Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 31

Remove Mariah Carey
I don't think she's that significant. Other people from relatively recent music, and other entertainment like movies have been removed such as, Britney Spears, Whitney Houston, Genesis (band), Phil Collins, Cliff Richard, Eminem in music and Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone, Tim Burton, Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman. I think all of these people have probably had a bigger mark on the music or wider entertainment industry, and they have already gone, I just don't think Mariah Carey cuts it, or we will be remembered as a great in years to come. I've noticed other people mentioning her in other threads that she looks like a week link, that reminded me she was still in, as I actually thought she was removed ages ago. I think Britney was a more significant recent female pop singer, I believe had more impact, and no one wanted her in, I think Whitney Houston was around longer and a slightly more significant, "R n B diva", she went too.  Carl wev   14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Sure thing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Not significant. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

She has a voice range of five octaves. I'm tempted to oppose because that makes her a record breaker and that might make her vital. (Whitney Houston had four.) On first view, I could not find anyone more important in Category:Singers with a five-octave vocal range. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Guns and Roses has already been mentioned User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. But I'm not sure if some of that isn't falsetto, and I'm not sure if that's comparable. Also his performances aren't based on showing off a large vocal range like Whitney's and Maria's songs. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: why is Mariah Carey less vital than Miriam Makeba, Lata Mangeshkar or Teresa Teng, all recent additions? Cobblet (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong way to ask the question. I think you realize that those additions were made to assure representation of non-American music traditions. Mariah Carey represents the American music tradition and within that tradition she is not vital. Comparing American to non-American traditions in an environment were people are most likely to know American artists and be ignorant of other traditions such a comparison will always favor the American. That is the systemic bias, and there is no good reason to perpetuate that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's the wrong question to ask – I think this is precisely the issue at the core of the recent debates on the relevance of nationality in determining vitality. Nevertheless, I agree that Mariah Carey isn't vital to American music. Cobblet (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Add James Chadwick
Chadwick discovered the neutron, for which he was awarded the 1935 Nobel Prize in Physics, and also headed the British arm of the Manhattan Project. I think he would fit nicely in our list of scientists. Malerisch (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Discovery of the electron neutron is pretty important. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 00:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Chadwick actually discovered the neutron, not the electron. Hopefully that was just a typo and doesn't affect your vote :) Malerisch (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Yes, that was indeed what I meant to say - I obviously wasn't paying sufficient attention! Thanks for letting me know, Malerisch! Neljack (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove The Internationale and Dixie (song), Add National anthem
There are too many individual songs listed and not enough general topics on music. Anthems, like flags, are important state symbols, but I don't think we need specific anthems any more than we need specific flags. I don't think the Internationale is more vital to one's understanding of socialism than unlisted topics like cooperative or planned economy. And the implication that Dixie's more vital than The Star-Spangled Banner is downright terrifying.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support We had the US and UK anthems before but they removed without discussion as "unfair" to other nations, anthems are important and the overview article is decent and could be seen as fairer than including one or 2 individual anthems. We also list flag but no individual flags.  Carl  wev   19:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dixie most certainly should be removed, I could see a case for retaining The Internationale because of it's trans-national status. Rwessel (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the removals and neutral on the addition. Strongly support removing Dixie per the discussion. I understand the point of view that specific songs are of more value than categories of songs. But even the Internationale as a symbol isn't as pervasive as the red flag or the Swastika whose proposed addition was unsuccessful. On the other side, adding national anthem could put us down a slippery slope where using similar logic, national flag, national animal, national flower, coat of arms, etc. can all be added. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support addition, and support removal of Dixie L'Internationale is used (not surprisingly) internationally. Dixie is only in the United States, and only in part of the United States.  It is also ridiculous to have Dixie when you don't have the Star-Spangled Banner, My Country 'Tis of Thee or God Bless America.   p  b  p  20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

First, national anthem should cover examples of specific anthems and discuss them in detail if they're important. And even if you believe specific songs are so important, I don't think these are the most vital anthems (let alone songs) to know about, ahead of La Marseillaise or God Save the Queen, or other songs strongly identified with particular countries/cultures like Waltzing Matilda or Sakura Sakura or Hava Nagila. How many such songs do you think we should have? Cobblet (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose People are interested in knowing about specific songs, not general categories. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Maunus. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose the removal, Support the addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The Internationale strikes me as considerably more significant than most songs on there. It is a song of, well, truly international impact. Dixie is less clear, but it too has had a considerable cultural impact. Neljack (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose removal of L'Internationale p  b  p  20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose the removal of The Internationale. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * That is indeed a problem, and I think I would at least vote support to remove Dixie, and perhaps also Internationale though its social and global influence is of course far greater.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely support removing Dixie, I don't see the need for National anthem on the list. The problem with Internationale is that it is a left wing hymn and we don't have a right wing equivalent.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont see why that would be a problem, vital articles doesnt have to be fair an balanced. We include what is vital to know and what isnt we include. I guess we could include "Deutschland Uber Alles" or the Horst Wessel Lied if we absolutely wanted a rightwing "equivalent", but I am not sure they are as vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little perplexed to see a nomination to add swastika Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 28 fail but people are so keen on keeping The Internationale. Isn't the former more vital? I'm not even sure The Internationale is the most recognizable left-wing anthem anymore: to me that's the Solidaritätslied. Are we conflating the global "impact" of the song with the global impact of socialism itself? Cobblet (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Brightness, Colorfulness and Hue, Add HSL and HSV
We should list the article on the colour models rather than their individual components.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   19:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Speaking of colour models, I think we should list both color model and the most important one (RGB color model). I also thought about swapping out cyan and magenta for CMYK color model since these colours have no real significance other than being part of that system; but it seems a little weird to list either the colour model or its colours when colour printing (their only major application) isn't on the list and could probably cover the concept. Thoughts? Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I think what we need is Color theory. -- ELEKHHT 13:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Oh, I see is already listed at Arts. -- ELEKHHT 13:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support the color model articles, but I don't believe removing any individual colors is necessary. A few other notes:
 * I would consider color space as well.
 * Gloss (optics) needs to be moved to optics.
 * We are missing violet (color), the only color in the visible spectrum that isn't listed. There is some overlap between it and purple, but I think both are vital due to some key differences.
 * While checking the articles we list on printing, I noticed that we list photocopier, a type of printer, without listing printer (computing) itself. Malerisch (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
I nominate this article for removal, because it is only the 51st most visited art museum in the world, it is not as important as the Met and MoMA also in New York City, which are listed, and it is not as well visited as Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Art Institute of Chicago, Los Angeles County Museum of Art in other major cities in the US, which are not on the list. The architectural design alone does not qualify the article to be listed under Museums. – Editør (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think Central Park would be a better choice for another architectural landmark in NYC. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, maybe moving to architecture. Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support   Carl  wev   20:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC) It may be slightly more notable for architecture, but it's not within the top 50ish most significant buildings. Even within New York, is it architecturally more significant than the Chrysler Building or the already mentioned Central Park?   Carl  wev   20:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Carlwev. For example, America's Favorite Architecture ranks the Guggenheim at #74. When the White House and the United States Capitol, for example, are not listed, I can't justify keeping this museum. Malerisch (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I oppose a straight removal, but would support moving the article to architecture, where it is a better fit for VA purposes, in my view. LHMask me a question 16:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With Wright's Fallingwater already on the Architecture list, he would then become the only architect with two buildings on the list. – Editør (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose removal, support a move to architecture. Its not that big a deal that an architect has two buildings on the list. I don't see that as a reason to keep it off the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was merely noticing. I'm not objecting to moving the article. – Editør (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose removal, support move to architecture. Also, I think Wright deserves the second entry. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Move Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
Alternatively, move the article from Museums to Architecture for same reasons as the nomination for removal. – Editør (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support – Editør (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support More notable as a work of architecture than a museum. Malerisch (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, a bit weakly. Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - this is an improvement. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 02:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion
 * Would you have a look at this new nomination?
 * While I appreciate the invitation, I've decided to no longer participate in VA discussions. LHMask me a question 14:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Should I close this move proposal since the article has been removed entirely? Malerisch (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Ivy
This is one of the main classifications of plants. It is prevalent around the world.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Malerisch (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – Editør (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   20:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Climbing gourami
This fish just doesn't appear vital to me. It's slightly notable because it has a special organ and breathes oxygen, but then Anabantoidei the sub order of fish it belongs to, all have that organ, would seem slightly more important, but still not very vital.  Carl wev   13:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   13:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gourami are the only vital family within the Anabantoidei. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Malerisch (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Antipsychotic
We are currently lacking a human anatomy section and also a pharmaceutical section. This type of medication helps people who have mental disorders, like hearing voices and having halucinations. This is a major technological advance. The first such pills were prescribed in the 1960ies. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Before we dive down this rabbit-hole, how many articles on types of pharmaceuticals do we want exactly? A representative list is here: we currently list analgesic and antibiotics (and specific examples of each, morphine and penicillin, are also listed). Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A hugely important class of drugs.  Rwessel (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC) --  Comment per my response to Cobblet below, I would also support adding the larger class psychiatric medication instead.  Rwessel (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose Suggest listing psychiatric medication instead, which also covers antidepressants like Prozac, mood stabilizers like lithium salts, stimulants like caffeine and Ritalin, and benzodiazepines like Valium, among others; all of which are notable types of drugs in their own right, but listing all of these separately is not going to be feasible on such a short list. Among pharmaceutical categories, health drugs only account for the sixth largest share of sales: imagine the mess we'd get ourselves into if we had to list each type of chemotherapy drug or painkiller or antihypertensive drug or antibiotic separately. Adding the general categories and the occasional outstanding example (insulin, Lipitor) would be more than sufficient for our purposes. Cobblet (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet and discussion below. Would support psychiatric medication. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, for reasons stated best by Cobblet. Lithistman (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * We probably should create a section for illegal drugs like LSD, methamphetamine, Cocaine, crack cocaine, Heroin, and Marijuana. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I would not object to listing psychiatric medication instead of Antipsychotic, I'm not sure your analogy is correct - we're not talking about listing the dozens or hundreds of antipsychotics individually, antipsychotics *are* a fairly large class by themselves. Perhaps not as big as antibiotics.  At worst we'd be listing the half dozen major classes of psychiatric medications.  Rwessel (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say is entirely correct and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. But if we consider antipsychotics and each of the other classes of psychiatric drugs to be individually vital there are easily 50-100 pharmacology-related articles that should also make the list (see WikiProject Pharmacology/Popular pages, where antipsychotics rank 165th, or Category:Top-importance pharmacology articles which contains 131 articles): that's what I mean by a rabbit hole. Meanwhile, basic chemicals/chemical classes as diverse as heterocyclic compound, aniline, polyethylene, polystyrene, potash, quicklime, acetylene, cyanide, toluene, trinitrotoluene, urea, tartaric acid, steroid, ascorbic acid and adenosine triphosphate are all missing. Cobblet (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is inconsistent. Psychiatric medication is a rarely viewed article and it's not even ranked on the ppp-list of WikiProject Pharmacology. The approach you are suggesting (let's have the overarching article) is suitable for WikiProject Outline, which we are not. We have to strike a balance between giving an overview of a subject, balance out the different sections, giving the reader what they need and considering the impact a topic has on society. The impact aspect was why I suggested Antipsychotic as the first drug, because it strikes me as an amazing innovation to cure or improve symptoms like hallucinations. Can you imagine a (dangerous) psychotic seeing spiders everywhere and then they just take a pill and the symptoms are gone? That's a major technological step, true progress for mankind. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, I'm impressed. Can you imagine a world without synthetic dyes, plastics, fertilizers or cement? Can you imagine how the human body could function without hormones or the molecule that serves as its universal energy source? Because we are lacking essential chemicals that correspond to all of these concepts. Tell me what's worse: seeing spiders or dying of scurvy. You want a truly balanced overview of phamaceuticals that have actually had a huge impact on society? How about listing quinine, sulfa drug, paracetamol, ibuprofen, diazepam, insulin, paclitaxel, carbapenem, streptomycin, tetracycline, vancomycin, statin, and zidovudine, for starters? I'm not saying antipsychotics aren't important; just that any medicinal chemist realizes they're only one of many types of lifesaving drugs, and the ones I've just mentioned have probably helped more people.
 * As for balancing out the different sections, that's exactly why I'm suggesting listing psychiatric medications as a whole. I'm not opposed to listing specific examples but they better be good ones like diazepam or chlorpromazine. Listing antipsychotic raises the question of why we're not listing all the other subtypes of psychiatric medications and creates more difficulties in terms of balance. It's a question of how many articles on pharmaceuticals you want: right now we have four. Do you want ten or twenty or fifty or a hundred or what? Cobblet (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good that you're impressed. ;) Yes, I think a caveman/cavewoman would be more impressed by antipsychotics than by synthetic dye, plastic or cement. Fertilizers are on the list. Most of the others I would support in some form or another or am about to suggest them for addition. Vitamins are on the VA list, and exchanging that article or adding individual Vitamins like Vitamin C is something I'd consider. NSAIDs, as individual substances or as substance class, yes, I can imagine that, and obviously we'll add benzodiazepines some day. Chemotherapy is on the list already, as are antibiotics - I see no need for adding individual classes or substances there right now. Insulin I think is redundant with Diabetes, which we have. Maybe Metformin? Old, successful pharmaceutical drug against Diabetes. Frequently prescribed.--Melody Lavender (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is absurd: the average person has far more opportunity to benefit from the inventions of plastics, dyes and cement on a daily basis than from antipsychotic drugs. Add metformin but not insulin? You gotta be kidding me. The Nobel Prize committee also begs to differ. Most of what you just said makes no sense to anyone who's actually studied chemistry. Cobblet (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of what I just said is not supposed to make sense to a chemist. It's supposed to make sense to an editorial team. We aren't writing or outlining a chemistry textbook. We are trying to pick out articles that are vital for an encyclopedia for an average reader who stumbles in here via Google and who needs good information.
 * It's not absurd. I respect your opinion but I don't think the average person benefits more from plastics than from antipsychotics. They may not know it but the medication reduces their costs (keeping people with schizophrenia out of hospitals is also just plain cheaper) and it helps to keep them out of danger, because untreated schizophrenia puts their lives in danger. Psychotic people (hallmark of schizophrenia) can be dangerous, to themselves and others. I believe that a caveperson would have had that kind of awareness more than we have it now, with our focus on materialistic values. Be that as it may, I agree on listing Insulin, it just did not occurr to me in an argument about medication. Other diabetes meds are more prevalent. Insulin is relevant, well, essential for the human metabolism, so we should include it.
 * Let me get back to the medication you're listing, quinine, sulfa drug, paracetamol, ibuprofen, diazepam, insulin, paclitaxel, carbapenem, streptomycin, tetracycline, vancomycin, statin, and zidovudine - this is quite an inhomogenous mixture. I have given a rough indication of how I would treat those further up in this discussion, I'll repeat this here and some more comment. Some of those I've never heard of and I had to look them up, and don't know why you listed them:


