the discussion and there is an !vote of 70% or greater in favor of or opposed to the proposed addition, removal or swap. Please be patient with our process; we believe that wider participation by more editors, with more informed discussion, are better and more likely to produce an improved and stable final list.''

In particular this text-string needs work:

We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed as a consensus change if (a) a 5−0 (or greater) unanimous !vote has been achieved, or (b) six or more editors have participated in the discussion and there is an !vote of 70% or greater in favor of or opposed to the proposed addition, removal or swap.


 * Sometimes we have the participation of 6 editors without a 70% consensus for or against. E.g., 4-2 and 3-3. I suggest that we discuss a NO CONSENSUS option if after a set amount of time the proposal does not have the needed participation to earn 5 supports and/or 70% agreement.


 * I suggest that remove the 90 day stipulation and extend the proposal period from a minimum of 15 days to a minimum of 30 days, after which time a thread may be closed as DONE or NOT DONE (as reflected by the !votes) or NO CONSENSUS (as reflected by the lack of !votes). Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the 15 minimum is OK. About NO CONSENSUS I think a proposal should have been open at least 45-60 days and if by then it hasn't gathered st least 6 votes we can close it. The problem is what to do with proposals that have 6 votes, but still no consensus. Of the two examples you posted, I think that 4-2 should remain open because it needs one support to be closed as done, and 3-3 should be closed as it need 4 supports which is unlikely. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if we set a minimum, but not a 45-60 day window that would just leave room for complaints like: "Hey, you closed that after 45 days. It could have been open for 60", or similar. If 15 days is enough to close a 5-0 then it should also be enough to close a 1-3 or a 3-1, IMO. Afterall, a 5-0 vote could easily change to 5-3 if we left it open for another 45 days, not? I would like to hear what User:Jusdafax and User:Dirtlawyer1 think, since they were involved in the original guideline language. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 45-60 was just an orientation number. We should pick one. I agree about 1-3, but I think that 5-0 and 3-1 most likely are going to pass. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Working proposal

 * 1) All threads will remain open for at least 15 days.
 * 2) After 15 days any thread may be closed as PASSED if:
 * 3) Proposal has earned at least 5 supports and 70% supporting.
 * 4) After 30 days any thread may be closed as FAILED if:
 * 5) Proposal has earned at least 3 opposes and failed to earn 70% support.
 * 6) After 30 days any thread may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if:
 * 7) The proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally.
 * 8) After 60 days any thread may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if:
 * 9) Proposal has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and 70% support.

This might need some tweaking, but I think its a step in the right direction. IMO, we should strive to remove any and all grey area whereby someone could be criticized for closing a thread that was older than 15 days. As long as these concrete rules are obeyed there will be no room for disagreement. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you are kind enough to ask, I see your reasoning and agree with it, Gabe. These ad hoc rules of yours clarify the closes and level the consensus playing field. One thing I'd like to note is a few people here who keep renominating proposals that didn't work the first time, with a minor change like a swap. The effect is wearying and disheartening. It should be six months or a year, if a proposal fails, before it can be re-proposed, in my view. Otherwise it's just a constant grind. Jus  da  fax   05:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I had an idea. How about instead of closing threads as NO CONSENSUS, we instead move them to a subpage where editors can still vote for them. That way they won't crowd the main page and they will still be ongoing. I would hate to close a 4-0 thread just because it has only 4 votes. Because of the size of this page it is easy to miss a proposal you haven't voted on. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * V3n0M93, are you suggesting that threads which fail to reach consensus within 60 days should be kept open, but on another page, until they reach consensus? I am not aware of any Wikipedia consensus building guidelines that suggest keeping threads open as long as they need top get the minimum !votes to pass. If a proposal fails to gain momentum within 60 days then I think that's a clear sign that the community feels ambiguous about the proposal and it therefore fails to gain consensus, which is often the result of Wikipedia discussions. I also agree with Jusdafax in that a proposal should not be re-added in numerous variations if it fails and the topic should wait 6 months before it gets another chance. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. More often than not a proposal doesn't get enough votes not because of ambiguity but because some editors just don't vote. If everybody voted on the majority of the proposals and not just a select few, we wouldn't have such a problem. As for the 6 re-adding proposal I think that it should be waited only for proposals which are exactly the same. If it was an add proposal and somebody proposes a swap it should be OK. The same goes with a swap proposal with a different page to be removed. