Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 22

Add Haruki Murakami

 * Support
 * 1) Support Murakami is extremely popular and has critical acclaim too. He would be one of the youngest writers on the list if selected, but he was born in 1949, has been writing since the 1970s, and is now 64, so he's not exactly young. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. He is not quite at the level of notability as the other 3 japanese novelists, all of whom are nobel laureates. He is definitely a future candidate, but he is not even close to a household name. Kazuo Ishiguro, though writing in a completely different vein (and of course not being a japanese citizen), is more well known internationally outside the tight world of "literature" within which he is of course highly lauded. - Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Ama Ata Aidoo
Essential African author, well read in the English speaking world.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Frank Lloyd
Who is this guy? His movies don't have a single vote out of half a thousand critics and directors in the Sight & Sound poll. He's not on any list of all-time great or important or top-grossing directors I know of. He did win two directing Oscars, but that was in the early days when it was just a few insiders. Several other two-Oscar directors are not on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support - as nom. --Dagko (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support yeah we are missing or have removed more significant filmmakers, past and present, he was important as a founder of something and his most well known film may be Mutiny on the Bounty, but not enough to get on the list really. Carlwev (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom and Carlwev. Given that there are lots of editors interested in cinema and this isn't an area affected by systemic bias, you'd think a vital film director would have more than three paragraphs of prose in his article. Neljack (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  18:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Eike Batista
This guy was added on the list because of recentism, which backfired when he lost his entire fortune. Now he has even less reason to be on.


 * Support
 * 1) Support - as nom. --Dagko (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza ( t )( c ) 23:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  18:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support A good example of the problem of recentism. Neljack (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Sulla
Too many Romans already. Not vital to an account of world history.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza ( t )( c ) 12:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. --Dagko (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose His marching of his army on Rome to take power by force is widely regarded by historians as a key moment in the decline of the Roman Republic - it set a very bad precedent that led to more instability. Neljack (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I'll tell you what we have too many of on this list: barbarians! Also, we have two leaders of Syracuse.  One of them could probably be removed.  Rome was the most powerful country in the world for several centuries (and in some of them controlled all of Southern Europe), so it makes sense to me that we have a disproportionate number of Romans on this list, just like there are a lot of Americans on this list in the Modern period  p  b  p  15:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Charles Lyell
Extremely important geologist mentioned in every textbook on evolution. Named the greatest earth scientist of all time. Important influence on Charles Darwin. And much more.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Dagko (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza ( t )( c ) 12:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Clearly very important. Neljack (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Pokémon, add Pikachu
Pokémon is the franchise article, and we don't really have an article on something like Pokémon (species), which discusses them in whole, just List of Pokémon, and its individual more detailed lists. As a proper blanket article can not be used, I propose just listing Pikachu as it is the franchise mascot, and the most popular Pokémon.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gabemc - some literary and fictional characters also change the world. Pokemon of course is not among those, but others are.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Pikachu is even less vital than the Pokemon phenomenon itself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per maunus. A character is far less important than the franchise. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. - I think it's beyond ridiculous that we include these nonsensical entries when we exclude so many actual people who changed the world. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I agree, of course, but that's why I said "these nonsensical entries", which I wouldn't apply to all characters of literature. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, I just meant to point out that the objective should be to identify and include those that have had lasting important impact on history and on peoples lives.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Dorothy Hodgkin
Pioneer of the use of X-ray crystallography (which regrettably remains a glaring omission from our science list) to determine the structure of biological molecules. She was the first person to figure out the structure of insulin, and confirmed the structures of penicillin and vitamin B12. Won the 1964 Nobel Prize in Chemistry; the only other woman who's won an unshared chemistry prize is Marie Curie.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not to mention the structures of cholesterol, lactoglobulin, ferritin and tobacco mosaic virus too! Should be a no-brainer. Neljack (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Great choice. Gizza ( t )( c ) 11:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Dagko (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Zayeem  (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Move Leo Fender from Inventors to Instrument makers
Yes, there is an instrument maker category
 * Support
 * 1) as nom  p  b  p  23:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support probably he shouldnt even be on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - Leo was much more than a luthier. In fact his most significant contributions to music were arguably his invention and development of the AA763 circuit for guitar amplifiers, and his pioneering construction of combos with multiple speakers. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Mymensingh
Has a significant history dating back to almost 2,500 years ago, See History of Mymensingh.


 * Support

Mymensingh has much longer history than Khulna but has a smaller population. --Zayeem  (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose There is consensus to remove Khulna, a larger Bangladeshi city with a history almost as long. I don't see any information that suggests Mymensingh is more vital than Khulna. Gizza ( t )( c ) 11:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Gandalf
No representatives for the fantasy genre currently. Basically the mold for all subsequent "wizard" characters.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, didn't Merlin predate Gandalf by several centuries? p b  p  16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - The Potter fad faded years ago.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose LOTR fan as I am, I don't see the character, unlike the novel, as being vital. Neljack (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * He did of course as did Odin, but they are however hardly representatives of the fantasy genre.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Re:Potter fad: Gandalf is a character in The Hobbit/The Lord of the Rings saga, who bears quite a bit of resemblance to Albus Dumbledore from the Harry Potter books. However, Gandalf himself does not appear in Harry Potter.  Either way, I don't see a greatly compelling case to add him.  p  b  p  17:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tolkien's Gandalf is the first wizard in the fantasy genre, the main inspiration for Wizards such as Dumbledore of Harry Potter, Raistlin of Dragon Lance, and dozens of others. As a cultural phenomenon LOTR itself can hardly be described as a fad after a life span of more than 60 years. I am now noting that we do have a representative for the fantasy genre, namely Conan the Barbarian - certainly less influential and much less well known character than Gandalf.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We removed characters Gandalf, Frodo, Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Spock and Cpt Kirk, as redundant to LOTR StarTrek and Star Wars a few months back with quite unanimous support votes. Carlwev (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AH, I see. Let's see if consensus has changed then. As a literary figure going back to 1950, and mold for countless subsequent fantasy characters, I dont consider Gandalf to be in the same category as the Star Wars/Trek characters.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Captain Ahab
Another highly influential character.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I consider him significant. Vital? Myself and a few others discussed characters a while back. Although we are completely free to discus again or change our minds of course. At the time there was a rough idea that characters whose work, be it a book, movie or whatever was already included was pretty redundant, and that the best characters to list were ones that were in many books not one, and it's probably better to have the character rather than picking one out of many books, eg James Bond, Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan.
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose There isn't even an article on the character. Which there should be, but I would regard few fictional characters as vital and this wouldn't quite make the cut. Neljack (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

That being said, not that it's the only important factor, this character appears to have no stand alone article now nor in the past, looking in the page history. "Captain Ahab" is a disambiguation page, it lists "Ahab (Moby-Dick)" which redirects to Moby-Dick article's section about the character. If the interlanguage wikilinks are up to date it's also not an article in any other language either except one: Tagalog language. And also, we do already have the novel Moby-Dick, as well as the author, Herman Melville too. Carlwev (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Pippi Longstocking
No children's literature currently represented, and this is a highly influential female character.
 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * You may not be familiar with Pippi so I woul just like to mention that she is frequently cited as an early inspiration of feminism, and has been translated into 64 languages (which is rather unusual for children's books), it inspired artists such as Miyazaki, and tieg LArson's Lisbeth Salander character (arguably also a topic for inclusion).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Hua Mulan
Has the distinction of being both the protagonist of a 6th century Chinese epic poem and a 1990es Disney movie. She also has a crater on Venus named after her. :)


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - If inclusion is at all based on a Disney movie.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I am sorry but that is an absurd rationale. You are opposing a millenarian Chinese literary character because it also had a disney movie made about it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your rationale is equally absurd; being the object of a Disney movie is not at all a compelling argument for vitality, IMO. If your rational used Disney as support, then why is it absurd if mine uses Disney as a reason for opposition. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Respect
Not a significant psychological concept. This is not supposed to be just a list of terms for different feelings in the English language.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose unless arguments for removing specifically this but keeping the other 40-ish topics on emotions and interpersonal relations are presented. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose p  b  p  18:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Though the article doesn't really cover this properly (perhaps I'll get around to fixing it sometime), respect is also a significant philosophical concept. Neljack (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Add Cognitive development
Central psychological concept.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Obvious importance. Neljack (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 08:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Aphasia
Important psychological condition.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Add Flatworm

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 11:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Maurice Sendak
Well known in the US. Not well known elsewhere. Not a vital illustrator.


