Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 29

Add José Rizal
Since Gizza mentioned that we have very few Filipinos on the list and we're about to remove Manny Pacquiao, here's a nomination I've had in mind for a while.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 03:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Important not only as a leader and then (after his death) symbol in the independence movement, but also as a writer. His impact and stature in the Philippines is illustrated by the fact that there religious sects with hundreds of thousands of adherents that believe in his divinity. Neljack (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   20:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Does every nation in the world have to have at least one person on the list? I'm just not sure if José Rizal is vital globally or just in the Philippines. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * No, but the Philippines is a major English-speaking country. If Canada, Australia and Ireland's political leaders get representation, why not the spiritual leader of the Filipino independence movement and one of that country's most notable writers? Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the fact that it's English-speaking are relevant - we should be no less inclined to include important people from China, German or France than those from Anglophone nations. More relevant, to my mind, is that the Philippines is a country of some 100 million people. Nobody is suggesting that we have to include someone from San Marino or Liechtenstein just so that we represent all countries, but ignoring the Philippines would be harder to justify. Neljack (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just wanted to understand that detail. I will support the proposal. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's relevant either, but the opinion has often been expressed by some people here that the English Wikipedia should focus more on articles of interest to people who speak English. Whether or not you believe that, my point is that criticism shouldn't apply to this case. Cobblet (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Colin Meads
Sir Colin Meads is another name commonly mentioned when discussing who was the greatest rugby player. The rugby historian Lindsay Knight has said: "As a sporting legend Meads is New Zealand's equivalent of Australia's Sir Donald Bradman or the United States of America's Babe Ruth." This is no exaggeration: he is a hugely iconic figure in New Zealand and, indeed, around the rugby world. He has been knighted, he was an inaugural member of the International Rugby Hall of Fame and the New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame, and he was voted New Zealand's player of the century in 1999. Neljack (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Will have a think about it. As mentioned above, was thinking of Jonah Lomu. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) 'Oppose Should we include all the world's countries local equivalents of Babe Ruth?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Lithistman (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * In response to Maunus's question: absolutely, if their cultural significance is comparable to that of Babe Ruth, which can be measured by their impact on the sport and the popularity of that sport. Otherwise why include Babe Ruth? Cobblet (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Babe Ruth was also the home run champion for many years and was the first major power hitter in major league baseball. We should definitely include the equivalents of Babe Ruth in each sport. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I a sorry but that is a ridiculously naive comment first of all there is no way on earth we could even have a representatve of "each sport"? Secondly, every country has their Babe Ruths in their loal sports, why include the New Zealand "Babe Ruth", but not the Danish) or (Camerounian equivalents? Your logics would lead to a list inhabited only by athletes, most of which noone has ever head of because they revoluutionied some obscure sport or were ery important figures in a global sport in a veery small country. So no we should absolutely not include all countries local eqivalents of Babe Ruth, but only those athletes that are absolutely vital to an encyclopedia in the sense that a person not having head about them could be considered a sign of a "lack of general education", and whch are consequentl the most likely to be sought in an encyclopedia. New Zealands Babe Ruth is not such a topic in my opinion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rugby's a sport with a global following. Failure to appreciate New Zealand's contribution to the sport and how it's much more significant than Denmark's or Cameroon's contribution to football would indeed be a sign of a lack of education. Cobblet (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps every major country's contribution to a sport. Still, having a player with the status of Babe Ruth seems to make that player vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Ole Einar Bjørndalen
"The King of Biathlon" is the most decorated Winter Olympian of all time, with 13 medals including 8 gold. He also won a record 39 World Championship medals and 94 World Cup races in a career that spanned more than two decades. He even managed the unprecedented feat for a male biathlete of winning a cross-country World Cup race. He is a massive star in his native Norway. Neljack (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A better choice to represent Norway than Johann Olav Koss, at any rate. Cobblet (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Johann Olav Koss
Speed skating is overrepresented on the list (how are speed skaters more culturally significant than swimmers?!) and I don't see how Koss is vital to the history of sport; either of the figures nominated above by Neljack, or pioneering figures like Mensen Ernst or Axel Paulsen, seem like better choices to represent Norway's contribution.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Eric Heiden (whom we have) is generally regarded as the greatest male speed skater, and I don't think we really need more than one man and one woman for this sport. Neljack (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Agree with Cobblet and Neljack. One man and woman is enough for the sport. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 07:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Lithistman (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Sam Snead
Only won seven majors. As I said before, the only Americans we need in golf are Nicklaus and Woods. When America only has a couple dozen political leaders, more than two golfers is excessive. p b  p  22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Sam Snead won a record of 82 PGA Tour Championships. Just because he is American does not limit his accomplishments. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Ben Hogan
Won fewer PGA events AND fewer majors than Nicklaus or Woods. As I said before, the only Americans we need in golf are Nicklaus and Woods. When America only has a couple dozen political leaders, more than two golfers is excessive. p b  p  22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 02:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Ben Hogan and Sam Snead belong to a period when golf had not yet achieved worldwide popularity (Palmer deserves credit for that). Without some massive pioneering contributions from either player, I don't think they can be said to have made a significant impact on the history of sport in general. Cobblet (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose on second thought. Let's have three American golfers. Hogan developed a specific swing that was named after him and published a essential golf book.--Melody Lavender (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Dick Butkus
Tenth American football player in the SportsCentury list, and on his page it says he was voted ninth-best player in one poll and fifth-best in another. There are too many American football players anyway, and nothing tells me he even deserves to be in the top four players.


 * Support
 * 1) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  p  b  p  14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Definitely less vital than Joe Montana. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Ninth best = not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

As a side note, we do not have Joe Montana on the list. Should we add him as a swap with Dick Butkus or an additional swap? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * If we're having trouble getting consensus on adding a second rugby player it's hard to argue that American football deserves four. Cobblet (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Rocky Marciano
There's a glut of Americans in boxing that can best be solved by removing boxers not named Muhammed Ali and Joe Louis


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support As it happens, in light of Cobblet's comment above about the excessive number of boxers, I've been doing some research on all-time pound for pound rankings of them. I'd come to the conclusion that Marciano should go. The International Boxing Research Organization doesn't have him in their top 20, The Ring (the leading boxing magazine) has him 12th, ESPN has him 14th, and the Associated Press doesn't have him in their top 10. He was undoubtedly a great boxer, but not quite at the level to warrant inclusion on this list. Neljack (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Neljack. I want to commend this procedure, which is to look at reliable secondary sources about the topic rather than to trust your own gut. We all have differing personal experiences, and one Wikipedian's lifelong hero and model will be a name about which other Wikipedians say "Who is that?" The best way to refine and improve the vital articles list is to turn continually to specialized reference books as we discuss each subtopic on this talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support His undefeated record is impressive but hardly unique – Willie Pep started his career 62-0. Or look at Aleksandr Karelin's 887-2 record in Greco-Roman wrestling: that is dominance. Cobblet (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