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly disagree with floating proposals for as long as it takes to get support, but if others agree I will not fight the consensus. I guess this seems particularly untenable when we have low participation (like now), but would maybe not be such an issue if and when the !voting picks back up. I'll restate my position: I am not aware of any other Wikipedia consensus building guidelines that suggest a proposal should remain open past around 30 days and none that advocate for an unlimited time frame. What do you think about deadlines, Jusdafax? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also not aware of other such guidelines. If we manage to get more people to participate in the project we wouldn't need such a measure. Also my idea is not only for support. When the proposal get 3 opposes it will be closed under FAILED. I think we should just wait for enough people to vote so that the proposal can be closed under either PASSED or FAILED. My idea is to have a safety net for times where there isn't much activity on the project. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarification: Are you suggesting that we don't set any deadline at all, i.e. a thread could stay open for 6 months due to a lack of interest? What if a thread has only earned 2 or 3 !votes after 50+ days? Would you keep it open? If so, for how long? Anything past about 30 days is stale IMO, and if we keep all threads open too long the page will seem like a dead discussion. Also, the extreme length of the talk page is hurting participation, IMO. It sounds like you are advocating for an election process that stays open until a candidate earns enough !votes to qualify, which I don't like. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion is to close as NO CONSENSUS only if there are no new votes for let's say 30 days. If there was better activity on this project we wouldn't need to keep proposal for so long, but the problem is that most editors vote only on a few proposals and are not that active. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's sounds like a fine suggestion. If a proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days it may be closed regardless of the current !vote tally. I'll add that above, but I still think that we need to set a deadline, because with the current language a thread could theoretically remain open for 5 months without any consensus, which is more than excessive IMO. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need a 15 days + 4 opposes = fail option. As of yet, I don't believe any discussion has ever gotten to 70% with 4 or more opposes.  I can support the other options, but I generally think that 15 days is an acceptable window for closure; it's twice as long as AfDs or many other community discussions run.  We also need to stipulate that the same proposal can't be renominated for 2-3 months after a no consensus vote and 4-6 months after a failed vote  p  b  p  17:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal as is. I don't have a problem with pbp's suggestion but it isn't really necessary at the moment. Given the impasse we've reached with some of the proposals, we really ought to bring this discussion to some sort of conclusion. Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy and Religion quota
Looking at this sub-topic, it strikes me that 400 articles doesn't seem nearly enough. The Philosophy section looks basically fine, but the material on religion and mythology seems remarkably bare-bones, especially when we compare to some other sections. In the "People" section, for instance, we have a bunch of Biblical prophets and we have Arius, the founder of Arianism. In the religion section, the only articles on the Bible we have are Bible, Tanakh, and Torah. No articles on individual books. We also don't have Arianism, which seems pretty clearly more vital to me than Arius. The articles on Christian denominations are fairly minimalist, too. In an English language encyclopedia, I'd think the Church of England warrants inclusion separate from Anglicanism (a topic with which it has wide overlaps, but is not a subset - "Anglicanism" as a concept significantly post-dates the separation of the Church of England from Rome, arguably not really emerging until the Oxford Movement in the 19th century). Given their influence on the English language, the King James Version and the Book of Common Prayer seem pretty vital to me. (There seems broadly to be very little recognition here, in general, of the idea that, in an English language encyclopedia, subjects having to do with the English language and English-speaking countries might warrant somewhat heavier coverage than they would in some imaginary universal encyclopedia). Also ignored are the Nicene Creed and historical topics - none of the Ecumenical Councils is included either here or in history. In the eastern religions, important concepts like the Noble Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths don't appear, nor do many important religious texts (while we have numerous articles in People about quite obscure Buddhist and Hindu religious figures - how is Valmiki more important than the Puranas?) The Hindu concept of caste seems to appear neither here nor in anthropology, and the individual Varnas aren't included, either. Important denominations of Islam like Twelver and Ismaili Shi'ism are also not included.