 * Support
 * 1) support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Agree with Maunus. Significant but not vital. Neljack (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 22:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) 'Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Art Spiegelman
Known primarily for one graphic novel - which though widely praised has not established a school or changed the world of comics. Not a vital cartoonist.


 * Support
 * 1) support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Yes, that seems a fair assessment. Neljack (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 22:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Charles Stewart Parnell
Noticed that Irish political history doesn't really figure in this list, so I thought I'd nominate the most significant Irish politician of the 19th century.


 * Support
 * 1) Nicknack009 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I think he probably is important enough, in terms of his impact upon Irish nationalism and British politics (Home Rule and all that). Neljack (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 07:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'd say Daniel O'Connell was probably the most important Irish politician of the 19th century. However, perhaps they're both worthy of inclusion. Neljack (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Bogra
A city with significant history, former capital of Pundravardhana (a rich kingdom of ancient Bengal dating back to 8th-7th century BC).


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Comilla
Has a significant history of almost 1,500 years, home to the famous archaeological site of Mainamati.


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Architectural plan, add Architectural drawing
Architectural plan is a marginal subject and poorly covered by the article. Architectural drawing should replace it in this list. ProfDEH (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) ProfDEH (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) -- ELEKHHT 08:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support That's a good suggestion - thanks for the nomination! Neljack (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Venus of Willendorf
This is a truly historically important sculptural work from the ancient world - and one of our most important glimpses into prehistoric European thinking.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support Bedrieger (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Significant and well-known. Jus  da  fax   02:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

A number of similar figures are known. Why don't we add Venus figurines instead? Cobblet (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

I'm inclined to agree with Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Pokémon
In my opinion these kinds of fad franchises are not vital unless they have sustained cultural impact that goes beyond mere media exposure over a long period. We shouldnt have Pokemon, Hello Kitty, or Angry Birds or any such recentist pop culture phenomena.

This is a list attempting to cover the entire human cultural history. 15 years of minor popularity among children is recentist pop culture indeed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - A serious list like this has no place for this kind of junk.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Not my concept of vital.  Jus  da  fax   23:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support 15 years is recent in my book. We're talking about a list covering thousands of years of human history. Neljack (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Dagko (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, rather, replace it with Pikachu. Pokémon has been popular for over 15 years. It is hardly "recentist pop culture". <sub style="color:#00008B;">Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 12:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Considering that almost anything that requires electricity would be recent, aka Songs, Movies, Electronics, I disagree with removing under "recentist pop culture phenomena." --Super Goku V (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Oppose Not sure if Pokemon is the best example, but videogames are under represented compared to other entertainment/art/works. Any videogame/franchise will seem recent as they are recent in nature. Pokemon is the first or second highest selling videogame series/franchise. What could we have instead if anything, an older game or 2 like Pac-Man and/or Tetris were brought up earlier. We have Miyamoto, Pokemon and Mario, at the moment, not sure if I would prefer the inclusion of Nintendo instead which could cover those 3 articles with one stone. But then there seems to be a dislike for companies in general and companies in the area of computers are already a large percentage of the companies we currently list. Ignoring that fact though Nintendo still seems more sensible than Pokemon. Carlwev (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we could maybe add Tetris and Pac-Man, as the only video game we have is Pong, very under represented. I'm not stopping 7 people trying to push Pokémon out, as I don't feel very strong about it. Carlwev (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: People keep calling Pokemon a video game character. They were characters in a trading card game first  p  b  p  16:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sigh. Every time someone on Wikipedia argues about Pokemon, God joins a 4chan pranking spree. -- llywrch (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Add Hamlet (character)
Another character with a very long history.
 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support If we are going to have literary characters, Hamlet seems like one of strongest candidates. When I was thinking about the need for the character, not just the novel/play/etc, to be really important, Hamlet was one of those that came to mind. He has been truly influential and there been a tremendous amount written about him (his psychology, motivations, character, etc). He strikes me are most vital than most of the fictional characters we have on the list. Neljack (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Assuming you mean Hamlet (character), the book is enough. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - The book and the Bard are enough.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * It's a play.But yes I mean the character. But the history of the character begins in Denmark in the 12th century when it was first written by Saxo Grammaticus. So the characters influence goes beyond Shakespeare's play.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Cyrillic alphabet add Cyrillic script

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

In September we voted to remove Latin alphabet and add Latin script, (see here). It looks like the same rationale should probably apply to Cyrillic alphabet vs script. Although both articles contain list and non list content. The alphabet one although longer (actually redirects to Cyrillic alphabets) and is mostly a list. The script one is shorter but has more non list content. Also the alphabet article is present in only 2 other languages while the script article is present in about 125 languages. Carlwev (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Physical exercise
Already appears under Biology > Health and Fitness.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support yes nothing should be listed twice, Could just remove it, but always polite to ask I suppose, support of course none the less Carlwev (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 01:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Just remove it; no need to discuss. Cobblet (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Compassion
Not a significant psychological concept - the corresponding psychological concept is Empathy which is also on the list. This is not supposed to be just a list of terms for different feelings in the English language.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Subsumed by empathy as the nom states. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 22:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --<font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 06:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add the big five personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism
Central psychological concept.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support Bedrieger (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The more general article Carlwev mentions might be a good add too. Neljack (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 07:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

There is an article for the Big Five personality traits concept itself, which is well written, long article 125 references quite a few languages. Carlwev (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Distillation and Filtration
Essential separation processes.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 00:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Abstract machine
Support !votes
 * 1) Support--Melody Lavender (talk)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  01:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neljack (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