 * streptomycin, tetracycline, vancomycin and carbapenem - are antibiotics(on list), as far as I know. We do not need to list antibiotics in more detail. We have penicillin, because we usually list the big historic first.
 * chemotherapy is on the list, and so I see no need to include paclitaxel. Methotrexate might however be interesting to evaluate, because of a secondary use in rheumatoid arthritis.
 * quinine: maybe, because of historical importance in Africa
 * statin, a drug against cholesterol, is a recentism. Not even the theory behind the cholesterol scare is fully established
 * zidovudine is the AIDS drug AZT. Also fairly new, and I suggest we wait until there is a cure, because the cure will be of conceivable lasting importance, AZT will them be a historical sidenote
 * "benzoes", Benzodiazepine should be included, not a specific drug Diazepam (which is Valium).
 * chlorpromazine is a specific antipsychotic substance, not sure why you listed that.
 * sulfa drug: no idea, I'm not a chemist, I don't think it's vital even after looking at the article.
 * paracetamol, ibuprofen - Painkillers, we list some, not sure why we'd need more. We could list NSAIDs, which includes Ibu and Aspirin. Many people take those. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone who is currently wearing clothes made of plastic fibres, sitting in a chair made of plastic, reading a computer screen made of plastic, typing on a keyboard made of plastic, drinking from a cup made of plastic, I don't know where to begin with a person who doesn't "think the average person benefits more from plastics than from antipsychotics" and who disregards the need for informed opinion in the task of picking vital articles for an encyclopedia. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Cobblet (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention the electricity cables. Other than that you should stop twisting what other contributors say. Go ahead and suggest plastics, I might support some of them. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "... I don't think the average person benefits more from plastics than from antipsychotics." Cobblet in no way "twisted" what you wrote. Lithistman (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Quote from Cobblet: ...who disregards the need for informed opinion in the task... --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and I'm not going to answer to this thread any longer because this is getting weirder by the hour and it's not my obligation to answer to this thread just because I posted the proposal. Obviously the fact of the matter, that is Cobblet's list of suggestions for pharmaceutical drugs, isn't being discussed by anybody. So. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is so appalling and off-putting about the statement "Most of what I just said is not supposed to make sense to a chemist. It's supposed to make sense to an editorial team" is the implication that your inability to understand what we're discussing is helping us. It's not. I don't know how somebody reads Quinine and thinks that the case for listing quinine is confined to "historical importance in Africa" – are you not aware of the almost-global impact of malaria? I don't see the point of trying to discuss which pharmaceuticals are vital with someone who can't appreciate the impact of the antibiotics revolution (I guarantee you everyone here has taken an antibiotic at some point in their life; I can't say that about psychiatric drugs) and why solving antibiotic resistance might be more important to society than curing hallucinations – and how you read Sulfonamide (medicine) and still think penicillin is "the big historic first" is again beyond me.
 * If you actually want to "balance out the different sections" while including something at the level of detail as psychiatric medication (not even antipsychotics) then a handful of articles on antibiotics is easily justifiable. If we agree to list a dozen or so pharmaceuticals, I'll propose adding an equivalent number of industrial chemicals and biological (macro)molecules, and you can expect a few plastics among the former. Where we're going to find space for all of these when chemistry's over quota to begin with and you're also suggesting we double the size of the anatomy section (which I happen to support), I don't know. It's a lot easier convincing people to add things than to remove them. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with . LSD, methamphetamine, Cocaine, crack cocaine, Heroin, and Marijuana should all be on the list. Many of these are ranked among the top 10,000 page views on Wikipedia. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention ecstasy PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The narrowness of our worldview is demonstrated by how suggestions for these drugs come up time and time again while nobody has suggested that War on Drugs or the Mexican Drug War might also be important. Guess those topics are just not as much fun. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Harmonic oscillator
The scope of this article covers simple harmonic motion as well as the more general damped and driven harmonic oscillators, which are essential to mechanics and electrical circuits (RLC circuit). Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 03:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

How about Simple harmonic motion itself? Gizza ( t )( c ) 03:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Two-body problem
This is one of those tutorial problems that professors use to teach concepts, but it's not very insightful and definitely not vital. I would compare it to Atwood machine: the standard demonstration for pulley exercises. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 00:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Symmetry (physics)
I agree with Cobblet that this is probably the better add. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 00:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