Moving to mythology, this looks self-evidently weak to me. Only three articles from Norse mythology, two on different versions of the same deity? Nothing on the Eddas, or any of the sagas (either here or in arts, as far as I can tell). Not even Loki? Greek mythology is somewhat fuller, but even here there are odd omissions - Theseus comes particularly strongly to mind, but I feel like Greek mythology is a pretty vital area of knowledge, and it's covered rather intermittently. It doesn't help that some of the articles seem poorly selected. Why so many articles on Roman deities who are basically just renamed versions of Greek gods? Jupiter and Mars perhaps warrant distinct coverage, but I'm less certain why the others do. Certainly Rpman gods don't really deserve any coverage as mythology - it is the Roman gods' status as cult objects that makes them distinct from Greek deities, not the stories about them, which, with a few exceptions, they stole wholesale from the Greeks.

So, anyway, I'd suggest that there needs to be a considerably higher quota for Philosophy and Religion, in order to allow for more expansive coverage of religions and mythology. john k (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need two articles about the English Christian Religion. There are many things not included on the list to have overlapping articles. About the caste system we have Caste system in India on the list. I agree that most of the suggested articles are important topics, but I don't agree that the can be added to a 10 000 list. We need to make cuts, we can't have everything on the list. Roman gods should definitely go, as they largely overlap with the Greek ones. Overall I think the current amount of articles (423) is OK. We could make some cuts in the Religion and spirituality sublist and on Hinduism, to make space for some additions. As for your argument that we should add more articles concerning English-speaking countries I completely disagree. English has become an international language and because of that the English wikipedia is read and written by people from the entire world, not only from English-speaking countries. Because of that we need to cover topics from the entire world. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the English Wikipedia needs to cover topics from the entire world, but it should also provide especially thorough coverage of topics relating to the English-speaking world. Isn't it appropriate that the English Wikipedia should provide more extensive coverage of American and British history than the French or German Wikipedia? If the English Wikipedia doesn't do this, who will? If we have somewhat subpar coverage of Japanese or Chinese subjects, well, there's Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias that can and should cover those issues in more depth. I've personally found that on topics relating to French and German history and literature, in many cases we can very easily improve English Wikipedia's coverage simply by translating those Wikipedias' articles into English. If we have subpar coverage of topics relating to the English-speaking world, there is nowhere else that is going to pick up the slack - we have to write all those articles ourselves. As to the religion issue, I didn't see the caste system article, but obviously we have numerous overlapping articles already. Doesn't George Washington overlap with American Revolution? Doesn't Islam overlap with Five Pillars of Islam? Doesn't France overlap with Paris? That's how encyclopedias work. Maybe there's too much overlap between Anglicanism and Church of England, but I still think it's more important to have articles on many of the things I'm suggesting than a pretty substantial number of articles currently listed as vital. Currently, every country in the world (Nauru, San Marino) is vital). So is every chemical element (Ununoctium, Livermorium). Several individual kinds of beetle are vital. There's over 200 scientists listed. Hell, there are more articles about Hindu and Buddhist religious leaders than there are articles about Hinduism and Buddhism. Can anyone really say that it's more important to have an article about Thich Nhat Hanh or Huiyuan than it is to have articles about basic concepts in Buddhism, of which there are almost none? There will be plenty of room to add articles if we clear away the deadwood. john k (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The thing is the the vast majority of people who are nor Chinese of Japanese don't know the language and won't be able to read those articles. English has become a global language, it is taught in every school. In some countries the English Wikipedia is more viewed than the wiki in that countrys language. If a person wants to read about Japanese history, he won't go to the Japanese wiki, because most likely he doesn't know the language. Instead he will go to the English wikipedia. If you look at the statistics, you'll see that the English wikipedia is always right below the native wiki for that country (sometime it is even more viewed than the native language one). When I want to read about something I go to the English wiki, not Bulgarian, Russian, German, etc. It is the same with everybody else. English is the international language of the internet and as such the English wikipedia is an international wikipedia, not just and English one. Improving the quality of the articles concerning English-speaking can be the focus of another wikiproject, but I believe should not be the focus of this one. We should cover the entire world, not focus on a select few countries. I am interested to see what the other editors think about that.