As well as Ali and Louis, I think Sugar Ray Robinson and Henry Armstrong should remain on the list. Robinson is generally ranked as the greatest boxer of all time (he tops all four lists that I have referred to above), while Louis, Armstrong and Ali are generally between 2 and 4 in some order. Neljack (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Sugar Ray Leonard
Again, a great boxer, but not at the very top. Tends to be ranked behind several boxers we don't have. Ranked 12th equal by the International Boxing Research Organization, 9th by The Ring, 12th by ESPN, and isn't in the AP top 10 (see the links in my comment on Marciano above). Neljack (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support He is prominent in my memory of boxers, perhaps because of what generation I am in, but I commend Neljack's use of reliable secondary sources to sort through the vital topics list. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Jack Dempsey
Very famous, but only defended the heavyweight title four times before losing it to Tunney (who also defeated him in a rematch) - and he announced that he wouldn't fight black opponents, which took out many leading contenders. Ranked only 18th by the International Boxing Research Organization and 16th by The Ring. ESPN and the AP have him higher - 9th and 6th respectively - but still all the lists have boxers who aren't on our list ahead of him. Neljack (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Thanks for pointing to reference sources on this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support If we trim the list of boxing legends we can think about adding legends of other martial arts disciplines. I've mentioned Aleksandr Karelin; another possibility is MMA fighter Fedor Emelianenko. Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Manny Pacquiao
A clear case of recentism. I think it would be very hard to find any credible boxing expert who would regard Pacquiao as in the top 10 greatest boxers ever. This is not to deny that he is an excellent boxer, but we need some historical perspective here. It's hard to argue even that he is the greatest boxer currently fighting - Floyd Mayweather, Jr. has a more impressive record (46-0-0, compared with 56-5-2) against opposition at least as strong. Mayweather's also top of the pound-for-pound rankings (as he has been for several years), even though he's older than Pacquiao.

I realise some people may be reluctant to remove the only non-American boxer on here, but I don't think that's a sufficient reason to keep someone on the list who is really nowhere near the all-time top in his sport. We should pursue geographical diversity by improving the representation of sports that have been largely overlooked because they aren't popular in the countries most editors come from, not by insisting on a non-American representative in a sport that is widely recognised as having been very American-dominated. And even if people do want a non-American boxer on the list, there are better choices, such as Roberto Duran and Sam Langford. Neljack (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I agree that the way to refine the list in general is to do as you are doing and to find reference books that take a global view of sports, looking at which sports are most followed (in the English-speaking world, as this is English Wikipedia) and not just to add in tokens to nod to different countries. It ought to be possible to find reference materials on sport that make more clear which sports figures are most notable worldwide, in what sports. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack's suggested replacements look like more vital figures. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support agree about recentism despite Pacquaio being one of the very few Filipinos on the list. Don't agree with the point that vitality changes according to the language of the Wikipedia or the reader. What is "vital" for one of us is vital for the other seven billion of us. The Philippines is an English-speaking country anyway (it's one of two official languages in the nation). Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Mario Andretti
Not a name that pops up in discussions on the best F1 driver of all time, unlike the others on the list (Fangio, Prost, Schumacher, Senna, Stewart) or Jim Clark or current four-time champion Sebastian Vettel.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support agree with adding a motorcycle racer to diversify the list. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Perhaps motorsports could also use more diversified representation and motorcycle racer Valentino Rossi might warrant a look. Cobblet (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Satchel Paige
Only Jackie Robinson is needed to represent the struggle of African Americans to join Major League Baseball. Satchel Paige played in the Negro League, but did not do as well when playing in the Major Leagues. Satchel Paige is only 63rd on Sportscentury's list of the top 100 North American athletes.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I'm not sure his accomplishments stand out that much when compared to Rube Foster or Martín Dihigo. Contemporary political leaders of the African-American community like W. E. B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey are missing; I don't think Paige should be listed before them. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Being a good player is not the criterion to apply for encyclopedic vitality. We cannot and should not include all the best baseball players, but have to weigh the sports against each other and prioritize. The criteria by which we should prioritize is educational value, how well known the topic is, and how likely someone is to search for it. I dont see paige making it under either of those criteria.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Per Points and Cobblet. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Surely the reason that he wasn't as good (though still pretty good - he was an all-star twice) in the Major Leagues is that by the time he was allowed to play there he was 42 - the oldest rookie ever. His greatness rests on his exploits in the Negro leagues. And they should not be dismissed as second-rate leagues. Obviously they weren't fully representative of the strength of American baseball, but then neither were the Major Leagues. As quickly became evident after integration, the standard of play among African-Americans was very much up there with that among white players. And Paige did play in exhibition games against top Major League players, who seem to have been unanimous in acclaiming his greatness. Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Bob Feller and Dizzy Dean all said that he was the best pitcher they'd seen or faced. The Society for American Baseball Research voted him the greatest player in the history of the Negro leagues. He was also extremely popular, drawing huge crowds. Paige seems to me to be more vital than several other baseball players on the list - for instance, Cy Young (the only other pitcher on the list - not counting Babe Ruth), who rarely makes the top 10 of lists of greatest MLB players. Neljack (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, entirely per Neljack. Lithistman (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Cy Young is the greatest pitcher of all time. He should be on the list. Satchel Paige did not play much in the Major Leagues. He was a great player, but not great enough to be vital on a global list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Other players who are in the running for "greatest Negro League player" are Oscar Charleston and Smokey Joe Williams. Paige does seem to be more famous though. Cobblet (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Opium Wars and Unequal treaty, Add First Opium War and Second Opium War
The article on the two Opium Wars has been merged with the articles on the two constituent wars and is now a disambiguation page. These were the first wars that resulted in unequal treaties, and so did the Boxer Rebellion and the First Sino-Japanese War; since of all these events are listed (as are many of the treaty ports themselves) I don't think we need to list the concept separately.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removing Opium Wars and both the additions, Oppose removing Unequal treaty. Unequal treaties were critical to the imperial domination of China by European powers. It is more than simply the two opium wars. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support except for the removal of unequal treaty, which I oppose per PointsofNoReturn. There were also important unequal treaties with Japan and Korea. They had a very big impact on the history of East Asia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Neljack (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support except I too am not 100% sure at this time on removing Unequal treaty although I admit it is borederline, not tip top importance.  Carl  wev   12:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