In the general discussion at the bottom of this page it is laid out that editors are aware that the technology still needs expansion. Computing is very limited in its scope on our list but is certainly one of the most important technologies of our time. This is why I'm suggeesting some additions. The abstract machine is an important basic concept in Computer science. The list currently has several programming paradigms (and it could have more, such as component-based programming), but is missing many of the different layers used in running a program (Source code and Machine code for example). The concept behind the term virtual machine covers a wide array of abstract mathematical concepts (such as the Turing machine) and concrete implementations of these ideas in software.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Jacques Brel; Add Lead Belly
1) There are six total entries in the list of Non-English language singers and 4 of them sang primarily in French: Brel, Édith Piaf, Serge Gainsbourg, and Charles Aznavour. I think that or those four, Brel is the best choice among them to remove. After all, he is only the third best-selling Belgian. 2) In the list of Folk and popular music there are currently 95 entries, of which only two can be said to be blues artists. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom; this swap will reduce the number of French language singers to three, and increase the number of blues artists to three.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Non-english language music is severely underrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Best-selling does not equal most important. Brel has been called "the greatest popular singer in the French language". He's had a huge impact on subsequent musicians, French-speaking and English-speaking. Neljack (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Maunus, there are currently as many French language singers on this list as there are blues and hip-hop artists. This is an English language encyclopedia, surely blues and hip-hop are at least as vital as French pop music, right? Also, is 4 out of 6 really the right ratio for French language singers? 4 French, 1 Russian, and 1 Greek? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The "this is an english language wikipedia" argument is entirely invalid from my point of view. The rest of the world is also of vital importance to english speakers - most of whom are in fact also speakers of other languages. I could be persuaded to swap one non-english singer for another, but I will not support removal of any non-English artists as long as the parochial bias is as strong as it is now. The overrepresentation of French musicians and singers relative to hispanophone ones is of course just a result of the semi-racist American view that everything French is high culture and everything "hispanic" is worthless. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you think that blues and hip-hop deserve less coverage then French pop singers? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. I think that Western Pop, Rock, Hip Hop and Blues should have as much coverage as Musical Comedy and Classical Music. I also think that non-English language music should have represent least 25% of the list (currently 17/175 = 10%). I would support adding Lead Belly or swapping with a classical musician or composer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that we need four French pop singers? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. Feel free to propose a swap with a non-english blues or hip hop artist. I am likely to support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus, can you name even one non-English speaking blues or hip-hop artist that's vital to our coverage of blues and/or hip-hop? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ali Akbar Khan
In Non-Western art music Including Khan is overkill when we also have Ravi Shankar, who is infinitely more recognizable. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom; we don't need two Indian classical musicians (Shankar and Khan), especially when they worked together for most of their respective careers.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - <font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Why on Earth is having two Indian classical musicians overkill? We don't say that about, say, American classical musicians. Khan was often referred to as "the Indian Johann Sebastian Bach" and Yehudi Menuhin called him "the greatest musician in the world" and "an absolute genius". Neljack (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Two Indian musicians seems at least fair when we have two dozen American musicians p  b  p  15:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I think "infinitely more recognizable" is an overstatement. Cobblet (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * PbP, there are more Chinese people then Indians, but we don't have any Chinese musicians. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but it's hard to come up with any Chinese musician that has the same stature as someone like Ali Akbar Khan. The best example I can think of is Zhou Xuan Teresa Teng. There are probably more significant Chinese artists than her not on the list, but they aren't musicians. Cobblet (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Swap Yo-Yo Ma; Re-add Jacqueline du Pré (or someone equally worthwhile)
Bad case of now-itis here, I suspect because people have heard of him, rather than anything more substantial. If you don't like du Pré, chose one of the other influential cellists from people who know about them. Ma as one of the 10,000 most important things ever? Not even close.


 * Support
 * 1) support As nom. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Per nom. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose swapping for du Pré. The only cellist I'd support a swap for would be Pablo Casals, but I imagine arguments could still be made either way – Ma is not just a classical musician. Cobblet (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * We've been saying off and on that there are too many classical people. I'm of the opinion that the bloat is most excessive in classical performers.  Yo-Yo Ma is kinda a "pop" classical musician, popular enough that I'd heard of him as a child (an example of now-itis, as my childhood was only 15-20 years ago).  I think the better option would be to remove Yo-Yo outright  p  b  p  14:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unreasonable to have two cellists. If I had to pick people to remove I think Ashkenazy and Rampal should go first. Cobblet (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly ditch Ma: just because he plays in more than just classical does not necessarily make him important in the history of the cello. Casals is certainly one of the more important and influential cellists - far more than Ma. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But the point of the list is that we pick people based on their overall contribution, so it isn't fair that we ignore Ma's contributions outside classical music. Just because Ma is one of two cellists on the list doesn't mean we think he's one of the two most important cellists ever; it means we think he's one of the most important musicians ever, and he just happens to be a cellist like Rostropovich. Cobblet (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * He's not in the top 5 classical cellists (his main field), and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be terribly high in other genres. It's nonsense to say that he is "he's one of the most important musicians ever": he certainly isn't anywhere close to that. Just because he plays in more than one musical a genre does not make him "important", and certainly not one of the two most important cellists ever. He's on here because a few people have heard of him, and because entry onto (and exit from) this list eems to only ever be based on a consensus of 5 or 6 individuals, none of whom are experts in the field. I'm sure people on here are all acting in very good faith, and your doing a thankless task, but a generalists knowledge isn't always helpful in deciding whT we consider to be out 10,000 vital articles. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said up front, I think it would be reasonable to swap him for Casals. I just wonder if somebody who knows a bit about world music than we do might make the claim that Yo-Yo Ma has played such a significant role in that arena that he deserves to be on the list, regardless of what classical musicians (like the person who wrote the article you pointed out – btw, how is Paul Tortelier not one of the six greatest cellists of the century?) might think of his cello playing. There's perhaps also another reason to include Ma: if we agree that one of the reasons classical music deserves its pretty strong representation on this list is its global, cross-cultural appeal, then Ma represents that. Cobblet (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove Yo-Yo Ma; add Pablo Casals
I agree with SchroCat that Ma is clearly not one of the two greatest or most important cellists of all time (he might be the most famous, but we don't go by media hype and recentism here). I don't think he's had any major influence in non-classical fields - he's performed the stuff, but it's not like he's inspired lots of works by non-classical musicians. But I also agree with Cobblet that Casals would be a better choice than du Pre. Du Pre was a very fine musicians (as indeed is Ma), but Mstislav Rostropovich - who we already have - and Casals are generally regarded as the two greatest cellists.

Look at what other great musicians said about him. Rostropovich thought he was the "the greatest name in cello history" and the "greatest of artists". Fritz Kreisler called him "the greatest musician ever to draw bow". Eugene Ormandy said he was "was one of the greatest musicians of all time and the greatest cellist". Alfred Cortot described him as "the greatest musical interpreter of his own generation" Wilhelm Furtwangler stated: "Those who have never heard Pablo Casals have no idea how a string instrument can sound. This is a unique synthesis of material and spiritual beauty."

Casals also had huge influence. He established the cello as a solo instrument - it had previously been largely an orchestral one. He rediscovered Bach's Cello Suites, which were then considered to just be practice pieces but are now the cornerstone of the cello repertoire, and made legendary recordings of them in the 1930s. He organised and performed at festivals to promote the works of Bach. He taught many famous cellists, including Paul Tortelier and Pierre Fournier. He was a noted conductor and composer as well. He composed the music for the "Hymn of the United Nations". When he appeared before the UN General Assembly to present the composition and receive the UN Peace Medal (he was a tireless activist for world peace and against the fascist dictatorship in Spain), he delivered his famous I Am a Catalan speech, which had a major impact on Catalan nationalism. All in all, I think he is clearly more vital than Ma. Neljack (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, as per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support As explained by Neljack, Pablo Casals has an important political importance beyond his musical. -- llywrch (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Hercule Poirot
The fictional characters has 4 detectives already. Christie's character is well known perhaps, but really not vital. He is nowhere close to Sherlock Holmes or James Bond for example. Poirot is more on the level of Ms. Marple or Inspector Clouseau. And we really dont need four detectives on a list of 12.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Yes indeed, why is Poirot any more vital than Miss Marple. The current list of literary character is biased in the extreme towards detectives - fully a third of the list (4 out of 12) are detectives. Neljack (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Per Maunus and Neljack. Iconic (Vital) characters should be as diverse as possible. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Dagko (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. To compare another recent removal, Pokemon is probably a lot more recognizable than Poirot nowadays, especially outside the English-speaking world. Cobblet (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per nom and Pokemon comparison. Peter Isotalo 20:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - This hugely famous fictional detective was created by Agatha Christie, not Poe. Jus  da  fax   23:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Jusdafax.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * My, of course Poirot is bad I copied the rationale without changing it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * oppose withdraw my opposition, didn't feel very strong any way, I won't use my vote to save something like Poirot against a consensus of 6 or 7 people. I hate threads that fail with over 60% support, seems to not follow consensus on these occasions. Carlwev (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Add Little Red Riding Hood
Another highly influential character of folk lore and popular culture.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - <font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about this, considering the number of authors and novels/books we have, traditional fairy tales could be slightly higher but not excessively, I don't remember seeing many, Aladdin and Hansel and Gretel are the only ones I recall from memory. Cinderella stands half a chance at coming aboard too. Carlwev (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Imperial cult (ancient Rome)
It's been suggested that just having the general topic (nominated above) would be sufficient.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  23:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion
 * Comment: Adding just Imperial cult failed. Should I remove this, or close the discussion in favor of a new thread that's a swap?  p  b  p  17:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with just removing it. Cobblet (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Add Oedipus complex
The best known aspect of Freudian psychoanalysis, with immense influence both in art and in subsequent psychology.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Yes, has had a big influence in areas beyond psychology such as literary criticism. Neljack (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  18:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Remove National Autonomous University of Mexico
And surely having 60 universities on the list is excessive. I suggest removing the least notable ones from the perspectives of current academic reputation and historic significance.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose If we are to have only one university in all of Latin America, this is a good candidate. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - Per Maunus.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per Maunus. Plantdrew (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Duke University
Certainly not so distinguished historically, culturally, or scientifically to merit mention over other major private colleges and universities like NYU, Carnegie Mellon, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Georgetown, or USC.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support We have too many American universities and Duke is one of the least important of those we have. Has distinguished history and reputation. However, it is significant but not vital. Neljack (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Discuss Johns Hopkins University
While adding icons on the list, I noticed Johns Hopkins University was listed as vital but User:YpnBot had not added Template:Vital article to the talk page. I added the template but I'm questioning if Hopkins belongs on the list at all. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 06:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ypnbot has made only one run at tagging articles. After Ypnbot's run, a discussion on whether to add JHU was closed as add, with a 70% consensus for addition.  Since that was only a few months ago, it's likely a consensus to keep JHU on this list still exists  p  b  p  20:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Add Convention on the Rights of the Child