This might be a good place to mention that symmetry itself isn't a vital article (symmetry in mathematics is the one linked in the mathematics section). Malerisch (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd swap symmetry in mathematics for symmetry (the former even redirects the reader to the latter for a discussion on geometrical symmetry and I think this is the most vital aspect of the topic) and consider adding binary relation to cover the set-theory concept of "symmetric". Cobblet (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Biot–Savart law, Remove Gauss's law and Ampère's circuital law
We currently list 2 out of the 4 Maxwell's equations, which are the removals that I'm proposing. The other 2 are Gauss's law for magnetism and Faraday's law of induction, which are not listed, but I don't think that they are any less important than the ones we list. I believe that we should remove these two since we already list the overview article. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Agree. The set of equations are vital but not each one individually. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 00:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) SupportPointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I think I prefer the straight removal: the Biot–Savart law is important but not quite on the same level of Maxwell's equations or Ohm's law or even something not on the list like Kirchhoff's circuit laws: coverage of it in magnetostatics ought to suffice for our purposes. In optics I'd make a superficially analogous distinction between Snell's law (which I also think might be more vital than the Biot–Savart law, though I don't think we need to list it if we're listing refraction) than the Beer–Lambert law for example. Cobblet (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Magnetic moment and Electron magnetic dipole moment
I believe that the articles on magnetic moment and electron magnetic dipole moment are adequately covered by the dipole nomination above and the spin nomination below. Malerisch (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 02:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Magnetomotive force
We don't even list magnetic circuit, so I don't see how magnetomotive force is vital. It doesn't appear in standard physics textbooks either. Transformer, which is already listed, should cover the majority of magnetic circuits. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 02:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Internal energy, Heat transfer, and Heat capacity
These are all important to thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support the last two, which are definitely topics of general interest. But it's hard to support something like internal energy when the equivalent concept in chemical thermodynamics (chemical potential) isn't listed – indeed our coverage of physical chemistry in general is far, far less detailed than what is already listed and what you're now proposing to add for physics topics of roughly equal significance. Where is Le Chatelier's principle or calorimetry? Cobblet (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Ignore the analogy to chemical potential – the better chemical analogues are enthalpy and free energy which are in fact listed. Support all three Cobblet (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Well, no one said the chemistry section was close being finished. :) Malerisch (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes (I've been ruminating on some swaps for a long time), but it's over quota; if we don't change it or remove a significant number of elements or compounds (currently comprising 70% of the chemistry list), it will be impossible to approach the same level of coverage physics enjoys. Coverage of biology or the social sciences is similarly less than comprehensive. Cobblet (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Reflection (physics) and Refraction
Key concepts in optics. Yes, refractive index is already listed, but refraction is basic enough that both can be included. The scope of refraction also includes Snell's law. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Refraction is more vital than refractive index in any case. Surprised that these two articles are currently missing. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 11:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Surprised these were missed  Carl  wev   19:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'd prefer to remove refractive index if we're adding refraction. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * That could work. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Nonlinear optics, Optical physics, Photonics, Physical optics, and X-ray optics
Optics is better represented with essential concepts, not fields. Malerisch (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support These subfields are either covered in sufficient detail in optics, or by specific concepts related to that field, or are simply not vital. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Lorentz transformation, Remove Length contraction
I think Cobblet has a good point. Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Quantum tunnelling
Quantum tunnelling is a vital concept in quantum mechanics that is responsible for radioactive decay and plays a major role in the development of semiconductor devices. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not to mention the role in helping us understand the rates of chemical reactions and in the development of the scanning tunneling microscope, which is one of the tools that allows us to see surfaces at the atomic level. Cobblet (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   20:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Relativistic mechanics, Remove Relativistic quantum chemistry
Relativistic quantum chemistry isn't all that vital and is based on theories from relativistic mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Quantum chemistry is already listed. Cobblet (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Wave function
Absolutely vital to quantum mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Spontaneous symmetry breaking
This article may seem important due to the Higgs boson, but there are plenty of other equally important concepts in quantum field theory. The topic doesn't stand out as vital. Malerisch (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Scattering
This article should cover all the types of scattering (none of which are on the list). Most importantly, this includes Compton scattering, Raman scattering, Rayleigh scattering (why the sky is blue), Rutherford scattering, and Thomson scattering.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Stimulated emission
Too similar to laser (in Technology) to be included. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Solar energy
12th of 15 articles that are on the Level 3 list but not the Expanded list. Note that Solar power is already included. Malerisch (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support We include both hydropower and hydroelectricity; this and solar power are the solar analogues. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Malerisch (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   20:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Which is more important: the "energy" or the "power" articles? On Level 3, Hydropower, Nuclear power, and Wind power are listed, yet they are joined by Solar energy, not Solar power. (There is no article on Wind energy, nuclear energy or renewable power.) Malerisch (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The naming conventions aren't consistent from article to article, but basically there are articles about harnessing natural phenomena to do mechanical work (hydropower, solar energy); there are articles specifically about electricity generation (hydroelectricity, solar power); and then there are articles that start off like they want to be the former but end up being the latter (wind power). Cobblet (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add First Transcontinental Railroad
Nominated per the discussion above. I definitely agree that the First Transcontinental Railroad is vital to American history, although I still believe that a modern highway system deserves to be on the list as well. Malerisch (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support Malerisch (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support That railroad was a transportation network of worldwide significance. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Critical historically to American history. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  20:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Coverage of the construction and impact of this railroad is pretty extensive in American frontier which is listed in the History section. Compare Oregon Trail, Manifest destiny, California gold rush or Louisiana Purchase, topics just as important in America's westward expansion which are also not on the list. Cobblet (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Cobblet. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Square root
Covered by nth root which is on the list. So I'm putting this up for discussion. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose At this level I think both are vital: square roots are the most ubiquitous of the fractional exponents. They've played a notable role in mathematical history, being what led ancient mathematicians to realize that irrational numbers exist, or what led to the development of complex numbers, to name some simple examples off the top of my head. Perhaps this sticks out rather oddly because we don't list square number. I think from the perspective of number theory, both might be vital topics in their own right. Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't think this is the best idea, considering that square roots are quite common in mathematics. I don't think anyone would propose removing Square when Polygon is on the list, or Normal distribution/Probability distribution, Euclidean vector/Vector space, etc. Malerisch (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Cobblet and Malerisch. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Nth root is algrebraic. square root is arithmetic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Parity (mathematics)
Fairly well-known concept. Malerisch (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Well known, but pretty minor. Rwessel (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per Rwessel. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Dot product and Cross product
Dot products and cross products are the two basic methods of multiplying vectors. They are used extensively in mathematics, physics, and engineering. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Critical to vector calculus. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Per Malerisch and PointsofNoReturn. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 07:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove John Lennon and Paul McCartney
I can see this one being controversial but do we really need to include these guys twice? Take away their Beatles involvement and their solo careers were not *all* that extraordinary. And Imagine (song) is also included in the Arts section. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Rsm77. Weak for Lennon and Strong for McCartney. Looking at their solo careers in isolation, John and Paul (and George) would still meet the notability criteria but none of them would so notable as to be vital. John Lennon would be the closest but since his most successful song "Imagine" is listed, there is too much overlap. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. No need for the separate articles. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support While their cultural significance certainly extends beyond their tenure as Beatles members, it's not vital. The death of Diana, Princess of Wales is definitely more significant than Lennon's assassination, yet she isn't on the list. Influence in the Cold War? Henry Kissinger undoubtedly had a larger impact, yet even he was removed. They don't need to be twice included. Malerisch (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. The cultural significance of these two men extends beyond the Beatles, including Lennon's assassination as a cultural touchpoint in American history, as well as Sir Paul's ongoing presence on the cultural scene. George and Ringo? They are only significant because of the Beatles. John and Paul's significance runs far deeper than that. Lithistman (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose These men are cultural icons in America and around the world. Their music brought a taste of democracy to people living under communist rule in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Their significance extends even further than their music, which in my view would make them vital by itself. However, I would not mind removing the song Imagine if that is what everyone wants to do. It only really depends on whether the most famous song of a musician should be on the list. I am leaning towards no, but I will have to think it through. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I agree that their cultural significance is such that they warrant individual listing (unlike George and Ringo). Neljack (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose see below  Carl  wev   10:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We still have a Beatles album and 2 Beatles songs and a Lennon song, I think a print encyclopedia, would more likely have entries for these 2 men before 4 of their works. I don't think we should remove them, not while their works are still present at least, just looks a bit to me to do it that way. Looking back it's odd we removed George Harrison before these 4 works. I wouldn't remove Lennon before "Imagine" for example, the man is more vital than one his songs, I would probably support removing Imagine, and maybe a Beatle work or 2 also.  Carl wev   19:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Incidentally, I have thought that All You Need Is Love is a little bit of an odd choice as a song. It is not all that significant - for example it appears at 21 in a Rolling Stone list of best Beatles songs - and several of their songs are more popular - it appears at 10 here on a list of most played songs for the last six months.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We've got "I Want to Hold Your Hand" as well. I don't see how any individual Beatles song is vital, or at least they all seem less important than "Imagine" to me. Maybe a second album besides Sgt. Pepper like Revolver (Beatles album) is a better choice than either song? Cobblet (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Neljack (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are individual songs of songwriters vital in general? If not, how can we have a section on specific works of music? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What made All You Need Is Love distinctive was the situation in which it was first performed and recorded. It's unique in that regard. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While the premise "we already have the Beatles" kind of makes sense, I cannot support removing these while we still include, I wanna hold your hand, All you need is love, Imagine (song), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, if we remove all these I may reconsider. I cannot believe a editors compiling a print encyclopedia would deliberately remove Lennon and McCartney but include 4 Beatles/Lennon works. We only have a total of 66 works of music, and the whole arts section is only 600-odd articles Beatles works currently make 1 in 16 of works of music.  Carl  wev   10:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be true – if others agree then it's a sign we're listing too many songs. I wonder how people feel about Robert Plant vs. Stairway to Heaven, for instance. The former gets twice as many page views. It doesn't look like this proposal's going anywhere, but FWIW I think there's a stronger case to remove McCartney than Lennon. Cobblet (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Salic law, Add Solomonic Dynasty
More than half, specifically 71 out of 135 articles in the Middle Ages section relate to Europe. It makes sense that Europe has the biggest section in Early Modern History since that was when the Age of Discovery, Renaissance and Enlightenment occurred. Even there it makes up a smaller proportion of total articles (35 out of 87). But the Middle Ages section needs some serious balancing.