If people want to keep unequal treaty I have no problem expanding our coverage of the late Qing Dynasty, although it does rather neglect events that have less to do with Western imperialism (say, Dungan revolt (1862–77)). Cobblet (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Panchatantra
I suggested this in a discussion now archived. It received a positive response. I will repeat verbatim what I already said. The Panchatantra is a great example of a collection of non-Western legends (but which later influenced folk tales in Europe, the Middle East and much of Asia). To quote a referenced part of the Wikipedia entry on Panchatantra, its range extends "from Java to Iceland". Gizza ( t )( c ) 06:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 06:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Doubtful about this I have been reading a lot about the history of India over the last four years. I checked this article immediately after it was nominated, and it seems that the historical claims in the article don't take into account the transmission of Greek culture into India with Alexander the Great and the successor Greek kingdoms of Central Asia. Nor does the article, sources and all, really show much current influence from the story collection. This appears to be a historical curiosity among the articles on Wikipedia more than a vital top-10,000 level 4 article for the project. Perhaps going back to the archive of the previous discussion may illuminate the considerations that have so far kept this article off the top 10,000 list. I also just checked the popular page rankings on the relevant WikiProject pages, and this article, with its modest number of pageviews, is nowhere to be seen on those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how many works of world literature have enjoyed such widespread dissemination so early on. I'm not sure the Four Great Classical Novels of China are appreciated by a worldwide audience and yet we list all of them individually (as we should, of course). How do those compare in terms of number of page views? Cobblet (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * With regards to page views, I believe it is problematic to put so much faith in it on a topic such as literature, particularly ancient literature from a non-Western country. It is an area strongly affected by bias and topic area. The page views for the likes of A Game of Thrones and Harry Potter dwarf American and British classics let alone a collection of non-Western fables one and a half thousand years old. I don't think many people here will consider them vital though. Even within ancient Indian literature, an article like the Kama Sutra is about seven to eight times popular for obvious reasons, despite it having a far more smaller influence geographically throughout most of history. It also doesn't help that the Panchatantra is non-controversial in a political or religious sense, which usually gives articles a boost in the popularity stakes. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 06:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Modernism
2nd out of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. As Cobblet mentioned, there is overlap between Modernism and Modern art, although the article describes Modernism as a philosophical movement. Would it be fair to say that if one of these articles fails to be added, we should remove it from Level 3? Malerisch (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support To answer Cobblet's question, I think they are sufficiently distinct to both warrant inclusion. Modernism is a very important cultural movement, and I think it is clearly vital. Neljack (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   10:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Modernism is about the arts in general (despite what's written in the lead, philosophy is only mentioned tangentially in the body of the article); modern art deals specifically with the visual arts. Do we need both? Cobblet (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Postmodernism
3rd out of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Whatever you think of it, undoubtedly of major influence in a variety of academic and cultural disciplines. Neljack (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 08:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   10:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Postmodern art (the article focusing specifically on the visual arts) is not on the list either. Cobblet (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Golden Rule
4th out of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support As the article shows, an idea that is present in a huge number of religious and philosophical traditions (not just Christianity, which I suspect many people in the West associate it with). Neljack (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Taught to my class when I was in Kindergarten. Seems like an important rule regardless of religion or nationality. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   10:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Personal life
6th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. This article is also on Level 2. Malerisch (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Personal life is currently listed on Level 2 as well which makes it part of an elite group of 100 most vital articles. I don't think it is that vital. It is a fairly recent concept coined by anthropologists. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Fishing industry
8th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. However, as Cobblet pointed out, Fishing is already in the Industry section. Malerisch (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support I think I'd support adding fishing industry and recreational fishing in addition to the parent article, or even in place of it. Cobblet (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I think I'd just support recreational fishing at this level. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Brahmic scripts
7th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support We've previously swapped out the Latin and Cyrillic alphabet for the respective script families. Should we do the same here and remove Devanagari? Cobblet (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I will support swapping it with Devanagari. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Custom (law)
Along with legislation and case law (which we have), one of the three main sources of law. Neljack (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Van Gogh Museum
Largest collection of works by Vincent van Gogh (already va-3/4); 1.4 million visitors in 2013.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

We have at least two paintings by Van Gogh on the list Sunflowers and Wheat fields. Maybe swap those two for the Museum? --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * But the visual arts topic shouldn't be stripped from all Van Gogh paintings. The Starry Night is also a vital article, by the way. – Editør (talk)
 * Maybe two museums in Amsterdam is too much anyways. Of the two, Rijksmuseum and Van Gogh Museum, I believe the Rijksmuseum should be the vital article. I hereby withdraw this nomination. – Editør (talk)

Add Job
5th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. This particular article is on the Level 2 list as well, so it should probably be added. Malerisch (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Thanks for finding all of the missing articles. Most of them will probably be added but it gives us a chance to reassess these articles at Level 4 and the higher levels. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, stub need improving, overlaps with employment, would employment be better at 100 level? also overlaps kind of with business there kind of.  Carl  wev   17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

, I would swap employment in and job out at the higher levels, or at the very least remove job from the 100. From an individual and personal perspective, job is the more important concept. From a broader social and economic viewpoint, employment is the more important concept. As a result, there is far more scholarly literature and sources on "employment" than on "job". The former will always have a better article than the latter.
 * Discussion

Actually job only seems to be included at the 100 level because it is a very important part of our lives, not because of its encyclopedic vitality. If you picked up a very small encyclopedia which only contained 100 articles, you wouldn't expect one of the articles to be about "jobs". An article on economics maybe. Maybe another on business or trade at most. And you probably won't find an article on employment considering the breadth of topics that have to be covered and the limited space to discuss them. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Pentastomida, Entognatha, Opiliones
These minor biological classification categories don't show up in standard undergraduate biology textbooks that include many other categories, and they don't appear in standard English dictionaries. The page view statistics show that these are not top-10,000 articles for the Wikipedia project by reader interest.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removing pentastomida and entognatha. Oppose removing Opiliones: they are one of the more abundant arachnids and are not among the most obscure organisms we've currently got on the list. Cobblet (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support The inclusion of more general categories that they are part of (e.g. arachnids in the case of opiliones) seems sufficient, IMO. Neljack (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

===Remove Notodontidae, Sternorrhyncha, Tortricidae, Pyralidae, Lymantriidae, Nepidae, Pieridae, Branchiopoda, Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae, Plecoptera, Arctiidae, Noctuidae, Heteroptera, Amphipoda, Caddisfly, Tettigoniidae, Gerridae, Sphingidae, Reduviidae, Antlion=== Other editors asked for a review of the many "vital" articles mentioning classification categories of arthropoda, including insects. These minor biological classification categories don't show up in standard undergraduate biology textbooks that include many other categories, so they are apparently not central to the understanding of biology categories deemed necessary by the authors of textbooks for biology majors. The page view statistics show that these are not top-10,000 articles for the Wikipedia project by reader interest. These articles will still be visible among the articles on Wikipedia as articles wikilinked from other articles, as all are targets of many wikilinks from infoboxes and article text.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Melody Lavender (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC) edited to add: but keep Tettigoniidae--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support If they are not important enough to be mentioned in biology textbooks, I don't see how they are important enough to be included on a list of vital articles in a general encyclopedia. Neljack (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removing Tettigoniidae, Reduviidae, Caddisfly and Amphipoda, since these are large families/orders (Tettigoniidae species outnumber true crickets seven to one, for example) and they're not that obscure (I don't need a biology textbook to tell me what a katydid is). Support removing all the rest. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Oriole
Among many other things for which we can't be thankful enough, User:Malerisch has updated all our classification tags. Oriole is now a disambiguation page and I don't think either New World oriole or Old World oriole is significant enough to be on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The other disambiguation page I found was Opium Wars under History, so feel free to nominate that as well. Malerisch (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