 * Support
 * 1) Support - <font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 18:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important treaty, but just among human rights conventions I'd say the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the European Convention on Human Rights are at least as important. Then there's the Refugee Convention, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Bretton Woods Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty - all of which I'd be inclined to go for over the CRC. Neljack (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per Neljack. There are other more important treaties which should be included ahead of CRC if consensus allows space for them. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 07:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Freedom of speech
We have civil liberties, civil and political rights, and freedom (political), but not any specific rights.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think this is in fact vital as a specific concept.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support There is a long history of struggles for freedom of speech, which have had a significant impact on human history and culture. Neljack (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support-A1candidate (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T <sup style="color:teal;">C 22:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Too specific; the general topical articles are better off covering this stuff, IMO. Also, this could lead to dozens of add threads. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Freedom of religion
We have civil liberties, civil and political rights, and freedom (political), but not any specific rights.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Ypnypn (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Struggles for religious freedom played a big role in the history of America, Britain and many other countries, as well as the development of the idea of human rights. Neljack (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">T <sup style="color:teal;">C 22:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Too specific; the general topical articles are better off covering this stuff, IMO. Also, this could lead to dozens of add threads. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap. Remove Radicchio, Add Spinach
Radicchio is a minor leafy vegetable used in some European cuisines. Spinach is a major leafy vegetable in cuisines throughout the temperate world.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Dagko (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, although not needed now Carlwev (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap. Remove Psoralea esculenta, Add Taro
Psoralea esculenta was perhaps one of the most important wild harvested food plants for Plains Indians, but importance is regional at best. Taro is a major staple crop in the tropics.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Dagko (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Carlwev (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap. Remove Salsify, Add Lentil
Salsify is a common name for two vegetable species with a minor role in European cuisine. Lentils are important staples in many cuisines


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I don't think a disambiguation page is a vital article! Neljack (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Dagko (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support clearly an improvement Carlwev (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Model organism
The basis for most current medical research. Nearly everything relevant to humans is first discovered and tested in model organisms (mouse, fruit fly, etc). There might be a better category for this.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. <font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise  <font size="1.8">(talk)  01:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A very good suggestion. Neljack (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Dagko (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 11:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'm not very comfortable with the Medicine category, but there doesn't seem to be a better place for it currently. Make a new "biological research" subcategory under Biology/Basics maybe? Use of model organisms go far beyond medical research applicable to humans. It's quite a stretch to look for human applications for the extensive research carried out with Arabidopsis thaliana. Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Agreed. An alternative is to put it under Biology/Basics. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove Influenza A virus subtype H5N1
Was recently unilaterally removed without discussion. I've restored it, but it does seem like a good candidate for removal. Influenza is already listed. It doesn't seem necessary to include a subtype of a disease and inclusion smacks of recentism.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. Plantdrew (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Dagko (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 01:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Osteopathy, and Holistic health
We've got alternative medicine and pseudoscience; we don't need all of these as well.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Sepsis II (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose: I think these need to be split into separate threads, and homeopathy and osteopathy should probably be kept. p  b  p  18:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Myself and pbp want to vote to keep and remove different articles in this bulk remove thread. I have been bold, archived this and put up separate threads for each article, and tried to preserve users' votes in according to their previous votes and comments. If I got it wrong I apologize. Just trying to open them up so we can vote honestly. Carlwev (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * discusion

Move Diamond from Chemical elements to gemstones
Should be with Sapphire, etc
 * Support
 * 1) Support  p  b  p  23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Yes, it's not an element - it's a form of carbon, of course. Neljack (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 07:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Submarine volcano, Add Glacial landform
There isn't really anything about the former concept that isn't already covered in Hotspot (geology), Seamount and Mid-ocean ridge. Adding the latter article would allow us to remove cirque and esker, which are not especially notable compared to other landforms caused by glaciation such as moraine and drumlin.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Sensible. Neljack (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Ralph Waldo Emerson
No question Emerson should be on the list. One of the central figures in 19th century American thinking. I would say he fits better as a writer than a philosopher.


 * Support
 * 1) Support - as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support An omission that had struck me too. Neljack (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Agree with most previous comments Carlwev (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Remove Ken Kesey
Kesey is most famous for the novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which is surely more famous as a film (and that is not on the list). His other writings are not really notable and he is not a major writer. (As a suggested accompaniment to the addition of Emerson - they are not contemporaries, but the list is currently heavily slanted towards 20th century writers)


 * Support
 * 1) Support - as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support While I'm not sure that's entirely fair to Kesey (the film may be more famous, but major Hollywood films tend to be more familiar than somewhat difficult novels), it's true that he didn't really produce any other major works and we do have too many 20th century American writers. Neljack (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Agree with most previous comments Carlwev (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Another way to look at it is to ask why Kesey should be on the list and not writers like Norman Mailer, Henry Miller, Joseph Heller, Truman Capote, Carson McCullers, and James Baldwin, any one of whom, I'd argue, is of at least a similar level of importance as Kesey.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Jim Lehrer
Been a news anchor, interested in politics, but we've removed several US presidents whom a surely more important. written a fair amount but not really a "vital" author either. Also been rated as low importance in the Journalism, and Television Wikiprojects. Carlwev (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Currently 20 of the 23 journalists on the list are American. I cannot believe that 20 of the 23 most important journalists are from the US. If we included all the journalists of similar significance from other countries then we'd end up with a huge number of journalists on the list. Lehrer has had a distinguished journalistic career, but I cannot see how he is vital. Neljack (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discusion

Remove Chet Huntley
Again, to many modern Americans, 20 of 23 journalists are from US, don't see the top 2000 most vital biographies including a news anchor such as this, not really known outside US. Carlwev (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discusion