France alone has 8 articles while Africa in total has 7. There are no articles in relation to East Africa. I picked Salic law as the lowest hanging fruit in the France subsection as it is far less influential than other bodies of law listed such as the Corpus Juris Civilis and Napoleonic Code. The House of Solomon was the longest lasting dynasty within the Ethiopian Empire. It began in the 13th century and lasted well into the 20th. Well known figures part of this dynasty included Menelik II and Haile Selassie.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Support the removal and the motivation behind it. Oppose the addition: we already list History of Ethiopia, and the history of Ethiopia from the 13th century to 1974 is the history of the Solomonic Dynasty. To me this is too much overlap: I don't think it would be a good idea to add Monarchy of Thailand in addition to History of Thailand either. I was going to suggest the Ajuran Sultanate (a mercantile empire that lasted four centuries, saw frequent conflict with its neighbours and Portugal, and left a significant architectural legacy) as a significant East African polity not covered on the list (we don't list History of Somalia). Cobblet (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose removal of Salic law. I see no reason why this should be the lowest hanging fruit and I don't think this section needs to be cut. The middle ages section may need some balancing, but I think it should be achieved by expanding it: Middle Ages has 135, Modern History 170. So I would support the straight addition of Solomonic Dynasty. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Cobblet. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Cobblet. Malerisch (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Lex Salica so meaningful compared to other law texts of that age? There are several other legal texts from that aera, so what makes Salic law special? It was the first text that codified ancient previously unwritten law in the Germanic tradition: the article Ancient Germanic law contains a better description of the contents of Salic law. It gives a description of the social strata of the times, like the discrimination of women (could not inherit real estate) and the fact that perpetrators were punished differently depending on who they killed/injured. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * You are free to start a discussion or proposal to increase the history quota. At the moment I'm undecided as to whether the section should become bigger or stay the same. Currently the history section is over the limit so adding articles on African history and not removing anything else won't work unless a change is made somewhere. But even if the section gets as big as 700, I still think 8 articles on medieval France is way too much. For comparison, there are 9 articles on French early modern and modern history combined not counting the general European articles is all of these sections. And that was when France was globally influential with their colonial empire, Napoleon, and so forth unlike medieval times.
 * With regards to Salic law, bearing in mind that there are two other European legal codes (and one other Middle Eastern) currently listed, for completeness we would have to add other historical codes from countries/cultures with influential legal traditions. The Great Qing Legal Code, Tang Code, the Manusmriti and Kouroukan Fouga are all possibliities. Still not convinced about Salic law. The most important Germanic legal article would either be a more general article like Ancient Germanic law or something more influential like the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Whatever the outcome, these articles including Salic if it stays are better suited to the Law section. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, we're not talking about France but about Francia here - I was already wondering why the section is titled France, I'm not sure what the correct usage is here. Salic law deals with the justice of the Germanic people, which belonged to Francia at that time. Salic Law isn't a legal article like the others you mention, it's significance is more like that of an excavation. It's different from other legal texts because it documents the barbaric circumstances of everyday life of the Germanic tribes.

Maybe the examples above are not quite shocking enough to illustrate the barbarianism of the Salic law, so let me tell you more: under Salic law there was no capital or physical punishment, no incarceration or anything, not even for murder. There were only monetary fines. This translates to: The rich could buy a killing if they wanted. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They can't now lol? I would call that disturbing and elitist, not necessarily barbaric as I associate barbarians with having neither money nor laws of any kind.  But count me as one who is OK with Salic law remaining, though probably in the law section rather than the history section.  p  b  p  13:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Salic law, Add Ajuran Sultanate
In light of 's comments and the lack of further comments and votes by others, this is an alternative to the above. The rationale is basically the same. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, although wouldn't History of Somalia be a better choice. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Malerisch (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removal of Salic law. I see no reason why this should be the lowest hanging fruit and I don't think this section needs to be cut. The middle ages section may need some balancing, but I think it should be achieved by expanding it: Middle Ages has 135, Modern History 170. So I would support the straight addition of Ajuran Sultanate. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See comment on above proposal: Salic Law gives a picture of everyday life in that age. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * So does every other legal code: that alone isn't enough to make a particular one (like the 839th most popular law article) vital. If a reader wants to get a sense of everyday life in the Middle Ages, they're most likely to look for it in Middle Ages. Cobblet (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:V3n0M93, History of Somalia may well be a better choice, but if the history article on the 79th most populous country in the world is considered vital, we've got a lot of similar articles to add. Cobblet (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Population number has nothing to do with history. Austria and Greece have similar population, but their articles are on the list. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, but then I don't know why Ukraine is on the list while Hungary is not. Or Poland but not Lithuania, or Romania but not Bulgaria. Sure, present-day population may be irrelevant but certainly historical population should be a component in determining historical importance. Personally I'm not comfortable nominating History of Somalia unless people are also willing to consider adding the histories of Morocco, Tunisia, Mali, Ghana, Tanzania or Zimbabwe, and that's just in Africa. And frankly, I'd remove History of Austria since Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary and House of Habsburg are all listed. Cobblet (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 10-15 countries off the top of my head that we could add. Maybe we should discuss raising the cap of the history section because IMO we need at least 700 history history article to do at least a decent coverage of the subject. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In general, I think most of the history-of-country-articles should be removed in favor of history-of-region articles. History of the EU looks like an interesting add. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not every country falls in a clearly defined region. Sometimes it is better to have an article about a separate country than the whole region. As for the European Union, I think that it is too recent, although I am biased here because of my political beliefs. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To say nothing of the fact that adjacent countries often have quite divergent histories. Look at Canada, the U.S. and Mexico; or France and Germany.  p  b  p  20:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 24. Whether or not people want more or fewer articles on country histories, I agree that increasing the quota on History is likely necessary. I'd suggest reducing Measurement to 85 (I'll propose some cuts below) and Astronomy to 215 and that'll give you 25 articles; but those are the only cuts I can suggest right now that I think might not be controversial. Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with beefing up history. Maybe reduce the organisms quota a bit?  p  b  p  20:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no specific quota on organisms, and the support for dopamine suggests there's a ton of biochemistry and biology stuff worth adding. Cobblet (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Still 1500 articles IMO is too much. Physics and chemistry have only 275 each. I think we can trim organism to 750-800 and we can still cut the quota and add the necesery article. Another thing we can do is cut 50 articles from the geography quota, as the list is currently 49 articles below quota. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Central Park
The creation of Central Park was a urban planning landmark. It started the trend to build urban parks to break up the neighborhoods. It is also a landmark in New York City, and is a US National Historic Landmark. One note is that Frederick Law Olmstead is already on the list. If need be, we could swap the architect for Central Park.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Central Park is the world's 2nd most-visited tourist attraction with 37.5 million annual visitors (behind only Times Square). Malerisch (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Per Points. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

We don't currently list any urban parks, but both park and urban planning are categorized here. Should this nomination be proposed there instead? Malerisch (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Good catch. I would put it in the category of parks instead. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Socialization
We're missing basic theoretical topics of sociology, like socialization and Social group. The sociology section currently only has 9 articles, plus a few that are hidden in other sections. Socialization describes the process by which an individual adjusts to a group, accepts their norms or copes with them. It's one of the basic concepts in sociology.--Melody Lavender (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Malerisch (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support some overlap with conformity but still just vital IMO. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, (also, Sub-culture is another sociology topic I was pondering over)  Carl  wev   10:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Poison Ivy
This plant is one of the most well-known weeds in the world. Hikers always watch out for it and camp counselors have to make sure that campers do not walk into it. Numerous products have been created to kill this weed and heal the rash. The plant even has a comic book character named after it (Poison Ivy (comics)).


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Vital to campers only. Cobblet (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Nettle would be a better bid imho, but I would also vote against that.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this is we don't have ivy to begin with. Cobblet (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Then lets add ivy too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We are also missing weed. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We can add that too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who owns a house has to deal with this weed. It is how multiple children get rashes in their own backyard. It is not known only to campers. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Anyone who owns a house" – really? Let me know which part of the US you live in so I know never to move there. Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I live in New York, although poison ivy lives almost everywhere in the US and southern Canada. It only doesn't live in the extremely high mountains and the desert. It also has a relative plant in Africa. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Poison ivy redirects to Toxicodendron radicans, and I have a problem with the scope implied by the redirect (I took a stab at the underlying issue in my sandbox:User:Plantdrew/Poison ivy). There are two species of "poison ivy" in North America, and two species of "poison oak". All four species are variable in leaf shape and growth form. They can have leaves with pointed ivy-like teeth, or rounded oak-like lobes. They can grow as ivy-like vines, or scrub oak-like shrubs. Non-botanists can't easily distinguish the 4 species, and people often call the shrubbier plants with rounded leaves "poison oak" and the vinier plants with pointier leaves "poison ivy". Fortunately, two of the species are fairly uncommon, and the common Toxicodendron in eastern North America (T. radicans) has pointier leaves and is mostly known as "poison ivy" and the common Toxicodendron in western North America (T. diversilobum) has more rounded leaves and is mostly known as "poison oak" (though again, any species can grow as an ivy-like vine or an oak-like shrub). I don't see a good reason to pick T. radicans as vital over T. diversilobum (and I think it might be best to discuss all four Toxicodendrons in a single article titled poison ivy, with poison oak as a redirect, which is what I'd started in my sandbox).