One of the subspecies, the Piopio (bird) from New Zealand is a recently extinct species. Recently extinct species may be worth including. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Nematomorpha and Onychophora
Two fairly small (<400 species) and non-notable phyla.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support LHMask me a question 14:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Let me think about this. I've just taken a look at the biology textbooks I have at hand. Sometimes clades of life have important taxonomic relationships with other clades, and I would hate to use species count (which is probably an undercount for any clade with small individual organisms) to overrule the opinion of biologists as to what categories are vital. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * By all means. I'm not a zoologist so my understanding of which taxa are important has obvious limitations. I should be more careful and say that I only think these are organisms I doubt many people have heard of. I'm pretty sure katydids are more generally familiar, for example, and many people are OK with removing them. Cobblet (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I had that impression, too, because the article is well developed. The two other clades of life mentioned in the text Arthropods and Tardigrades are vital articles, so that's enough for me. The article is long because it has been translated from German/Dutch. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Sea spider
A class containing over 1300 known species, but none of them are particularly notable.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support because the clade is little mentioned in biology textbooks (which I think is the more important rationale than number of species in the clade or notability of individual species in the clade). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Aulopiformes, Beloniformes and Osteoglossiformes
Three relatively small fish orders (<300 species each). Beloniformes is already represented the flying fish. The most notable species in Aulopiformes is Bombay duck but we already have an example of an Indian food fish in ilish and could consider adding catla if we really needed a second one. The most notable species in Osteoglossiformes are the arapaima, which is on the list; and Asian arowana (but if we need an Asian pet fish the most obvious choice is koi, which I've nominated below).


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This anticipates a suggestion that I was going to make. In general, order-level classification categories (readily identifiable by the -formes word ending) are not vital for the project, unless the category appears in a standard first-year biology textbook for biology majors (as these do not). I'm taking care to check standard reference works for all my recommendations about biology articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   12:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Osmeriformes, Add Smelt (fish)
The order is again not very big (~300 species) and I think the most notable family it contains is a better choice for the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Both parts of the swap make sense. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support LHMask me a question 15:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Myliobatiformes, Rajiformes and Eagle ray
I don't think we need these subdivisions of Batoidea (the rays and skates). In particular the eagle rays are already represented by the manta rays.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support It's a rare order that needs an order-level classification category article on the 10,000 vital articles list. The organisms list needs trimming (not least because some significant organisms need to be added to it), and this is a good place to start. I'm following along from my office with biology textbooks at hand. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support LHMask me a question 15:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Freshwater hatchetfish, Add Koi
We removed tetra recently so the bar for inclusion of pet fish species is set pretty high. I don't think hatchetfish make the cut, but koi ought to for their long cultural significance in Asia; they're recorded as far back as the Western Jin dynasty, 1700 years ago.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Sprattus and Thunnus, Add Sprat and Tuna
Swapping the genera for the common names in English; the latter are unsurprisingly much better articles.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A helpful suggestion with a sound rationale per WP:COMMONNAME. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support tuna for Sprattus, I think I support Thunnus too, but neutral on Sprat for now.  Carl  wev   20:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Chondrostei, Catostomidae, Cobitidae and Hillstream loach
Not particularly significant taxa (<250 species). Chondrostei are represented by bichir and sturgeon; the other three families belong to Cypriniformes which is on the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support As usual, I base support on consulting reference books rather than on species count, to be sure to take into account taxonomic or ecological significance. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I agree that we shouldn't place too much weight on the number of species and that consulting reference works is a good approach. Neljack (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Seems right, we have to lose some fish and I trust Cobblet's and WeijiBaikeBianji's research.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Elopomorpha
Not sure why we need this particular superorder when none of the others under Teleostei are listed.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Agreed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   12:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I can't quite follow the rationale. Maybe some of the other teleostei should be listed. I had a quick look and the American eel and the European Eel (edible endangered species) might be worth including or swapping for this.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Gar, Add Coelecanth
Gar and bowfin are examples of fishes with primitive characteristics and are grouped together in the Holostei for that reason. But surely the archetypal example of an ancient but still-extant fish has to be the coelecanth.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rwessel (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   10:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Flathead mullet
Mullet is already listed and flathead mullet does not rank that highly in terms of worldwide production (something like pollock/Alaska pollock would be a better choice).
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is an easy call with Mullet already listed. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Yes, mullet is quite sufficient. Neljack (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   20:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

That's all for now. All this reading on fish is making me hungry. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ☺ -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Ejaculation
This is a process common to all mammals, including humans. It is a crucial part of sex, and thus should be added to the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)'


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Too finely divided for level 4 (10,000 articles) and adequately covered as a topic already by other articles on the vital articles list. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above and Carlwev. Semen, orgasm and sperm (if successfully added) cover all that is vital in relation to ejaculation. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This is subsumed to a certain extent by semen and other articles. I think the most obvious omission in relation to male reproductive physiology is sperm. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * Mildly important, but I wonder if an encyclopedia would have separate articles on testicles, semen, penis, sexual intercourse, masturbation, orgasm, and ejaculation; we have all other articles I mentioned. My first thought was this is covered by orgasm, but Cobblet, has a point that semen covers it too, this is basically just the emission of semen. I'm not made up at this point though, it's mildly significant, but I'm probably neutral leaning slightly to no.  Carl  wev   22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Add sperm
This is an obvious omission. We have egg but not sperm. Surely the sperm is of equal importance to the egg.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rwessel (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Gout
We may have a bias towards topics that concern younger people. In comparison to the meaning medicine has to senior citizens, the medical section is too small. So I'm going to put up some topics for discussion in the coming days from the subject areas disease, pills and anatomy. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gout has been a significant medical issue for a long time - perhaps even more so in the past, when it could not be treated as effectively. Neljack (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rwessel (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support  Carl  wev   18:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Gastroenteritis
10th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   12:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Noether's theorem
One of the most fundamental and useful theorems in physics. It can be used to derive all the conservation laws (energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.). Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Noether's contribution on this subject is outstanding but I'm not sure it's a good idea to list this and supersymmetry when symmetry (physics) isn't listed in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Electric dipole moment
We currently list magnetic moment. This is the electric equivalent. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Thermodynamic potential, Remove Thermodynamic free energy and Enthalpy
More general article; covers internal energy as well. Malerisch (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Support addition. Strong oppose removals: if these aren't vital from a physicist's standpoint then move them over to chemistry, because any chemist will regard these as vital, they being the thermodynamic parameters that correspond to the spontaneity of a chemical reaction and the heat of that reaction. Cobblet (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that thermodynamic free energy and enthalpy are vital to chemistry, but internal energy is just as vital to physics. It would be inconsistent to list the first two and not internal energy. Malerisch (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * OK, I'll support it after all then. (Sorry, it's been a while since I had to think about this stuff.) Do you still want to add thermodynamic potential? Cobblet (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's needed anymore then. Malerisch (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Dispersion (optics)
Dispersion is another basic concept in optics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose It seems to me that refraction and prism might provide sufficient coverage of this concept. Cobblet (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Geometrical optics, Remove Optical physics
Geometrical optics is one of the two main branches of classical optics, along with physical optics, which is already listed. Optical physics doesn't seem to have a strong distinction from optics, and we already list some modern fields of optics (nonlinear optics, photonics, and X-ray optics), which don't need a redundant, unfocused overview topic. Malerisch (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Prefer to remove optical physics altogether. The coverage of geometrical optics in optics looks nearly as extensive as what's written in geometrical optics; and if we're also adding reflection and refraction as individual topics then I don't see a need for an overview article between optics and individual optical concepts. I don't think nonlinear optics or X-ray optics are vital either. Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