Add Zürich
Switzerland's largest city and a major global city. Also one of the oldest cities in central Europe.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I think cities like this are encyclopedia material, quite surprised Zürich isn't in well spotted, it's pretty important city, so is Medina. Carlwev (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Medina
Second holiest city in Islam and Saudi Arabia's fourth-largest city, with a population of 1.1 million.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Carlwev (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  04:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Virgin Islands
Among the various islands or island groups in the Caribbean, many are also countries (Cuba, Jamaica, Barbados, Bahamas), Hispanola is in Islands and Puerto Rico is in Regions p  b  p  16:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if we can't even agree to keep French Polynesia or Guadeloupe (far more historically significant than the Virgin Islands) I can't see how we can justify adding this. It's an absurd situation we've created for ourselves, I know. Cobblet (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom p  b  p  16:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Ypnypn (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - BluesFan38 (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Megalith

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 12:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Of considerable archaeological and historical importance. Neljack (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Built all over the world by many cultures, throughout much of humans ancient history/prehistory, some still around today, and of interest to archaeology, history, architecture, construction, anthropology, even tourism and the general reader too. In fact we already have one specific megalithic structure, Stonehenge in the 10'000 and the 1000 too. It would be good to have the wider over encompassing concept, which is a whole style/type of architecture too.
 * Discussion

It could make sense in History but no other outdated buildings/technologies are there so it wouldn't be right. It could go in tech, construction, architectural elements, with arch, column, dome etc. I would prefer it in architecture styles with Modern architecture etc. We have loads of music and painting styles, I think we need a few more styles there too. Romanesque architecture, Gothic architecture, Renaissance architecture anyone like those too? Carlwev (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Add Gothic architecture
A few users including myself have suggested having more architectural styles, which presently number only 2, compared to the many music and painting styles we have. Gothic architecture has been mention a few times before. It's a great article in loads of languages, probably one of the most influential, important and well known, architectural styles there is. Carlwev (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  17:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I agree that architecture is underrepresented compared to other areas of art and culture. We have important styles or movements in other areas, so it seems reasonable to have them in architecture too. Neljack (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Renaissance architecture
I'll open some more architecture styles.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  15:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neljack (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Romanesque architecture
I'll open some more architecture styles.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose While architecture is certainly underrepresented, how many styles out of what's listed on Template:History of architecture (to name one convenient source) do we really want to add? Further comments below. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How many entries on architectural styles are we aiming for? Bear in mind that while we have extensive coverage of movements in the visual arts (30 in total), we have nothing when it comes to literary movements (and just a handful of genres), and pretty bare-bones coverage of musical styles—for instance, the history of Western art music is covered only by Classical music and Baroque music. Perhaps there are valid reasons for such discrepancies between the different art forms; but where should architecture fit on this scale? Do we want five styles or fifty? And how many of them should be devoted to the Western tradition? Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * Megalith and Pisa where my ideas, Gothic has been bought up before. The styles where bought up by User:Amandajm here, I opened the ones I thought where most prominent. I do think architecture examples and styles is lacking a bit, and true, while we should have the most prominent Western topics. We shouldn't have only western topics. We should probably have the best styles/examples from elsewhere too. I am open to discussion on any ideas you may have on non western styles or anything else. I may look for some good topics myself too. Carlwev (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Leaning Tower of Pisa
An iconic building of Italy known world wide, seems more significant than some other buildings we have. Carlwev (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Remove Easter Bunny
I don't think this festive character is anywhere near as visible or notable as say Santa Clause. Many Christian festive things which, although only my opinion, I think are more notable are not here, like Christmas tree, Easter egg and many more. Many festivals themselves are not here and did not get added when suggested such as Diwali and Holi. I think the bunny is similar importance to tooth fairy which we removed a little while ago. Carlwev (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 12:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Closer to the tooth fairy than to Santa. Neljack (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Mother Goose
I don't think Mother Goose is really that important, I can think of a handful of missing fairy tales and fairy tale characters more notable than Mother Goose, like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty and probably Rapunzel and Beauty and the Beast too. I don't see why Mother Goose is more vital than those. I would probably support adding some of those especially Cinderella. Carlwev (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

While we're on the subject, we have fairy tale, Brothers Grimm and Aesop, but not Grimms' Fairy Tales or Aesop's Fables (or fable for that matter). I'm not saying the authors aren't important, but I feel the works themselves might be even more so. Anyone else have an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * 1) I would definitely support fable. Aesop's fables and Grimms' Fairy Tales, maybe, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't be singling them out for removal if we already had them though.....I added Fairy tale and Fantasy a while back myself before the voting started along with all the other fiction and book genres, Horror novel, Romance novel, science fiction, children's literature, dictionary, encyclopedia and thesaurus. We had many music and visual art genres, but in literature/fiction we had 100's of books and authors but completely no genres at all, I think we could still have a few more, fable definitely. Also there are still loads of fiction genre types missing which may be worth having like Legend, Satire, Epic poetry, Detective fiction and/or Crime fiction, Black comedy, Western (genre), Erotic fiction and probably many more. Carlwev (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the works are more vital than the authors in these cases, since they are really the only literary works their authors are famous for. In addition, very little can be said with confidence about Aesop and his life. I would support adding fable too. I would support some of the genres too - definitely satire, epic poetry and legend. Neljack (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove Stock character
No other types of characters, no antagonist, villain, protagonist, hero, main character, supporting character, sidekick and so on, in fact we don't even have the article on Character (arts) itself, which I am suggesting to add.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Hardly seems the most vital sort of character. Neljack (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

add Character (arts)
We have over 30 fictional characters, and more in mythology, we even have stock character but we don't have the article about the concept of fictional characters in general. I suggest removing stock character, and adding Character (arts) in it's place, wider more general and more important topic. Carlwev (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  14:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Dagko (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Neljack (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Character (arts), With 7 support, no opposition, and 15 days, I was going to close this soon. However, Stock character is being removed from the performing arts, theater section. Character (arts), I think is relevant to literature, theater, film, TV, mythology, and even gaming. Possibly more relevant to literature, but not exclusively. There is no list of basic art concepts in general, at the top, to add it to, the lead has one article "art". Do we need a basics list? Any ideas on this guys and girls. I'll add it too literature basics for now?

Some other things are also kind of basic, but put in their best fit example area that does make some sense. Fiction, science fiction and Fantasy etc are not literature exclusive, how about film, TV, theater, games. Comedy and drama etc are not theater exclusive, you also have comedy film, TV, books etc. They are OK where they are, but some things regarding fiction, or storytelling mediums, could go into a basics list, thoughts? How much would be shaken up, and would it be worth it? Carlwev (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Add Optical illusion

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I think the article on optical illusions and how they work is an interesting topic people would look for, and is something that is studied when studying art, at least it was for me, I believe it is of greater interest to a general reader, or an art specialist than some of the 32 works of visual art. Carlwev (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * This is already on the list, under Technology/Optical. User:Carlwev, feel free to change this to a move proposal if you want. Cobblet (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Add Greco-Roman mysteries
Mithraic mysteries was recently suggested as an add, and I suggested we add the more general article on religious cults in Ancient Greece and Rome.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 08:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Cathedral