However even if there's an article for all four species, there's some North American bias to listing it as vital. There are other Toxicodendron species in Asia, and there are plants in other genera in the Anacardiaceae family occurring throughout the world that also produce urushiol (e.g. Metopium brownei). If there's a globally vital concept here, it's probably urushiol-induced contact dermatitis, not one urushiol producing species. Plantdrew (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That would work. As you said, it is hard to choose one plant as the vital one. I also did not mention Poison Sumac and the other plants around the world. My only question for that article is where we put it. It could go in plants or in health. I would put it in health. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Question on recent proposals
User:Malerisch, you're proposing a net add of over 20 articles: Physics is under quota but not by that much. Most of the adds and removals look pretty good to me but I'm not a physics major, so it's hard for me to see whether we're giving each subfield of physics the attention it deserves, or if we're introducing more imbalances into the list. Notable omissions I've noticed in the past include photoluminescence, X-ray crystallography (the most extensively used crystallographic technique), Planck's law (you're nominating black-body radiation) and Network analysis (electrical circuits): I'm curious to hear your opinion on these. How did you come up with your nominations? I do appreciate you taking a stab at this – the physics section has desperately needed an overhaul. Cobblet (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the net add to below 20 now (16, if I counted correctly) with some of your feedback, so hopefully that's better. I don't think luminescence is in the list yet, so that should probably come before photoluminescence. X-ray crystallography is a good add that I would support, although I remember that a previous nomination of it failed. Network analysis is also good, but I think it would fit just as well under Electronics than Physics. I didn't have any real method to my nominations other than just scanning through each section and seeing what was missing or needed to be removed. Thanks for asking! Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned a few times below that I think the topics you're picking might be too esoteric for our purposes. I know there was (and still is) plenty of even more esoteric stuff on the list than what you're suggesting, but I decided to walk through WikiProject Physics/Popular pages just to give myself some perspective on what people generally read. I'm glad my suggestion of X-ray crystallography seems to be completely vindicated (#53, compared to crystal at #252). (BTW I think luminescence is too close to light and photoluminescence is more vital than other forms of it – since we already list fluorescence maybe it's better to just add phosphorescence to complete our coverage.)
 * Anyway, some of the things I noticed we don't have are thermocouple, piezoelectricity, drag (physics), hysteresis, solenoid, and especially oscillation-related concepts like simple harmonic motion, vibration and damping. Some material properties like Young's modulus, thermal conductivity and thermal expansion surprised me by their popularity. Heat transfer is definitely a good add and we should probably add thermal conduction as well since we've listed convection and radiation. Cobblet (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about thermocouple since we already list thermometer. I don't think we have any electronic measuring instruments though, so multimeter would be a good add. Not too sure about piezoelectricity either, but leaning towards support. Drag and hysteresis are good adds. I was considering solenoid, but it seemed too similar to inductor, which is in Electronics. I added harmonic oscillator for both simple harmonic motion and damping, but I don't think vibration is necessary since we already list oscillation. I think elastic modulus is a better choice than Young's modulus since it covers all 3 primary moduli. Agree on the 3 thermal articles. Malerisch (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I still like thermocouple anyway, but OK. I can support multimeter; we do already list oscilloscope. I just noticed we're missing electromagnet, so forget about solenoid for now. Cobblet (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove all experiments?
A previous discussion can be found here (it does get a little sidetracked though). I think the experiments should be removed since they should be covered in the appropriate subject articles (e.g. double-slit experiment and wave–particle duality). Here's the list: Two other notable experiments that aren't listed are the Cavendish experiment and the Stern–Gerlach experiment. If you oppose, should we add these experiments, along with the double-slit experiment? Malerisch (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Geiger–Marsden experiment (covered in Atomic nucleus)
 * 2) Oil drop experiment (covered in Electric charge)
 * 3) Michelson–Morley experiment (covered in Interferometry in Technology)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per my comments below. If we list explorers but not their expeditions, we should list experimentalists but not their experiments. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support a complete and balanced coverage of experiments will make the section too large. The most important of them are covered in the theory and physicist articles as stated by Malerisch and Cobblet. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Across the sciences, Wikipedia's pretty uneven in choosing which experiments to have specific articles for. There's no dedicated article on Lavoisier's refutation of phlogiston theory or his work on the conservation of mass, or Pasteur's work on vaccination or chirality, or Jean-Henri Fabre's observations of Pine Processionary caterpillars. Mendel's and Pavlov's experiments are covered by the concepts they introduced, while Darwin's work on orchids is covered by his publication of the results. The Miller–Urey experiment gets its own article and so does the voltaic pile. Physics experiments tend to be much better represented than experiments of other disciplines but even here there are gaps – I'd like to see an overview of Faraday's electricity experiments. I tend to agree we should remove the experiments for now, partly for the reason Malerisch gave, partly because the experiments are generally covered in the biographies of the experimentalists, and partly because I don't think we should reinforce Wikipedia's own biases. Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I see no reason for a bulk removal. VA is not Wikiproject Outline. Individual experiments can be more important than the coverage in an article. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose If anything, we should add a few experiments. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose; I agree with PointsofNoReturn. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Analytical mechanics, Lagrangian mechanics, and Hamiltonian mechanics
These serve as the complement to Newtonian mechanics. They're definitely required knowledge for physics majors and used quite extensively both in classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support based off off of page views. otherwise I do not understand any of this. I did not take physics ever. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics are ubiquitous enough in college-level physics that I think they deserve their own spots on this list. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the relative importance of these 3 articles can be compared to thermodynamic potential vs. internal energy and enthalpy: the overview article is less important than the specific topics themselves. If page views can serve as justification, analytical mechanics had 8200 hits in the last 90 days while Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics had 38000 and 39000 hits, respectively. I would be okay with just adding the last two. The overview article also wouldn't cover Lagrangian, Euler–Lagrange equation, and action (physics) in sufficient detail (all important concepts in these articles). Malerisch (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably best I stay neutral on the mathematical physics proposals for now. I know everything you've said is true but I'm simply out of my depth when it comes to this and wave equation – will somebody else with formal training in physics offer an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Elastic modulus
Important concept in solid mechanics. The article covers the Young's modulus, Shear modulus, and Bulk modulus. Malerisch (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Thermodynamic process and Thermodynamic cycle
Again, both are important to thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support thermodynamic cycle only, which should not only cover the concept of a thermodynamic process (in fact even the article on thermodynamics covers this) but concepts of state and path functions as well, which are no less fundamental but not quite important enough IMO to deserve an article on their own. Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Agreed. Malerisch (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Transparency and translucency
Another basic optics concept. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   20:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support; how on earth was this missed?. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

If scattering included a more extensive discussion on light scattering I imagine there would be mention of these concepts there. Perhaps that's stretching it, I'm not sure. Or maybe the quantitative concept of transmittance, which also incorporates discussion of the Beer–Lambert law, is a better addition. Cobblet (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I suppose dispersion does overlap with refraction/refractive index too much. How about these suggestions instead, in addition to transmittance? Ray (optics), Optical resolution, and Huygens–Fresnel principle. Malerisch (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel ray is the kind of thing that should just be covered by optics, and both superposition and the Huygens–Fresnel principle should be covered by wave. I thought about listing optical resolution once but a discussion of resolving power ought to go under Tech if the stuff on lenses is also listed there. Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Kerr effect
Not any more vital than other topics in nonlinear optics like the Pockels effect or optical rectification. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Second-harmonic generation might be the most important topic in nonlinear optics but I don't think that's vital; in fact I don't think the article on this entire sub-subfield of physics (how many such articles do we have in other disciplines?) is vital either. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. Too specific. Optics is more than enough. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Equivalence principle and Principle of relativity
These are some of the most fundamental concepts in the theory of relativity. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

OK, I can support adding equivalence principle and principle of relativity. Maybe the latter is even better than the Lorentz transform. You're right: I'd completely forgotten that math is the other big exception when it comes to abstract topics. One essential role for an encyclopedia is precisely to provide a comprehensive overview of knowledge, even in areas that are less popular than Pokemon. Reaching this objective for all fields of knowledge within a limit of 10,000 articles is the big challenge: we come much closer to meeting it in physics and math than anywhere else on the list. Proposals to add social science topics of even slightly specialized focus like morphology (linguistics), family law and public policy haven't achieved consensus. Ditto for geography (Darling River, Luoyang, French Polynesia), and history is over quota so good luck trying there. Coverage of abstract topics in chemistry or biology is also sparse to non-existent. How we expect to fix these issues when we're so attached to subway systems and living/dining rooms (I had to kick and scream to get the airplane makers removed too) is beyond me.
 * Discussion