That's okay with me. Before I create another removal, should physical optics be removed as well? Malerisch (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally think so. Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Time dilation and Lorentz transformation
Length contraction and time dilation are always paired together in relativity textbooks. There is no reason to have one and not the other. Lorentz transformations are the more general version of these and are related to four-vectors, another vital concept. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose adding time dilation and would support removing length contraction – I don't think any of the admittedly interesting consequences of special relativity apart from mass–energy equivalence are worth listing individually. Support adding Lorentz transformation. Cobblet (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Equivalence principle, Stress–energy tensor, Einstein field equations, and Metric tensor (general relativity)
These are some of the most fundamental concepts in general relativity and should be included. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose the last three I think these topics go so far beyond the realm of everyday experience that they really don't hold any interest to the general public at all. I don't think we'd ever be able to find space on the list for equivalently esoteric concepts in any other field of knowledge besides math. It might even be better to individually list each of Newton's laws of motion or Maxwell's equations or the laws of thermodynamics before we start listing concepts in general relativity. Cobblet (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose and would also oppose principle of relativity. There's Theory of relativity on level 3. We can go into more detail on the next level: Special relativity and General relativity are already listed on level 4. I'm afraid everything else is ott here. It's an interesting collection for the top 100,000. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the proposals that I can't really evaluate in terms of balance because I'm not a physics major. General relativity maybe deserves more than one article but I'm not sure it deserves five when we also lack, say, fundamental statistical mechanics topics like Boltzmann's entropy formula, Statistical ensemble (mathematical physics) or Partition function (statistical mechanics). Cobblet (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * More specifically, the Einstein field equations look like a good add; the tensors less so (I hesitate to suggest listing even basic physical quantities like concentration when we already have topics like solution to cover them). Cobblet (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't consider these to be any more esoteric than many of the topics we have in Mathematics. Algebraic number field? Atiyah–Singer index theorem? Homology? Module? Sheaf? Hilbert space? Holomorphic function? etc. I doubt most people really care about these either, but we include them to provide a comprehensive overview of mathematics. I think our best option is to have the best coverage of physics as possible, not pick which fields hold the general public's interest more. Malerisch (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On that note, I would be okay with (and might actually prefer) removing the two tensors from this nomination and adding principle of relativity instead. I'll add that the equivalence principle and the principle of relativity are less esoteric and more fundamental than most of the physics concepts we're adding (there's zero mathematical skill and only basic physics knowledge needed to understand them) and that quantum field theory is much more esoteric than the Einstein field equations. Like Cobblet said, I fear general relativity will be seriously underrepresented if we're not adding anything else. Quantum mechanics isn't that much more important than relativity, but it certainly seems that way based on the number of articles in each category. Malerisch (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the Mathematics topics you're listing as examples should probably go. I've been considering putting up Sheaf for removal, at least. The purpose of the list is not to provide an outline or a comprehensive overview. We are trying to identify which articles are essential for an encyclopedia. This means to some degree listing what people want or need to read but also inlcuding what they should read. Also we have to put it in perspective to other topics. Why should Physics have more articles than Medicine? --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The quotas are definitely not fixed in stone and I think such discussions are worthwhile, even though I doubt they'll lead anywhere quickly. Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Feynman diagram
Feynman diagrams are extremely fundamental to particle physics and quantum field theory. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Just too esoteric for a general audience, I'm afraid. Is this really more vital than Venn diagram? Cobblet (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Fair enough. Malerisch (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Java (programming language)
If you use an Android device your favorite app is written in Java! Java is one of the most widely used programming languages, it's rated top or high importance by the relevant projects on its talk page, and just like Wikipedia, Java is Open Source.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. The Java language is pervasive in industry. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Shouldn't JavaScript also be nominated? Much of the web is built on it. Malerisch (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support very commonly used programming language. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

We list object-oriented programming; I'm not sure it's necessary to have that many specific languages. And are you sure that Java and C++ are going to leave legacies exceeding older languages like Fortran or COBOL, which also aren't listed? Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Object-oriented programming is a huge developmental step in programming and it makes maintenance easier. The software written in these languages is here to stay for at least a few decades and will need constant maintenance, in these languages. We should have Fortran and COBOL also, as well as JavaScript and PHP. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Artificial island
An article specific to the Dutch flood control will give the list more Western bias. Flooding is a problem in many areas of the world, for example in the up-coming economy Nigeria (is predicted to become one of the biggest economies in the world within 20 or so years). Its capital Lagos has that problem, too. The proposed article lacks a good coverage of the Dutch project as of yet, but it should of course be expanded to cover it.--Melody Lavender (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Already listed here Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences under geomorphology perhaps not the best place. I'd be open to discussion on moving it and similar articles nearby.  Carl wev   12:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Bedroom, Living room and Dining room
I see merit in listing rooms that require specialized plumbing, furnishings and appliances, like kitchens and bathrooms. But rooms that are purely defined by the kind of furniture they contain (a bed vs. a couch vs. a dining table) aren't vital; it's the furniture items themselves that are. Otherwise what's to stop us from listing all the rooms on a Cluedo board?
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Plenty of houses, particularly in poorer places, don't even have separate living and dining rooms. Neljack (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Cobblet and Neljack. Both bed and room are listed making bedroom redundant. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Plantdrew (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I would prefer to keep these  Carl  wev   18:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add nth root
14th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that Square root is already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Thank you to Malerisch for the clear statement of rationale. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Shape
The last of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Pretty fundamental. Neljack (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support geometry is in the vital 100 shape should be definitely be in the vital 10'000  Carl  wev   12:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