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: p  b  p  00:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Certainly of considerable architectural, as well as religious, significance. Neljack (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose while Carlwev has many good suggestions in his list -- most of them in fact -- my concern about this article is that the essential difference between a church & a cathedral is that the latter is the seat of a bishop. Beyond that, there is no significant difference. There are some very imposing churches, such as Church of St. John the Baptist, Cirencester, which I mistook as a cathedral when I saw it in 1984, yet it functions as a simple parish church: it was built in such grand style by the medieval wool merchants to display their affluence. (And a point missing in its Wikipedia article.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a slight overlap with church (building), but they are distinct buildings and articles, and significant to architecture, history, religion and culture. We have several religious buildings plus other concepts, this seems to stand out as a missing one. We have also listed an individual cathedral Chartres Cathedral before the article about cathedral itself. (Also If we are having one French Cathedral, shouldn't it be Notre Dame de Paris?) Carlwev (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Indeed. Cobblet (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove Silverware
We list silverware in everyday life, (reads as silverware, links to Silver (household), which redirects to Household silver??). It's a poor article not represented very well among other languages. Hate to say it but not very widely used that I'm aware of, concerns mostly rich people's tableware. We already include Tableware itself, why tableware made specifically from silver is so important I don't know, we don't have chinaware, earthenware, glassware or any other material ware. Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 12:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Add Scale model
Based on the other hobbies we have on this list, I feel that model building should be on the list. Not sure if I goes under recreation or art p  b  p  12:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support p  b  p  12:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Ypnypn (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

it would be good to have something on model making, there are several articles, aircraft models, architectural, building, die-cast toys, this is probably the best one to have. Art or recreation? Yeah could be either but Scale modeling category is in "hobbies" categories (which is in turn under recreation), but not any art categories, may be good to follow suit. Carlwev (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * This has passed after 1 month so I'm adding it, although I am unsure of placement within the list, for now I've put it in toys as the scale model categories is within the toys categories, I wouldn't oppose anyone moving it though, if it fits better somewhere else. Carlwev (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove Temperament
Not a significant psychological concept. This is not supposed to be just a list of terms for different feelings in the English language. Important as a folk concept perhaps, but rated low importance by WP:Psychology.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose unless more specific arguments for removing this but keeping other psychological topics are presented. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Tempereament is not a psychological concept. It has its origins in alchemy and is only used as a ague concept in folk psychology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Shyness
Not a significant psychological concept. This is not supposed to be just a list of terms for different feelings in the English language.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Agree with Maunus in this case - not a particularly important concept. Neljack (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose unless more specific arguments for removing this but keeping other psychological topics are presented. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * The point is that most of these are just terms in the english language describing mental or emotional states. They are not actual psycological concepts and they are taking space away on the list from the actual analytical concepts used in psychology and the central findings of the discipline. The vital list of psychology topics is not just a list of words in the english language that we use a lot and that hae some relation to mental states. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Courage
Not a significant psychological concept. This is not supposed to be just a list of terms for different feelings in the English language.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose unless arguments for removing specifically this but keeping the other 40-ish topics on emotions and interpersonal relations are presented. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Because courage is a cultural concept used to cultivate a particular ethos of masculinity, it is not a psychological concept. I think most of the other emotions shold be swapped for actual pshcological concepts as well. The ital list is not supposed to be a list of common terms related to some folk conception of psychology, it should be a list of the actually significant analytical concepts and findings of thwe discipline.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove Pride
Not a significant psychological concept. This is not supposed to be just a list of terms for different feelings in the English language.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose unless arguments for removing specifically this but keeping the other 40-ish topics on emotions and interpersonal relations are presented. Cobblet (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Milgram experiment
A very well-known and important experiment in social psychology. While this is widely discussed, I'm not so sure it's had a huge impact on the field. It seems to have had more shock value than scientific, academic value. It hasn't really changed the way psychologists understand authority, as far as I know. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ypnypn (talk) -- 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) support Bedrieger (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose -- Ypnypn (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I don't think any one experiment is vital. Theories impacted by the results of the experiment may be vital, but not the experiment itself. Plantdrew (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Pension
high importance finance article, important topic in economics, and how finance works, Pensions are used by many millions of people, large percentage of government and private money goes in and out of pensions, has an impact on how a country and much of its population work, live and survive financially. We have many significant works of art and other things, which although significant don't really effect many people a lot, but pension is something that actually directly effects millions of people a lot, so in my opinion, I consider it important, vital and of interest. Carlwev (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good find. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Remove Tineidae
One of the many Moth families. Considering we have 20 articles in butterflies and moths, and considering we removed most beetle families including the Lady bird for example which is well known and has over 5000 species, I don't see why Tineidae family, with 3000ish species is that vital. Carlwev (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Neljack (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Add Earthworm
There are more than 20 families and over 6000 species of earthworm described. They are very well known, among general readers as well as the expert, and of significance to humans for agriculture, gardening, food, composting, fishing as well as biology study. Considering the number of insects we have like 20 moths or butterflies, I think we could alter the invertebrate list a little.


 * Support
 * 1) Support Carlwev (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Neljack (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 09:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Remove Celtuce
Type of Lettuce, Surely not vital, a stub in 6 languages including Chinese, where the food may be a bit more popular. If I'm wrong someone please explain why this is vital. There's a huge number of cultivated plants and varieties we don't have and are probably more vital. There are missing, or have been removed more vital things in biology and elsewhere. Carlwev (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom. Carlwev (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I'm not sure how this became a vital article in the first place. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 10:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I'm astonished that anyone would regard this as vital. Neljack (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Cyclanthaceae

 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom. Carlwev (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Don't see how it is vital. Neljack (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Small family, not very ecologically important, most significant human use (fiber for weaving) is relatively minor. Plantdrew (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Rubiaceae
Fourth or fifth largest family of plants with ~10,000 species, and the only one of the ten largest plant families not presently listed. Coffee is the most economically important member, but Rubiaceae also includes important medicinals (Cinchona), tropical and subtropical ornamentals (Gardenia, Ixora), historically important dyes, and a few edible fruits. Worldwide distribution, but most species are tropical. In the tropics (both Old and New World), this is one of the more ecologically important families (and tropical plants are probably underrepresented on the vital list). 31 plant families are listed as vital currently; that could easily be pared down to 25, but barring further reductions in the number of vital plant families, Rubiaceae belongs on the list. Plantdrew (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwev (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 10:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