On QM vs. relativity: the dominant role that QM plays in atomic and particle physics accounts for much of the bias – the case could be made that we don't need to list QCD or QED if we already have Standard Model and discussions of the fundamental interactions. It's not like we have no examples of the consequences of general relativity, even if they're a bit tangential (physical cosmology, supermassive black hole), but the consequences of QM have found more practical application at this point in time. Gravitational lensing is cool, but I'm not sure it's found enough use in observational astronomy (we don't even list that) to warrant inclusion; quantum tunnelling (not on the list either) is cool and has been used to build diodes and microscopes, and I'd be much more inclined to include it. Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Quantum tunnelling is definitely a good add—I thought that it might have some overlap with the uncertainty principle and wave–particle duality, but it is important enough to have a separate article. Malerisch (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Black-body radiation
This is a key concept in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The origins of QM can be traced to our inability to solve this problem with classical mechanics in the 19th century. Cobblet (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Gauge theory
Gauge theories are the theoretical basis for much of modern physics, most notably the Standard Model. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Would listing this obviate the need to separately list gauge boson, particularly when we already list the gauge bosons individually? Cobblet (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I would rather keep gauge boson. We list both fermion and lepton, so it makes sense to list both boson and gauge boson. Malerisch (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Energy level, Remove Excited state
More general and detailed article; covers ground state as well. Also covers the fine structure and hyperfine structure. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Even better than my suggestions above. Cobblet (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As of right now, energy level has had 20,752 page views in the last 60 days compared to 13,118 page views for excited state. The former's tagged by the chemistry, physics and spectroscopy wikiprojects; the latter only by physics. So I don't think what ML's saying is true. Concepts of quantized energy levels and transitions between them are more extensively covered in the former but not the latter: the former article is indeed more general. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Excited state is the article people are going to look up when they try to understand quantum mechanics, not energy level. I'd support a straight add however. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose the removal per Melody Lavender. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I saw the numbers. They are just raw facts that need interpretation. The reason why the numbers are higher on Excited state is probably that Energy level is of interest to chemistry and other projects as well, as you mentioned. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And the reason that it's of interest to other wikiprojects besides physics is precisely because it's the more general article... Cobblet (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Quantum number, Remove Principal quantum number
There are 4 quantum numbers (for electrons). Why do we only list one? This is not the best idea. As I stated below, we already include the concept of quantum number, and adding it would be unnecessary overlap. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose as nom. (This doesn't happen very often...) I prefer the removal below. Malerisch (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Prefer the straight removal for reasons discussed in the following proposal (quantum numbers are already covered by electron configuration and atomic orbital). Cobblet (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per the overlap with electron configuration. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Principal quantum number and Electron shell
The concept of quantum numbers is wholly covered in atomic orbital and Pauli exclusion principle. Electron shell is redundant with electron configuration. Malerisch (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Electron shells are an obsolete theory based on the Bohr model (which is also listed); they predate and have been replaced by the current quantum-mechanical concept of atomic orbitals. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support; the existing articles are enough to cover the concepts here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removing Electron shell, support removing principal quantum number. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose removing Electron shell, support removing principal quantum number. We should have the general quantum number article though and a few of the main principles. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose removing Electron shell, support removing principal quantum number. --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

I suggest removing Pauli exclusion principle as this has to be included in any discussion of quantum numbers. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about a swap of the Pauli exclusion principle for quantum state? Malerisch (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that that's the sort of topic that should just be covered by quantum mechanics... I thought you were worried about overrepresenting QM :) Cobblet (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In general, I'm not too sure how best to distribute or allocate coverage of electron configuration – apart from that, we've also got electron shell, atomic orbital, and now we're proposing to add quantum number... the overlap here is probably more than is desirable. I think we can get rid of electron shell (add valence (chemistry) to replace it) and maybe we don't need to list quantum number as both electron configuration and atomic orbital should cover the concept. Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing electron shell is a good idea, but I don't think we should remove both Pauli exclusion principle and quantum number. Since quantum numbers are pretty much covered in atomic orbital, could we keep Pauli exclusion principle then? Malerisch (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All right. Cobblet (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Wave equation
The Wave section is definitely incomplete without this article. Don't confuse this with wave function! Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Superposition principle
Superposition is a fundamental concept in waves. This article should also cover standing waves and quantum superposition, which are not on the list. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Boiling point and Melting point
We already list boiling and melting. There isn't enough distinction between the two to keep them. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The articles on these phase transitions ought to cover the idea that they occur at specific temperatures and the significance of that. Cobblet (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel common phase transitions are important enough to list separately, but I'm not sure whether phase transition temperatures should also be separately listed... leaning towards no. Critical point (thermodynamics) and triple point could be replaced by phase diagram, could they not? Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The articles on these points also focus on how the boiling points and melting points of substances can be changed by pressure as well as other ways. If anything, these articles are more important than boiling and melting. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * To make sure, you're proposing to remove boiling point and melting point instead, right?
 * A phase diagram certainly contains the locations of the critical point and triple point, but I'm not sure if the article's main purpose is to describe what they actually are. We shouldn't be adding diagrams when we don't list free body diagram, pressure volume diagram, circuit diagram, or Minkowski diagram. (Or Feynman diagram.) Malerisch (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd remove boiling and melting points instead. And that's fine: phase (matter) also covers both concepts in its discussion of phase diagrams (they're usually introduced associated with one another which is why I brought up the swap). I should note that I don't think critical and triple points are vital enough to list on their own. Cobblet (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Add JavaScript
As Malerisch said further up, much of the Web is built on it. JavaScript was essential for the advent of web 2.0. Thanks to Ajax it's still around and growing in poularity. So this should be discussed. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support From the article on jQuery, it's used by over 80% of the 10,000 most visited websites. Malerisch (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

The technology section may or may not be bloated, but these programming languages are certainly more important than, say, provable security, forward error correction, or abstract machine. Malerisch (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Emergency management
The overarching article for dealing with the management, mitigation and relief for all types of disasters.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--V3n0M93 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support but not in Engineering: p  b  p  04:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support but not in Engineering. I think Cobblet's concerns have been addressed with the proposed additions of public policy and international relations., I think you should close this one. Management is currently listed in Society and social sciences, so that might be a good place to add it. Malerisch (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose This article or crisis management would belong under government or management as it is one type of policy and decision-making; but when neither public policy nor broad and highly notable subdivisions or concepts within it like international relations or social contract aren't listed (although agricultural policy is surprisingly present) I don't think we're in a position to consider adding something like this. Cobblet (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Is Engineering the best place for this to be added? That section seems to be filled mostly with engineering fields. It might be better placed in Society and social sciences or another section in Technology. Malerisch (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Relative prominence of soccer vs. Big Three American sports
We seem to be nearing a consensus that there are too many American athletes on this lest. To me, a large portion of this seems attributable to the relative prominence of athletes of the sports of baseball, basketball and American football. Baseball and basketball are big in the United States, Canada, Venezuela and the Caribbean, but take a backseat to soccer elsewhere. American football is played almost exclusively in the United States and Canada. Yet, baseball, basketball and American football have 25 athletes (18.6%) on this list; and 23 of those 25 are American. Soccer has but 17 (12.6%) on this list, and 16 of them aren’t American (it is widely played and followed globally). As such, the combined athletes in baseball, basketball and American football should probably be 10 or less. p b  p  20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support having no more than 10 athletes in baseball, basketball and American football
 * 1)  p  b  p  20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think we should have some ceiling number, and ten is fine. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support There is a whopping US bias in sports, it needs to be reined in. The claim that baseball is popular in Latin America etc. is false, they are occasionally played but have hardly any relevance at all in the general sports picture they are not broadcast or followed. These are par excellence American sports tailored to an American audience, and fueled by American media. Any importance they have outside of the US is due to local US fetichism. In Europe for example Handball is at least as popular as Basketball yet has zero representation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Too many athletes period, and too biased towards Americans. Rwessel (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support the general principle and reduction. Maybe not quite as low as 10. It will depend on the what the consensus is for the total number of sports figures. I don't know how a proposal making the number of US athletes proportionate to their worldwide popularity and impact on wider society is "anti-American" any more than the current relative under-representation of the rest of world is motivated by anti-Asian, anti-European, anti-African sentiments, etc. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, these sports aren't that populat outside the US. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose having no more than 10 athletes in baseball, basketball and American football
 * 1) I know it's outdated and has its biases, but I still find ESPN's Top North Americans of the Century an interesting reference point. Leaving out the Canadian hockey players, the top 25 Americans (your suggested figure for this list) include six baseball players, five basketball players, and three football players, as well as Jim Thorpe. That over half (15/25) of America's most vital athletes should come from these sports sounds about right to me, so I think ten would be too few. The glut of Americans on our list isn't just in those sports: it's also obvious in boxing, golf and tennis. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as a blanket rule. What we should do is what Cobblet suggests here, that is turn to a reliable reference book and figure out what the overall world notability (in the English-speaking world, as this is English Wikipedia) is for various sports figures. The plurality of users of English Wikipedia live in the United States, and many of the other users of English Wikipedia live in the "inner circle" of countries where the majority of residents are native speakers of English. If we use published reference books and authoritative professionally edited online resources that serve the English-speaking world as guides (this goes for all topics on the Vital Articles list), we should be able to achieve consensus about how to refine the list so that it is maximally useful for our fellow Wikipedians and all readers of Wikipedia. My experiences differ from everyone else's, and I say nothing here about how Spanish Wikipedia, Chinese Wikipedia, or Hindi Wikipedia should be edited, but for English Wikipedia let's turn early and often to reference books and professionally edited specialist websites to guide our editorial decisions about what to add and what to remove to level 4 of the vital articles project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose What everyone seems to forget is that many of the American sports leagues are popular in other countries. For example, baseball is played in Japan and Latin American, American football is adapted to Canadian football, basketball is popular in Europe, and hockey is played in Canada and Europe. These American leagues are simply the top level of their respective sports. It would be illogical to remove players in these leagues for players that are not as good in other leagues. Not to mention that many of these players in these leagues are not American. With respect to the other leagues, we should keep the best American players and then add in other players from around the world. A mass deletion of Americans would simply shrink the list and make it less comprehensive. In other words, if you want to remove someone from the list, propose someone in return. Being an American does not make a person less vital, and if you want to remove Americans from a certain tier, others should also be removed that are at the same tier of their sport. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for reasons stated well above. Also, there seems to be some anti-Americanism driving some of the decisions on these proposals. Lithistman (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