When can suggestions be proposed again?
If there was a proposal which previously failed, is there a standard amount of time before it can be proposed again? On the one hand, we shouldn't allow repeatedly proposing ideas until they happen to succeed, but sometimes there can be valid reasons to reconsider. What do you think? -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The exact same proposal? At least six months.  Since there's been a general consensus against adding recent figures, it's unlikely that a person will be added based on recent events (with the possible exception of dying).  Proposals that are slightly different (such as "Add A, remove B" when "Add A, remove C" failed) can be done sooner.  p  b  p  18:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no such rule. In principle you can propose it again right away, but probably most people will be annoyed if you do that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If consensus has shifted on a proposal, I don't see why we should have to wait six months to bring it up again. Cobblet (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is more subjective than a specific time period. Depends if opinion has changed. Definitely it should not be re-added a day after it failed. Maybe a week minimum, but it should mostly rely on if opinion changes. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that there isn't a hard and fast rule and should be a matter of common sense. Obviously the shorter the time between identical proposals, the less likely it is that consensus has changed unless the proposer and other supporters mount a stronger argument. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. For instance, if a proposal received little attention for some reason, it might be appropriate to raise it again relatively quickly. Neljack (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Search bar tool?
Although I have learned a bit, I am not completely fluent in Wikilanguage, and all the little templates and stuff that can be used. We have a search box that can search the archives of this talk page, I've seen similar search boxes here and there. Is it possible to create and have a search bar tool that searches only through the subpages of this project, similar to an archive page search bar. One that would search through the 11 sections the vital 10,000 is split into, And/or through all levels of the project, (search the vital 10, 100, 1000, and all 10,000 pages) to see if and where a topic and similarly worded topics are listed without having to search manually through several pages. I think this would be great idea, do other people think it would be good to have this too? and is it possible? i
 * My extended thoughts....There seems to be an occasional but recurring issue, I'm sure most of you here re aware of, when proposing adds, or when just looking, with some articles, it's not immediately apparent are or should be, users have to manually search several pages to see if a topic is here or not, and we have often not found a topic that's present and nominated it. edible plants where split between food and plants (this is mostly fixed), mental conditions could be and are split between medicine and psychology, drugs are in several places, there are blurred lines between sports and performing arts, arts and technology for kinds of craft, history of articles may have spread out, and many many more issues. Many times has someone including me, proposed to add something, already present in a section we didn't think of looking in, many times we have found a topic listed in multiple locations because it kind of fits in more than one section, and we have also found articles which were present in a certain level but not the lower levels, which we in general treat as wrong, If we could have a search bar that searched only this projects several separate pages it would help us see if a topic is present or not and help identify any multiple or out of place entries if they're still any.  Carl  wev   09:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Google usually gets the job done: enter "site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded" followed by your search terms. Cobblet (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another way to do it is use the "What links here" function on the page you want to add, then set it to Wikipedia-space only p  b  p  15:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

✅ --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Studs Terkel, Add Bartolomé de las Casas
Terkel was an American oral historian who doesn't even seem that vital in the context of American historiography. (American historians, feel free to rebut.) In his place I nominate probably the first and one of the most influential historians of the Americas, Bartolomé de las Casas. His polemic A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies was widely distributed and influenced the passage of the New Laws prohibiting the slavery of native Americans, although their effectiveness was short-lived. Translations of it were read by Spain's rivals in Europe, providing fodder for the Black Legend. He remains controversial in Spain but revered in Latin America, having inspired Simon Bolivar and other revolutionary leaders. To quote Britannica, "the modern significance of Las Casas lies in the fact that he was the first European to perceive the economic, political, and cultural injustice of the colonial or neocolonial system maintained by the North Atlantic powers since the 16th century...."
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is a very good proposal. Las Casas is surely a far more important figure than Terkel. The journalists section is still heavily weighted towards the US. Neljack (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) 'Support I didnt suggest adding Las Casas because I am the main contributor to the article. But I am happy to support this proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, is Bartolomé going into historians? I thought of suggesting Studs before for removal  Carl  wev   21:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Malerisch (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I should mention for completeness's sake that we list three other US historians (McCullough, F. J. Turner, Tuchman) and no historians from Latin America. And if somebody more knowledgeable about historians wants to take a look at who we've got there, it seems to me that there are some odd choices in there – who are Charles Oman and Samuel Rawson Gardiner and why are they listed ahead of somebody like Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay? Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I imagine Bartolomé should be listed as a historian, yes. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Chateau Chambord
The most important Renaissance palace in France. Set the standard for later chateaux.

Support
 * 1) Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose France is already represented by Chartres, Notre Dame and Versailles. Why not choose El Escorial or Wawel Castle? Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The list will become too big if we add the most important building of every major architectural style (in this case Renaissance) of a major country (France). Hundreds of articles could be added on this basis. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
 * I have added El Escorial or Wawel Castle, as well, not "instead". Amandajm (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Gizza: I believe we should include one or two of the most important buildings of every major architectural style, but not for every country. I think Chambord is a good choice. Melody Lavender (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Add: La Sagrada Familia
Gaudi's unique basilica in Barcelona

Support
 * 1) Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support If there is one piece of architecture in Spain or Catalunya that people are likely to know this is it. If there is one piece of modern architecture in Europe that people are likely to know besides the Eiffel Tower this is it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Melody Lavender (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Maunus. Malerisch (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose There are many historically important Spanish works of architecture to choose from, from the Aqueduct of Segovia to the Alhambra to the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. I'm not convinced this is the best choice. Cobblet (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Cobblet, as a work of Spanish architecture, La Sagrada Familia has just one tiny advantage over the three that you have named; it is, in fact, Spanish. The Aqueduct of Segovia is Roman, the Alhambra is Islamic and the Guggenheim is by a Canadian. Amandajm (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Excepot that La Sagrada familia is Catalan.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "Spanish" as in "in Spain". Anyway, El Escorial too seems like a stronger choice. Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that by 20th century architecture where the individual style of the architect is highly relevant, and where the architect is notable for his whole oeuvre rather than a single building, including the article about the architect is probably more important. In this case the question is whether Gaudi is so important that among the 10,000 most important articles there should be two about his work. I'd rather have more 20th century architects on the list (i.e. Tange, Piano, Siza). -- ELEKHHT 09:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Guns N' Roses
Member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, influential band that sold over 100 million records on a global level, and one of the groups that revived hard rock in the late 80s/early 90s.--Retrohead (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support


 * Oppose
 * 1) OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought of them earlier but never suggested anything, they are fairly worthy and have a chance at getting in, but I don't think they will, I may be wrong though. If we have a band like that, bands like Fleetwood Mac and Eagles (band) have sold more, have a large status too and are also in the rock and roll hall of fame as well. Other musicians of similar status could be Bon Jovi, The Carpenters, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Rod Stewart, Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Genesis (band) and many many more. We removed Genesis and Eagles already btw. Off topic... Oddly we also have the Fleetwood Mac album Rumours (album) (although I just noticed it goes to Rumours), but we don't have Fleetwood Mac, this has always bugged me.  Carl wev   11:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Orthography
Suggested as better than punctuation when I opened add Punctuation which was not added in the end. Orthography, "the methodology of writing a language including rules of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation." includes punctuation and more, so is a wider article, with nearly 170 articles for language this may deserve a place.