For reference, I've got some notes on family size and what family articles are listed as vital or not at User:Plantdrew/Vital. Plantdrew (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Chickpea
Very important food plant in Middle Eastern and Indian cuisine, but a significant food in many other cultures and cuisines. Certainly more appopriate for the vital list than celtuce.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support you've got some good ideas Plant Carlwev (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  15:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Swap. Add Apiaceae, remove Betulaceae
Apiaceae is the 16th largest plant family with ~3700 species (12 of the 15 largest families are presently listed as vital). Betulaceae is a small family with ~145 species. Alder, Birch and Hazel are the 3 largest genera of Betulaceae and are also currently on the vital list. Including the family and its largest genera is redundant. Apiaceae includes many species used as vegetables, herbs and spices (carrots, parsnips, parsley, cumin...). Hazelnuts are the only significant food from Betulaceae, although some Betulaceae species may be of minor importance for timber production. Apiaceae is one of 8 families (5 of which are presently listed vital) that was recognized as group of related plants before the concept of "plant families" was formalized (it's pretty recognizable even to those with minimal botany training). Betulaceae is restricted to the temperate northern hemisphere, while Apiaceae has a global distribution. Betulaceae may be somewhat more important ecologically in the regions where it occurs.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Plantdrew (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support seems reasonable <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  17:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Remove Naturopathy
We've got alternative medicine and pseudoscience; we don't need all of these as well.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Sepsis II (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Osteopathy
We've got alternative medicine and pseudoscience; we don't need all of these as well.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Sepsis II (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Is there any reason why we shouldn't also remove chiropractic, a rather similar form of alternative medicine? Neljack (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose: homeopathy and osteopathy should probably be kept. p  b  p  18:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Holistic health
We've got alternative medicine and pseudoscience; we don't need all of these as well.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Sepsis II (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support this is the weakest, of the 4, thinking about the others Carlwev (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neljack (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Add Placebo
An appropriate replacement for the above four topics, no?
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Well, a replacement for naturopathy and hollistic health p  b  p  18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Carlwev (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Indeed. Neljack (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Adding this as it's been 18 days and it has 7 support. But, unsure of where to put this, alternative medicine I suppose, as it was suggested as a replacement of some. Although placebos do work, a bit, but then so do other alternative medicines also work a bit, as placebos that is. Carlwev (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Since medicine is popular today I'll open this. This disease, or at least some of it's effects, is also known as Emphysema, (Emphysema was previous title but it was moved and/or merged to current title) according article, currently 330 million people world wide are effected by it, and kills 3 million people a year, 4th highest cause of death in world. Carlwev (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Remove Esker
A non-vital type of glacial landform (which has just been added). Compare moraine or drumlin, which are also not on the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Firn
This doesn't seem to be vital.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Agreed. Neljack (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Carlwev (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Glaciology
With the presence of glacier and glacial landform on the list this is beginning to look excessively redundant.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Speleology
Like glaciology and glacier, I don't think we need the study of caves in addition to cave.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Exact thing crossed my mind, per nom. we don't need cave and study of caves. Carlwev (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I wouldn't mind adding a more specific topic within speleology like speleothem (cave formation), for instance. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Coastal geography
Adding this topic would allow us to remove all but the most essential coastal landforms. For example, we have both peninsula and promontory listed right now. Coast is on the list, but that article also includes discussion of the littoral zone and the significance of coastal regions in human civilization.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The general topic is more vital than specific landforms that are part of it. Neljack (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Not voting yet, I don't think this is a useless article, but I don't think it subsumes or makes redundant those other articles either. According to the article a promontory, although I'm not overly keen on the article, does't have to be on the coast, it can be a significant hill on a plain, inland. Italy is a peninsula, it contains coast, but also inland areas of mountains and more, on a large peninsula only the edge is a coast or included under coastal geography, the inland areas are not coast but still part of the peninsula. Carlwev (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Geyser
This I think should stay: volcano makes only a perfunctory mention of geysers, and that article cannot reasonably be expected to go into detail about how a geyser works, for example. And I think geysers are of interest to a general audience and are vital at the 10,000-article level. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. - as per nominator. BluesFan38 (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) support Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Carlwev (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose p  b  p  00:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 09:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Geysers are cool, but I just don't see how, in the choice of major geological processes and features, a geyser is vital. It's not. It's just a cool process that occurs where you have magma in proximity to groundwater. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * But an encyclopedia has a responsibility not only to provide a general overview of a subject but also to highlight its most interesting and unique aspects. Beryl is not the most vital mineral in the geological sense, and yet we choose to include the particular variety emerald, despite its rarity compared to other varieties like aquamarine—indeed, its significance derives partly from the fact that it is rare (and partly from the fact that it's pretty, of course.) So it is with geysers, which may be one of the rarest features associated with geothermal activity, but also one of the most spectacular. The fact that the world's first national park was created to protect such an unusual phenomenon attests to its significance in the human imagination. Wikipedia is meant to be read by geologists, but it is also meant to be read by the twelve year-old who is curious about the natural world. Cobblet (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that, in spite of the popularity of Yellowstone, you overstate the interest in geysers to put them on a list of only 10,000 vital article. As fun as they are, as interesting as they are, they are simply not that major --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

Add Amphibole, Olivine, Calcite
Three of the most important rock forming and fundamental minerals on Earth. Olivine or Perovskite is probably the most abundant mineral on Earth. I would add the latter also, but a list that is already missing Calcite (maybe I missed it) may be made by people without geology background, so I hesitate to make the perovskite argument right now.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom and Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Of the seven major rock-forming minerals, four (quartz, mica, pyroxene, the recently added feldspar) are currently on the list, and it would be logical to include the others as well. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken two geology courses (as a history major) but when I think vital those minerals don't pop into my head. I could be sold on calcite, but the other two may as well be make-believe as far as I know.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove Talc
No where near as fundamental for any reason as the other minerals included; and way less vital than the excluded Olivine (maybe I missed that one)?
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
 * 2) Support. - GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) support Bedrieger (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet below p  b  p  01:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Very true from a geological standpoint, but this is a mineral that's mined on large scale, has a diverse range of uses in industry, and is even a household item. It isn't the most obvious article to remove and I'd prefer keeping it for now. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, if that is the reason for its importance it should be under materials, not minerals, then. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * But any mineral is in some sense a material, and asbestos in particular is in the same boat as talc. Mineralogy would not nearly be as vital a subject if no minerals were commercially valuable—that the composition of the list includes such minerals seems appropriate to me. If others feel it necessary to move this topic elsewhere, let's move it; but let's also not forget that the primary task of this Wikiproject is to identify 10,000 vital topics. Figuring out the absolute best way of sorting them is a less pressing matter. Cobblet (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're going about it wrong by picking and choosing one article at a time; that is why I am trying to look at groups of article. If you consider asbestos and talc in the group of materials used for human existence, along side iron, copper, silver, then it makes sense to have them, also marble; but, if you put them in a group of minerals, particularly when you have talc but not amphiboles among vital minerals, it is hard to conceptualize talc as vital. I do grant some human familiarity; in geology, I would choose granodiorite as more vital than granite, but this is a general encyclopedia. I also think that we are failing to "represent" by having Bach plus four of his compositions. He's important enough as a classical composer in Western civilization to include him and a composition, but this is only 10,000 articles, and we need one of his compositions to represent him, not four to the detriment of not representing the diversity of human culture. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

Remove Science/Units of measurement/Data/Binary Prefix
I'd like to propose removing Binary prefix from the list of vital articles. Given the near complete non-use of the binary prefixes, I don't think the article really rises to that level. While good arguments exist that the misuse of the SI prefixes for power-of-2 values introduces significant problems, and the binary prefixes solve those problems, there just isn't the usage (see the article itself for a discussion of the non-use). Perhaps Information theory would be a better candidate for this slot. Rwessel (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support Yes, that makes sense - thanks for the nomination! Neljack (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 11:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Corrosion
I was quite surprised this wasn't here, I always thought it was an important topic, surely worthy of the top 10'000. The best included article that covers it that I can think of seems to be chemical reaction, which is very wide general concept. I think corrosion is more specific but not too specific, still quite a wide concept too. Rust was in my mind too, that is also missing, but that is a form of corrosion specifically referring too iron and iron alloys, maybe vital but corrosion is a wider more general concept that I'm more confident with and think belongs more. Carlwev (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support although adding rust is probably unnecessary if we have this. Cobblet (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Agree with Cobblet re rust. Neljack (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support corrosion but not rust per above. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 11:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Add Lighthouse

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 11:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Some people showed interest in lighthouse. Important to architecture and navigation, well known landmarks and used from ancient times to modern day. I tried to swap this in a while back for a computing article, it failed with several users stating they liked the add but not the removal. It could go with architecture or navigation, but my preference would be to place it in coastal construction next to pier and harbour. Also we already list an individual lighthouse Lighthouse of Alexandria in architecture, which although listed as it was a wonder of the world, I often (but not always) think it odd to list a specific example of something, when the article for the general concept is well known and a pretty decent article. Carlwev (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

{archive top|removed, 18 days 6-0 support Carlwev (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}}

Remove George Washington Bridge

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 01:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I tend to think the Verrazano Narrows Bridge is less significant, but I think we should probably remove both. Cobblet (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Although a significant bridge, there are many significant bridges old and new world wide. We list 9 bridges this may not be in the top 10 most notable bridges. Also I'm not sure a list of 9 bridges should have 3 from New York. We have already have Brooklyn Bridge and also Verrazano–Narrows Bridge from that city. Carlwev (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Verrazano–Narrows Bridge
Same reason as George Washington Bridge, and Cobblet's comment. Carlwev (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Candidates to replace it have been suggested previously. Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 11:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Galleys
Trireme and dromon are listed along with galley even though both the former are only variants of the latter. I think the first two should "merged" so that we only keep galley. Especially the dromon seems like an odd choice for a vital article, considering it's a very specific type of vessel. To me it would make more sense to have longship or galleon on the list instead.