, considering that list (which BTW is also available at SportsCentury, the obvious next step is to nominate any 20th century figures who are off the list, or way, way down the list, for deletion. You are correct that there is also a glot in boxing, golf and tennis.  I just nominated Palmer for removal and I'm going to follow that up with Hogan and Snead.  Could you tackle the boxing glut?  p  b  p  22:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I'd probably nominate Marciano and Sugar Ray Leonard for removal, but I'll think about it a little more first. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Marciano it is. I was thinking of him too.  p  b  p  14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think 130-some-odd athletes is too many in relation to everything else we have on this list, and I am perfectly comfortable with the list of athletes being shrunk to 100 and 30 people being added somewhere else. While basketball is played in Europe, it's not anywhere near as big a deal as a) basketball here, and b) soccer in Europe.  Also, while we have two non-American baseball players, we don't have a single non-American basketball player or Canadian football player, and we probably shouldn't, as the most talented of they wouldn't make the top 10 all time (Consider that there are no Canadian footballers in the SportsCentury top 50).  p  b  p  23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I am quite fine with the amount of sports figures that are on the list. The 134 sports figures currently on the list is comparable to all the main sections of the list of people. Some sections have fewer people simply because there are fewer people in those fields. For example, explorers only consist of 30 people because there were fewer explorers in history. Meanwhile, the politicians and leaders section has 473 people on the list. The number of sports figures we have is a fair amount considering how many people we have in other topics on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , So you're saying it's OK to have as many athletes as religious figures, even though religious figures have been around for a much longer period of time, and are of greater global importance than athletes? p  b  p  01:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "there were fewer explorers in history." Cobblet (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I support an overall reduction of sports figures to 100. 100 out of 2000 people is still a lot when you consider that it is just one of many branches of entertainment. These people only cover about 150 years of history as well. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that sports figures are one of the most vital types of entertainers. The fact that they cover 150 years of history does not mean the number of them should be reduced. I am quite content with the amount of the athletes present on the list as of now. To be honest, I would rather have 200 athletes on the list because that is how vital they are to the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess we can agree to disagree. I believe that individual entertainers themselves are generally not that vital let alone those connected to sport. The other issue with the sports figures list, is that they invariably only deal with professional sports. Sport can vital as entertainment or a recreational activity, something you do or play instead of watch on TV. For instance, rock climbing is vital while no rock climber would be vital. IMO, the fact that sports biographies can only be vital from an entertainment perspective only also weakens their case for inclusion. I think that if the Gender gap didn't exist or was reversed, we would be seeing a lot more fashion designers and models among other sorts of people listed, probably at the expense of sports figures. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'd support a massive reduction in the number of athletes on the list. IMO, either they'd need to have immense dominance in a sport (and more so than say Michael Jordon or Mohamed Ali - IOW, I doubt that we could find a dozen meeting that criteria), or having some major influence or innovation in the conduct/execution of their sport (again, only a handful of possibilities), or a major non-sporting influence on their sport or world (a handful of people like Jesse Owens).  Athletes who are merely good at there sport, even for a fairly long time, or merely setting ordinary records, are simply not, IMO, that important to the world.  Rwessel (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But is importance to the world a criteria for inclusion into a list of vital articles? Or is it prominence of an athlete among other athletes? I am going for the latter. Technically, very few athletes actually affected history in any way. I am happy with the amount of athletes we list right now. Baseball can be trimmed by a bit, as I am doing right now. The other sports are not that bad. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. There are luminaries in a lot of other fields that are missing.  p  b  p  01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , if mine (and others') attempts to remove American athletes from this list is "anti-American", I'd counter that the current distribution of American athletes is jingoist.  Americans make up 5% of the American population; they are not entitled to 50% of the athletes.  p  b  p  01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And with this post you prove my point. LHMask me a question 02:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , So you're saying that even if American athletes is bloated, it's anti-American to fight that bloat? p  b  p  04:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying each athlete article should be judged in a vacuum, leaving nationality aside. And I'm also saying that just because there are many American athlete articles included doesn't mean they're "bloated." En.wikipedia has a large base of American users, which means that "vital" articles in En.wiki should have an American "flavor", so-to-speak. And the general tenor of some of the discussions on VA pages has been disturbing to me, as "too American" seems to be an acceptable argument here. That's what I'm saying. LHMask me a question 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , If we leave 25-30 American athletes out of 100-120 total athletes, it will still have an American "flavor". If we're cutting athletes, most of the low-lying fruit ripe for cuts are American, because the non-Americans on here have generally made unambiguously significant contributions to the field of sports.   p  b  p  20:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no problem with removing any athlete if, in a vacuum not taking into account their nationality at all, that athlete's article is judged to be non-vital. But nationality should never, at any point, play a role in the discussion. And I see far too many discussions here (and this is not just a problem with athletes) where American nationality is being used as an argument against an article being added or for an article being removed. That is just utterly unacceptable in the English Wikipedia. Can you imagine similar "too French" or "too Nigerian" arguments being made in the equivalent encyclopedias? LHMask me a question 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore,, it seems a lot easier for an American athlete to get or stay on this list than a) an American in other categories, or b) an athlete in other countries p  b  p  22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the number of sportspeople needs to be reduced, although I find it interesting that none of the most popular athletes from ancient times (charioteers, gladiators, Ancient Olympic victors, etc.) are included. Probably the most target-rich categories are Tennis & Athletics: neither are sports as popular as soccer, American football, baseball, or basketball, but both have 14 entries while baseball has 10 & people want to pare that one down. I'd also like to point out that paring any category down means blood will be spilled -- someone will be upset because one or more deserving athlete must be removed from this list. -- llywrch (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If there were only 25-30 American athletes, who would they be?
I think it’s time to throw a hand grenade in the athletes section. The way I would go about it is to remove all the American athletes, who will still constitute over 40% even if the presently-proposed removals passed. I think we should remove all the American athletes, and then only add back 25-30 of them. So that’s gotten me thinking about which they should be. I’ve only come up with 11 so far: Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Muhammed Ali, Jack Nicklaus, Billy Jean King, Michael Phelps, Jesse Owens, Babe Didrikson, and Jim Thorpe. Any thoughts on the others? p b  p  20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion on 25-30 American athletes


 * Support proposal to remove all American athletes and add 25-30 back as needed
 * 1)  p  b  p  20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think 30 American sports figures is about right. I prefer the more conventional method where we discuss which people should be removed instead of removing them all and then asking who should be re-added. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Lithistman (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I think the conventional method is best. But to comment on your list above I don't think Billie Jean King is a shoo-in by any means. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Joe Montana and Jerry Rice should also be on the list. Otherwise you are leaving out American Football completely. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

American Baseball Players
There are too many American ballplayers. Considering that it is mainly played in the US, I would support removing four ballplayers from the list of 9. I will be proposing four separate removals in the next few days in order to balance the list a bit more. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support removing at least five. There should be fewer baseball players than cricketers or basketball players since both those sports have greater international popularity (baseball is no longer an Olympic sport for this reason). Cobblet (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks PointsofNoReturn, that sounds good. I'd been thinking that baseball could do with some trimming too. Neljack (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call on culling baseball. p  b  p  13:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's rather astounding to watch what's going on here. From people acting like baseball is only (or chiefly) played in the U.S., to others seeming to not understand that an article's "vitality" should be about more than the players "advanced metrics", the argument seems to be less about making sure a given article is actually vital, and more about finding select American articles to prune from the list of athletes. As I've noted up and down these pages, articles should be judged on their merits, not on whether certain sections need "pruned" of a given sport or nationality. LHMask me a question 17:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , What I find astounding is that there are 2-3x as many American athletes on this list as there are American political leaders. I had to move heaven and earth to get Henry Clay onto the list, while people are opposing removing the 3rd-best American golfer or the 8th-best American baseball player.  I believe that athletes are generally not as significant to the grand scheme of things as political, scientific or literary figures; as such, I believe the total number of athletes should be less than 100.  I also find it unfortunate that when people cite "greatest athletes" lists, they invariably cite American lists, rather than lists from the 95% of the world.  p  b  p  20:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The vast plurality (2-to-1 over second place) of English speakers are from America. I have no problem at all with the VA lists (both athletic and non-athletic) being made up of many America-related articles. LHMask me a question 23:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So,, you're saying that the vital articles list should only care about the English-speaking world? p  b  p  00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Read it again. That's not what I wrote, and I think you know it. LHMask me a question 02:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , you use prominence in the English-speaking world as justification for American bloat. How else am I supposed to read that?   p  b  p  05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're free to misconstrue what I write in whatever way you like. But I never--not once--wrote anything resembling "I think the vital articles list should only care about the English-speaking world." I made some salient points, and you interpreted them in a way that has almost no relation to the truth of what I wrote. But I've come to the conclusion that the whole VA exercise seems like little more than navel-gazing, and I'm done wasting time with it. I've remove all VA pages from my watchlist. Good luck pruning your list. LHMask me a question 23:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My two cents on American bias: The concept of vitality isn't really well-defined. That's what makes it so difficult. Everybody has their own idea about it, and it might be worth writing up a definition that makes it easier. There is no general policy on Wikipedia saying that the content should be diversified internationally. However, there is an essay on systemic bias which is not an official policy. It comes to the conclusion that an international scope should be aimed at in order to achieve WP:NPOV, which, of course, is an official policy.

Even if we came to the conclusion that VA should reflect only the interests of the English-speaking world, that would mean we have to include several other countries that have English as their first language and/or official language: India, Nigeria, South Africa, Philipines, UK, Australia, NZ. Many English native speakers are in Singapore and Hong Kong. Then the entire academic world works and turns in English. Most universities in Europe and Eastern Europe offer English-speaking courses of study. Literally all important academic publication work is done in English. These are all countries to be included, even if we ignore that English is the lingua franca of the world.