My only reservation with adding this is that there's substantial overlap with writing system. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   08:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Having common orthographic conventions is crucial to communication. Neljack (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as a topic that pertains to all human languages with writing systems. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Vital concept in linguistics. Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose and Writing, and Writing system.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Law of obligations
Currently this section is rather biased towards common law, as opposed to civil law, systems. We have common law concepts like tort but no civil law equivalents. The law of obligations is the branch of the civil law that covers rights and duties arising between private individuals - both voluntary and involuntary, so it occupies the areas covered by both tort and contract law in common law systems. It is one of the most important branches of law in a civil law system. Neljack (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Redundant with Contract law, which currently redirects to contract, but it is still redundant. Both tort and contract are on VA, and they are more vital than this topic. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove eBay
I'm not convinced that eBay is one of the most vital websites to include in this list. On Alexa (which Wikipedia uses), it currently languishes at the 24th most visited website. E-commerce is also already listed. Yahoo! or Baidu (China's Google) are better choices if a replacement is needed: they're ranked as 4th and 5th.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rwessel (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Closer in vitality to something like Netscape than Google. Cobblet (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I'm not convinced that we need more websites than newspapers. The internet is rather new, after all, whereas newspapers have a much longer history of influence. Neljack (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Alexa ranks are not really an argument for putting something on the vital article list. Alexa may provide a hint at which sites we should take a closer look. The sociological and economical impact of eBay is and was enormous and incomparable. This may only be visible from a historic perspective in the future for most people. But market failure is one of the biggest problems mankind currently has. Market failure is the driving force behind political disputes, poverty, etc. - some even think it's a relevant factor in crime. Places like eBay open a perspective to improve market access (for sellers) and work against market failure. eBay has grown beyond the dingy online store where antique dealers and ordinary citizens sell their old stuff. Much of the merchandise sold is already new, and more or less the same as in any shopping mall. If you have ever thought more deeply about eCommerce, opening a store, marketing an invention, you might be starting to grasp why eBay is one of the sites that is probably going to have a lasting impact. Also, don't forget that eBay is the main success factor for PayPal, a fully owned subsidiary of eBay which is significant for all kinds of transcontinental payments, not just eBay sales. PayPal might win the battle against duopolists Visa and Mastercard. If you try to filter out the tech hype surrounding the internet, and try to accept a more sober perspective, Google pales in comparison to eBay. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose. Yahoo? Seriously? EBay is a completely different (and much more influential) type of website than Yahoo--and it's not particularly close. Lithistman (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a famous quote from one of the founders of eBay that he had the intention of creating the perfect competition market. EBay may reach lasting notability because of that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * As an aside, we currently list Monopoly but don't list perfect competition or competition (economics). I wonder if that can be improved. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would add competition (economics). I am not as sure about perfect competition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Failry significant but looks like this is going no matter what I do, but I must say we have twice as many tennis players than websites, which still bugs me. I also think one video game Pong looks odd, we should maybe list a few or none at all, maybe Tetris and Pac-Man are just as deserving? TV shows looks questionable too, we have Monty Python and Monty Python's Flying Circus we have Gunsmoke I would maybe prefer simply Western (genre)? plus other issues.  Carl  wev   12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The double-listing of Monty Python is a really nice catch: I say we remove the TV program and keep the comedy group. Your comparison between tennis and the internet isn't quite complete: besides the players, we don't list tennis equipment or tournaments. Besides specific websites, there are plenty of internet-related articles listed under Tech. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We've currently allotted space for 2000 biographies. I don't think that's unreasonable but it does mean that the vitality standards for people are lower than other topics. The people at WikiProject Football and Baseball will probably consider articles on teams like Manchester United and the New York Yankees to be equally, if not more important than the best players. But the current quotas mean that no sports team has a chance at getting in. I think there's no point comparing a biography section with a non-bio section for that reason. And even though tennis isn't as important as the internet generally, the tennis players cover a greater span of time. The internet in its modern shape and form is still quite young. Roger Federer has been playing professional tennis for a longer time than Twitter has existed (he had already won 7 Grand Slams when it was founded). Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We make the quotas, we can change them. I'd prefer to have teams for team sports instead of individual celebrities. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Melody Lavender: I think you bring up some good points for discussion, but from my perspective, these types of economic arguments need to be backed up by numbers. On that note, I looked up the gross merchandise volume (indicating the total value of sales) for eBay and two other e-commerce giants—Alibaba Group and Amazon.com—in 2013. By all accounts, Alibaba is the biggest company out of all three, with a GMV of $248 billion (source, see intro and bar graph on GMV). Amazon.com trails at ~$100 billion while eBay lags behind at $76.5 billion (source, which is also corroborated by the graph). I'll let you put that number in perspective for yourself, but if you're looking to nominate an e-commerce company, Alibaba's the right one, not eBay. I don't think PayPal is that significant since like you said, Visa and MasterCard dominate the industry at the moment. I'll leave the debate of Google vs. eBay to someone else. Malerisch (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Alibaba is a business to business website, that's a whole different story. Amazon might be worth considering, it seems to have become just like eBay in many ways. The numbers you're quoting are only their current sales (+ don't include PayPal). We are in an area where we have to make an educated guess about what is going to be a valid vital article in the long run. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Alibaba Group is not just Alibaba.com (a business-to-business website); it also includes Taobao, which is a consumer-to-consumer shopping platform. Alibaba also controls Alipay, which is larger than Paypal (source). Amazon.com is already listed. Besides, we shouldn't be making educated guesses about what might be influential: this list is based on the present, not the future. Malerisch (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