Peter Isotalo 21:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These three articles were added back in 2011 along with several others. I couldn't find any discussion or motivation for the individuals articles, even if a lot of them do make sense.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I support only retaining galley. It is best to start a formal vote so we can see where everyone stands on this. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 01:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove trireme and dromon
Per suggestion above. Both are variants of galleys and especially the dromon is a fairly obscure type of vessel.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. Peter Isotalo 20:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  22:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b> ( t )( c ) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I would likely support adding other types of ships to replace these. Cobblet (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Neljack (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I am sorry to see Trireme go Carlwev (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Is the 70% pass rate to high?

 * The short summarized version of my thoughts is: I think we should lower the 70% threshold to at least 66% (two thirds majority) or perhaps even 60% because the whole point of the voting is to follow consensus without edit warring of the past, but 70% rule means a consensus of 66% of people can fail, and consensus is in fact not followed. Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I keep feeling that the 70% threshold is a bit high. We say we want to follow consensus and we should, consensus being what ever the most people want yes? There have been threads, which I have been on both the "losing" and "winning" sides, or not voted at all, where the side that came out on top was actually the minority not the majority. We need an agreed upon system that works, because in the past there were arguments, edits, reverts etc with not much consensus. If I remember right the only reason it was "at least 5 support, and at least 70% in favour" was because DirtLawyer1 wrote the idea, without consensus or voting to accept it. Don't get me wrong it was a good idea and better than we had before. But following it to the letter has caused some threads to end with the minority side coming out on top, not the majority. Results like 5-3 (62.5%), 7-4 (63.6%), 6-3, 8-4 (66.7%) and 9-4 (69.2%), The minority can be as small as 30.8% and still come out on top. Twice as many or more can be on one side compared to the other, but still the minority will come out on top, in these cases how are we following the consensus? we are actually going against it. Threads that get 4-1 (75%) or 4-0 (100%) but then are closed as failed seem equally annoying. I don't care where my own vote if I've made one is. Yes if i'm in a losing 66% consensus it seems like the majority has been cheated, but equally if I'm within on a winning side with only 33% it seems like a empty victory and like we've cheated the other side. In fact recently I've retracted my opposition vote with Pokemon and Poirot, because I feel a consensus of over 60% should be followed. A rule should apply for adds and removals but it's even more annoying when trying to remove non vital stubs that were added by one user with no discussion, seems odd to say 66% consensus isn't enough to remove something that was added long way back with no consensus. I'm equally puzzled on threads that had 5-2 stayed opened opened longer then got 5-3 and failed, threads that are closed with 4 support, fairly soon when they need one more vote to pass, but some threads that haven't enough votes to succeed stay open for months and gain a winning vote after a long time then are passed. I can understand not wanting to tamper but I truly fail to see how failing to follow a 2 thirds majority is consensus. Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The long babbling version:

some of several threads that look like they maybe should have gone the other way:


 * 1) Add Cattle to the 1000 (5-3) 62.5% failed


 * 1) Reomove Alla Pugacheva (7-4) 63.6% failed, I Was thinking about retracting my vote, which would have tipped it the other way, but didn't, felt a bit guilty about it.


 * 1) Add Korea, Remove French Southern and Antarctic Lands (6-3) 66.6% failed

Does anyone else feel the same way or am I wasting my time? I would make a formal request to change it and ask people to vote yes or no,but I would expect a mixed response at best. Carlwev (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact is we're in a different place now than we were last year when the 70% threshold was implemented. We were at each others' throats and hundreds of articles over the limit.  Now we're amicable and hundreds of articles under the limit.  I wouldn't be opposed to lowering it to 60 or 66.6%  p  b  p  15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think 70% is a good threshold. At that point 5–2 passes, but 6–3 doesn't; three opposes should be enough to block most props, IMO. I like it where it is, but I'm open to discussion. Having said that, I think PbP is right to suggest 66.6%. I wouldn't support lowering it more; there should be a roughly 2 to 1 margin to show strong consensus. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Two-thirds is a common requirement for supermajority in English-speaking countries. I support applying the same standard here. Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Per GabeMc, I think we're fine at 70%. I guess I could agree to the two-thirds 66% but I would oppose even a sizable reduction.  If there's not enough support for a change, why do we need the change?  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 05:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I support a change to two-thirds. Elsewhere on the encyclopaedia a two-thirds majority would almost certainly be judged a consensus (unless some of the votes are not in accordance with policy, something that isn't really an issue here as decisions on what to include are a matter of judgement, not policy). I don't see any reason for us to requires a higher threshold. The only other places I can think of that require that are RfA and RfB, but they are quite different as they are positions of power that requires a wide degree of community trust. Neljack (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we're still keeping minimum 5 supports? p  b  p  16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that we should continue with the 5 support !votes minimum for passing proposals. 3 or 4 is too few editors to determine consensus. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should still have a minimum. We don't want to see 2-1 adds/swaps/removals. Neljack (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Alter the minimum pass percentage to 66.66%
In accordance with my own views, and those shared by other users, I propose to alter the minimum pass rate of threads from 70% to 66.66...% (or two thirds) but no lower. As suggested the minimum support for a thread will remain unchanged at 5 supports. If this is passed thread ratios that would pass after but not before would be 9-4, (69.23%) 6-3, 8-4, 10-5, etc (66.67%). Two thirds majority is used in many other voting places both in Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I feel it odd and almost against consensus to close and fail threads with two thirds or better support. Carlwev (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Presumably the rules on minimum length of time before threads are closed would also remain. Neljack (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Clarify: Is the proposal to change to 66% or to $$2 \over {3}$$ ? -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * I thought it was clear, but I can understand the confusion between ratios and fractions; confuses me a bit on roulette or book keepers gambling.


 * The 2 things you wrote are the same thing, it can be described several ways, that could be confused. If accepted minimum pass rate will be 66.66% support, which could also be called 2/3 support, two thirds support, 2-1 support or two to one support. A result of 6 support vs 3 oppose, would be on the minimum acceptable pass rate of 66.66%. 66.66% of votes are supporting, 33.33% of votes opposing. two thirds of users support one third opposes. Also described as two to one, a ratio of 2 support for every 1 oppose, (although actually having a result of exactly 2 support one oppose is below 5 support so wouldn't be accepted although being the same ratio).


 * Previously it was 70% minimum pass rate, but this is proposing to alter it to 66.66%, threads that would pass in the future but not in the past would be, nine support vs 4 oppose (69.23%) six support vs three oppose, eight support vs 4 oppose and ten support vs five oppose, etc (all 66.67%), 5 support vs 0, 1, or 2 oppose would continue to pass as they are above 66.66% and 70% and have minimum 5 support. 4 support vs 2 oppose, would be the minimum pass rate of 66% but would't pass as it wouldn't have the minimum 5 support needed, which we are retaining.


 * And Also the minimum and maximum times for threads to be open haven't been mentioned so they would be staying as they are, which I think is minimum 15 days with pretty unanimous support or opposition, or maximum 90 days for threads with truly no consensus of yes or no, or hardly any replies at all.


 * IS this clearer? Carlwev (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference between 2/3 and 66% isn't significant, but FWIW, the title of the thread said 66%, and that is what I thought I was voting for. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first line of the proposals rationale reads: "In accordance with my own views, and those shared by other users, I propose to alter the minimum pass rate of threads from 70% to 66.66...% (or two thirds) but no lower.". That's what I thought I was !voting on. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That is what exactly what we're voting on, I don't understand what isn't clear, could someone explain. I'll change the title from 66% to 66.66% that difference would only be significant if we had close calls with LOADS more voters than now, which is unlikely. Carlwev (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's totally fine: just make sure we don't write 66.67% in the guideline, because that's more than 2/3. Cobblet (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)