 * About the overlap the articles you posted, they are only a small part of the other articles. The overlap between Anglicanism and Church of England is too much IMO. Feel free to add a proposal, the other users might agree with you and not me.
 * Concerning the articles on the list, IMO scientists and countries are much more important than adding more churches and variations of the Bible. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of the focus, I'm absolutely not saying that Wikipedia should not be international. I'm saying that it also needs to give particular coverage to matters relating to the English-speaking world, because no other Wikipedia is ever going to do that. There's already a project for "articles every wikipedia should have" - that ought to be the one that is neutral among different languages. This is a project for "articles the English Wikipedia should have", and that should certainly include extensive coverage of subjects relating to the English-speaking world. On the other issue, I'll just say that I don't think articles should be vital in order that we have a complete set of something, and that I don't think articles should be considered vital as being representative of something important, especially for biographies. john k (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There should be a balance between topics of interest internationally and topics of interest in the English-speaking world. Generally, I think the list should tilt towards international coverage (though there are different ways to interpret what international coverage is). I don't think we should compare with other lists like the project for "articles every wikipedia should have" or versions of this in other languages. They are not very good and seem to all be based on earlier versions of this list rather than built from the ground up. (Whereas I think this list has improved from the attention paid to it.) Finally, I think that the current quotas are not necessarily that great, so should perhaps not have so much weight. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's "dead wood" let's clean that up first. Only then is any discussion on changing the quota going to be meaningful. Cobblet (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say we could do a pretty aggressive review of the elements. Are any of the radioactive, not-occurring in nature elements 95-118 really vital to have articles about? Why can't they be covered in more general articles? Why can't Lanthanide cover all the Lanthanides, none of which has any particular individual importance. There's a fair number of other rarish elements that probably don't need to be considered vital - we could probably stand to take off 40 or 50 elements. john k (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't reading carefully—I thought you meant dead wood within the Religion category itself. What's wrong with having two hundred scientists? That's only 10% of the list. And with regards to the lanthanides—-no. See Rare earth element for example. I wouldn't mind replacing elements 104-118 with Transactinide element plus Island of stability (the reason why we're still trying to make new elements). But I could easily find another fifteen articles in chemistry to replace them. We can't even get consensus to add X-ray crystallography to the list right now, and that's a technique that has wide application in physics, chemistry and biology.