General comment on psychology topics
I've been reviewing the vital articles project criteria, the list of 100, the list of 1,000, and the current proposed level 4 list. I've also been looking at WikiProject Psychology's assessment task force page, and have left a notice on the project's main talk page to let other Wikipedians interested in psychology know about this current effort to expand the vital articles list. I'll be digging into authoritative reference books, textbooks, and practitioner's handbooks about psychology to make various article addition or swap suggestions in the next several days. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it's always good to have people who are knowledgeable about a subject area! Neljack (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Aphasia and Sleep (or move those articles to appropriate subcategory of Biology and health sciences category)
Now that I've had more time to check reference books, and especially the WikiProject assessment pages of WikiProject Psychology, I'll begin making a lot of recommendations of adding, removing, or moving articles currently proposed under the psychology subcategory of the proposed 10,000 articles list for level 4. The article Aphasia is inherently a topic of human medicine (pathological loss of ability to speak) and is neither a top priority nor high priority article for WikiProject Psychology. Aphasia is listed as a mid-importance article by WikiProject Medicine. Aphasia is not really a topic of the discipline of psychology, and it is far more likely that a medical doctor, rather than a professor of psychology or clinical psychologist, will have adequate reference materials to improve that article. The medicine category currently lists more general medical topics as topics that are just being added at level 4, so maybe Aphasia doesn't belong on the vital articles list at all. Sleep is plainly a topic of huge importance, and it is already a level 2 (list of 100) vital article, categorized under "everyday life." But sleep is also either a medical topic (if considered from the human point of view) or a biology topic (if considered from the all-animals point of view). The current article Sleep is currently primarily focused on human beings (as the article makes clear right at the beginning) and is designated as top-priority article for WikiProject Psychology and a mid-priority article for WikiProject Medicine. (That wasn't my decision, and I might reverse those priorities as to those two projects, given the importance of medically reliable sources for articles on topics like this.) Sleep is also a top-priority article for WikiProject Neuroscience, which makes a lot of sense. My overall suggestion is to remove Aphasia from the 10,000 list entirely and move Sleep to a category that will better match the expert attention it will need to become a good article and then a featured article, one of the subcategories in the Biology and health sciences category main category. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removing aphasia and moving sleep. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The field that cares most about aphasia is actually neuroscience; studies on aphasia led to the birth of neurolinguistics as a discipline. (Broca's area and Wernicke's area are classified high-importance to both neuroscience and anatomy.) But neuroscience itself isn't even on our list right now (let's discuss this below), and I suspect that there are much more important articles related to the history of medicine that we're missing (germ theory of disease?), so I'm OK with removing aphasia for now. Cobblet (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the removal and move - the nom makes a convincing case. Neljack (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Move p  b  p  22:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Move sleep. For now I have no opinion on Aphasia. The medical section is much to small. We would have to see this in proportion to a decent size medical section. Also, the list doesn't cover neuroscience well, I've mentioned it before and see it mentioned here. We should have neuroscience and maybe it'll fit there. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Move both. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support removal and move. Malerisch (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Should we add cognitive science or neuroscience to the list? Where should they go? Cobblet (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I thought sleep should be in with life and biology at all levels before, if this is successful are we going to move this at all levels? would be logical. Not 100% sure on removing aphasia. it's borderline, in case anyone doesn't know it was only added this January, (see here) but opinions can change and it may go anyway. How about sleep disorder what do we think of that? covers several conditions, effects many people.  Carl  wev   19:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Carassius, Add Silver carp
The Crucian carp is fairly notable as a farmed fish but the silver carp is more significant in this regard, ranking second in tonnage (behind the grass carp) and third in economic value (behind the Atlantic salmon and grass carp) worldwide in 2012.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, you're thinking along the right lines here. Remove the overarching concept nobody is going to look up, and adding a common name. Crucian carp should also be added. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support LHMask me a question 15:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Gecko
We are refining the animal and plant list, reptiles like garter snake are in, as are the numerous fairly unknown butterflies, other insects and fish species and families/genus. Reptiles have less than mammals birds fish and insects, geckos are of interest to non specialists and also studied due to their gripping or sticky feet.  Carl wev   11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support One other notable type of lizard we're missing is iguana. Cobblet (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Domestic pig
We have Pig (vital, but largely about the genus) and we have wild boar as a type of pig, so we should also have domestic pig. Domestic pig is long article and links to many languages many that translate to simply "pig". I think we should include this seeing as we have 24 breeds/types of cats, dogs, horse, sheep as well as pork, bacon, ham, sausage and hot dog. With that many breeds, to not include the domestic pig along side the wild kind does not seem smart. Article says that domestic pigs first domesticated perhaps as long ago as 13000 BC in Near East and separately in 8000 BC in China, and that they number today at approximately 1 billion.  Carl wev   11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Olive
Brought up several times now, I may as well open this. Fairly widely eaten and since prehistoric times, much more vital than other food plants like tomatillo.  Carl wev   12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add ovulation
This is top importance in wikiproject biology. It is the process by which eggs are released from the ovaries and prepare for fertilization during sex.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

It is hard to determine which events and phases of the menstrual cycle are vital and which are not. Ovulation and menstruation are probably more important than menarche, luteal phase and follicular phase. There is also menstrual taboo. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Autoimmune disease
9th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Thanks for finding these discrepancies! Neljack (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Thank you. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Declination, Right ascension and Celestial equator, Add Equatorial coordinate system
In the same way hue/brightness/saturation don't need to be listed individually, I think the article on this particular celestial coordinate system should (and does) cover its elements adequately.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Abscissa and Ordinate aren't listed under Cartesian coordinate system either. Malerisch (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rwessel (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Basement, Add Foundation (engineering)
The latter is necessary for all buildings and is obviously of more, ahem, foundational importance.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support "all buildings"? Post in ground buildings don't really have foundations, but they don't have basements either. Foundations come before basementsPlantdrew (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support basements are less common and less essential than the other rooms mentioned above. Not vital. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose the removal of Basement. I'm fine with a straight addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add High-speed rail
Nowadays a distinct and important mode of passenger transportation in many parts of the world. I think it represents a major technological advance in the history of transportation.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support good find. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- ELEKHHT 13:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This was already on my mind, as are steam, diesel and electric locomotives.  Carl  wev   20:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neljack (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Malerisch (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Inverse function
We have function on level 3. Level 4 should have more details on this important concept in Mathematics. It also plays an important role in Computer science, most notably some think it's relevant for the solution of the P/NP problem, one of the Millenium problems. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support not entirely convinced of it's lv3 status, but lv4 it seems to fit in.  Carl  wev   12:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Malerisch (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I remember looking at the mathematics section some time ago and noticed that nearly all of the articles listed had a "Top-Priority" or importance tag from WikiProject Mathematics with the exception of a few articles that were also listed at Level 3. I suspect that during the formative stages of the expanded list, somebody decided to add a bunch of mathematics articles based on its talk page tag, which means that the people who rated these articles have left their mark on the list. It is not a bad approach to use initially and fill up the section. However, it obviously needs refinement as sometimes "Top-priority" articles may not actually be vital according to consensus while "High" or even "Mid" might be vital. This is for every topic of course. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I agree completely and have been thinking the same thing on many occasions. The priority given to an article by a project is just one factor among many. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)