 * I don't disagree that there's a lot of dead wood on the list in general—there are many, many spots like this one where we could cut 10-15 articles. But the only spot where I think we need a massive cull is Organisms. I'd prefer to wait for people to vote and close the proposals we have before I flood the board with a hundred organisms to delete. We've got a long backlog in Geography, for example. Cobblet (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on the elements - not my area of expertise. But the Trans-Actinides really need to go. In terms of the others, I think it's a question of priorities. Even if Ytterbium has some significant applications, I'm not sure why this can't be covered in a more general article to make room for other subjects, although it's fair enough that there may very well be enough important chemistry articles not yet included that can fill in the gap. In terms of deadwood in religion, I don't think there's too much in the religion category itself, but I think it's kind of absurd to have 124 articles on religious figures (in the "People" section) and only 133 articles on subjects relating to specific religions. I might suggest that there is some significant bloat in the 92 general religion articles. Do we need Goddess and Mother goddess? Do we need Panentheism? Do we need Paganism and Neopaganism separately? Do we need Mummy, Burial, Cremation, and Cemetery? Isn't there a single article that covers the general issue of what to do with bodies after death? Do we need Death (personification)? Soul and Spirit separately? Afterlife, Underworld, Heaven, and Hell? The "Non-theistic philosophies" section is particularly absurd, with 7 articles that are basically different gradations of the same thing. I think there's a lot of deadwood to be cleared in that section, which could make room for more articles dealing with specific topics important to individual religions. john k (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last point. I proposed removal of Nontheism and Antitheism (terms so obscure my spell-check doesn't recognize them). I'm also willing to remove some of the five articles about deities (I'm just not sure which ones). I disagree about the religious figures – I think we could use even more articles here. At least with regard to Judaism, there are only six people included, out of the hundreds of articles covering the twenty-something centuries since Ezra. Many of the other religions seem nearly as sparse. -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess on religious figures my feeling is that, for instance, it is rather absurd to consider 16 articles about figures in Buddhism to be vital, but only eight articles, total, about concepts, texts, practices, denominations, and everything else associated with the religion. Currently we have four articles on denominations or forms of Buddhism, 1 article on a concept (Nirvana), two articles on texts, and an article on an individual Bodhisattva, and that's all. Is that really balanced? There are 56 articles on Christian figures, including over a dozen on individual early Church fathers. There are only 28 articles about Christianity in general, most of them on particular branches of Christianity (but not individual denominations, for the most part), along with a few general Abrahamic articles that deal with subjects of importance to Christianity. With Christianity, I'm not sure that we should cut down the number of people (although maybe we should), but certainly that balance seems clearly wrong. Once we remove the articles on denominations, here's what's left of concepts important to Christianity: Angel, Bible, Garden of Eden (!), Holy Spirit, Messiah, Predestination, Salvation, Satan, Sin, Ten Commandments, Christian Church, Christian mythology, Church (building), Grace, Sacred tradition, Second Coming, Trinity, Nontrinitarianism, Pope. That's it. There's some additional articles of relevance to Christianity in history: History of Christianity, East–West Schism, Teutonic Knights, Inquisition, Investiture Controversy, Knights Templar, Protestant Reformation, Counter-Reformation. Some Christian concepts are also partially covered among the general religious terms but this is really weak. No individual books of the Bible; no groupings of books of the Bible, like the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles; nothing on liturgy; no Christian monasticism, nor anything on any of the regular Catholic orders except for the two military orders in the history section; no Bishop; nothing on versions of the Bible; nothing on the Apocrypha; besides Ten Commandments, pretty much nothing on important individual parts of the Bible; nothing on any of the ecumenical councils; nothing on early heresies (how are Arius and Nestorius more vital than Arianism and Nestorianism?); nothing on either Great Awakening; even the denomination coverage is somewhat questionable - there's nothing, for instance, on Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism or Dispensationalism. Then go look at the people section where, besides Arius and Nestorius, we have tons of Church fathers and key figures from the Reformation, and even have Charles Spurgeon. This is absurd. john k (talk) 07:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @john k, I have proposed adding the Great Awakening above. I had proposed adding the Old and New Testaments some months back, but no consensus was reached.  If you were to propose some of the things you've listed above, I'd support them.  Relative to the number of biographies, though, I'd say the number of Christian figures makes sense: we have 50 guys in the 2,000 years since the Bible.  We have fewer Christian religious leaders than athletes, or even actors, even though both those categories are heavily skewed toward the last 100 years.  I think there are a few religious leaders that could go (Arius and Nestorius could be replaced by their beliefs; Melanchton was a second-tier figure), but 40-50 seems about right  p  b  p  18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really think there's necessarily too many Christian figures, but I do think that, at present, articles about historical figures associated with Christianity have a much lower standard for being considered "vital" than articles about virtually any other subject relating to Christianity. john k (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)