I think what is trying to say is that there should be some bias towards Americans because they make up most of the English-speaking world. That may be true, but these statistics only count native speakers and ignore the number of people who have English as a second language or third or whatever. These may need encyclopedic information in English just as much as natives.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Cy Young
Not ranked very highly on the lists I mentioned above in the my comment on Mantle - he's ranked   18th by SABR, 14th by Sporting News, 18th by ESPN, 23rd by Bill James, and isn't in the AP's top 10. In fact, he's not even the highest ranked pitcher on any of these lists, with Walter Johnson ranked ahead of him on them all. Bill James has Paige (whom we've just removed) ahead of him too. And Mantle's ranked ahead of him on most of them, with only the Sporting News having Young slightly ahead. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Neljack. There are literally hundreds of prizes named after people, many of which are sports-related. Having an award named after you doesn't automatically qualify you as vital, and there certainly isn't a strong correlation between those whose names are on prizes and those who are vital. Malerisch (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn is basically suggesting below that we remove Willie Mays instead, but Cy Young seems like a less significant figure to me. Cobblet (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Change to Support. My belief in balancing and overall reducing the size of the sports figures' list is stronger than my belief in variety within the baseball list. The other proposals are going nowhere. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose. LHMask me a question 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per PointsofNoReturn. The greatest pitcher should be on the list before the 6th or 7th greatest batter.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Cy Young's name is on the award given to the finest pitcher in baseball every year. Whatever the various statistical rankings say, his influence goes far beyond the sheer numbers of his career. The same is also the case with Satchel Paige, though to a lesser extent. I feel the removal of the Paige article was a travesty, and this article's removal would be even worse. LHMask me a question 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us about the nature of his influence? Because his article (a GA) doesn't have much to say about it. Having an award named after you is hardly sufficient to establish that he is vital in this context. Frankly, there are too many baseballers - arguably too many sportspeople in general - and some difficult choices need to be made. Neljack (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As an American baseball fan, I do not like removing baseball players. Sadly, though, we have to make choices. In all honesty, baseball is a major sport, but is not that major around the world. I am willing to remove a few more baseball players based off of international attention to the sport. However, I do agree that removing Cy Young is a bad idea. 7 baseball players might be low enough. Then we can make room for athletes from other sports around the world. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're serious about cutting baseball players down to seven, which seven would you want on the list? I understand it's tough to cut the only pitcher left, but if not him, then who? Cobblet (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For 7, I would keep Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Cy Young, Sadaharu Oh, Roberto Clemente, and Ty Cobb. I would like to keep Lou Gehrig because of his famous speech at the end of his career and all of his accomplishments, so I would leave it at 8. That would leave the baseball list at less than half of the soccer list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Cy Young was the greatest pitcher of all time. He is first in wins with 511 wins. He is first in innings pitched. He pitched 25 and a third straight hitless innings. He is the only pitcher we have on the list. Willie Mays was a great hitter but we already have even better hitters on the list like Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We currently only have a single programming language on the list (C). Over the course of the last year several people have suggested to add more. Vital Article Lists on foreign language Wikipedias usually include ten or twelve, including the list on Meta which should provide a guideline for all Wikipedias. Programming languages are here to stay. They will be as important a revolution as the steam engine was. In my estimate, progamming languages will be taught on an increasing scale and I think they have the potential of becoming equally as important as mathematics. So I'm going to suggest the two most widely used object oriented languages: --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can support adding more programming languages but in general the computing section is the most bloated of all of the sections in technology. Wikipedia's bias towards computer geeks/IT savvy people is probably its strongest bias of all since people who are not comfortable with computers never make an edit here. There are eight operating systems listed, many of which overlap with the IT companies listed. There are also anomalies like blog, computer monitor, mouse (computing)/computer keyboard and floppy disk being listed while article (publishing), television set, remote control and VCR are not. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Meta list is awful. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look of the Meda lists Cobblet and I agree with you. I suspect they are copies of an older English Wikipedia version. Despite being a list meant for everyone in the world it is more unbalanced than the current en-wiki version in most areas. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Add C++
Today's other major programming language. Mostly used for object oriented programming it can in may ways be compared to Java but is less strict than Java. It has the potential of staying a major influence and leaving a historic mark.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support. as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Where is C on the list? Among computer languages, C++ lives as a dialect of C, and I'm curious about what treatment we have of C and other computer languages so far on the vital articles lists. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * C is currently listed here. Malerisch (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * C++ is much more than a dialect of C. C++ is a new language with classes and lots of libraries. It is based on C, which has only 32 or so keywords. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What Melody says is true: C++ is a very different beast compared to C. But I'd point out that there are technology topics of a lot more fundamental significance than programming languages that we're missing (adze, bag, airfoil, basket weaving, digital photography, four-stroke engine, composite material, medical radiography, prosthesis, center pivot irrigation). Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on most of these, except for basket weaving - we have weaving. Four-stroke engine strikes me as the most powerful proposal among these topics. They aren't a replacement though for programming languages. We shouldn't just diversify the list historically. There are recent develpments that are going to be of lasting importance, and it's up to us now to judge which ones those will be, in order to put them on the vitals list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't really up to us to judge when we're not academic historians specializing in recent technological developments; either it has to be self-evident to everyone or we need some evidence that "going to be of lasting importance" is not just a personal opinion. If you also consider Fortran and COBOL vital then how many programming languages do you want to add? Others have pointed out that IT isn't poorly represented on the list and one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it remains a recent blip in the history of technology. Cobblet (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * IT isn't well represented either. There many fields of it that aren't well covered. I think these topics are more important than listing say 15 different types of fabric. Also keep in mind that technology is still 28 articles bellow quota. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd consider everything in the fabric section except for canvas more vital than C++. Cobblet (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed my vote. There are more vital programming topics missing. It's better to have them instead of another C-language. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Roberto Clemente
Ranked even lower - 20th by both SABR and the Sporting News, 34th by ESPN, 74th by Bill James, and not in the AP top 10. One of only two non-American baseballers on the list, but it's better to seek national diversity through increasing the representation of sports that aren't popular in the English-speaking world, rather than including non-American baseballers whose inclusion can't be objectively justified. Neljack (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support For a region that's got less than 0.6% of the world's population, the Caribbean contribution to sport is definitely not underrepresented when we have Usain Bolt, Garfield Sobers and Viv Richards. Nobody is complaining about the lack of a non-American basketball player (Hakeem Olajuwon, Dirk Nowitzki and Yao Ming say hi) despite that being a sport with more international popularity; why such concern for international diversity in baseball? Cobblet (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Per Neljack. Cobblet makes a good point on basketball being a more popular sport than baseball internationally but not having any non-Americans listed. And the Caribbean is well represented with Bolt, Sobers and Richards. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong oppose. LHMask me a question 17:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Lithistman PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Lithistman and I would oppose the removal Sadaharu Oh as well. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

These nominations are almost becoming ludicrous. As per my note on Cy Young above, this isn't about his statistics! Roberto Clemente's influence goes well beyond his basic statistics. There is a reason Major League Baseball named an award after him. LHMask me a question 17:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Comment: If we are going to have an international baseball player on this list, Clemente is the best candidate. And if the Caribbean is to be represented on the athletes lists, baseball is probably the sport to do it with.  p  b  p  20:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the other international baseballer we have, Sadaharu Oh, is a better candidate. He is probably the greatest player in Japan League history and is the worldwide home run career record-holder. And there is at least one other Caribbean athlete on the list - Usain Bolt. Given the success of Caribbean nations in sprinting, that seems to me to be at least as appropriate a sport as baseball to have a Caribbean athlete from. Neljack (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How many native English speakers know who Sadaharu Oh is? Ask yourself the same question about Roberto Clemente. That should close the case. LHMask me a question 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LHM, it has nothing to do with language. Just because this is the English Wikipedia it does not mean that we apply different standards of notability or vitality to people from non-English speaking countries. If Oh is a sufficiently important baseball player, then the fact that he is from Japan and best-known to Japanese-speakers is irrelevant. If we really applied the test of who is best-known among English-speakers, we would doubtless end up with a list full of recent pop culture figures but lacking many far more important scientists and historical figures. Neljack (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense, and you know it. It also shows a stunning xenophobia on your part, regarding your perception of the intelligence of the English-speaking world. And it is my contention that vitality with regards to the English Wikipedia does depend, to an extent, on the relative likelihood of one article versus another to be searched out by English speakers. And Clemente far outpaces Oh in that regard, period. And Clemente is not to be dismissed the proverbial "recent pop culture figures" wave of the hand as you attempt to do above. LHMask me a question 04:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , Above, you said that you weren't arguing that prominence in the English-speaking world matter. But here that's exactly what you're arguing.  You're arguing for the removal of Oh because of his lack of prominence in the English-speaking world.  The vast majority of the world is non-English-speaking, but you don't really seem to care about them being fairly represented on this list.  p  b  p  05:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one being xenophobic, not me - you are proposing to evaluate vitality in a manner that discriminates against people who aren't from the English-speaking world. Do you seriously deny that contemporary pop culture figures are more well known than many more significant historical figures or scientists? The idea that it is xenophobic to point this out is risible. It is hardly a phenomenon limited to English-speaking nations, after all. Nor is it actually a comment on people's intelligence - it is entirely unsurprising that they are more familiar with contemporary figures who feature frequently in the media than figures from past eras or scientists who do not get the same publicity. Neljack (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can understand the point (but don't completely agree) with taking English speakers into account, but only considering native English speakers is ridiculous. English has become a global lingua franca among the world's educated. Despite it not being necessarily native, it is often the main language of education in many former British and American colonies around the world. I can't find the specifics of the research right now (I believe it is probably in meta:Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey 2011 or meta:Research:Wikipedia Readership Survey 2011) but there have been surveys showing that the main language Wikipedia read in countries such as India, Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia is English, not their native languages. And you can see it in action. For instance, List of Bollywood films of 2014 is consistently in the top 100 page views of enwiki articles, and receives ten times the number of pageviews of List of American films of 2014.
 * Regardless, I don't see how what language a person speakers changes who are the most important people to include in an encyclopedia. You don't have to agree with them, but I'm a fan of these two quotes from Jimmy Wales: "Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language" (implicit in that sense is covering everything outside of that person's language sphere) and "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (again all human knowledge cross language barriers). Of course, we will never reach this elusive goal which is the whole point of VA. Most editors on Wikipedia will still focus on improving content in the areas of their interest but there are some who look at the vital list for inspiration, especially during the Core Contest and WikiCup. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Roberto Clemente is the only Latino player on the list. He was the first Latin American ensshrined in the Hall of Fame. Considering how many players in Major League Baseball are Latino today, removing Roberto Clemente is almost equivalent to removing Jackie Robinson. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason some consider Robinson the 35th most influential American in history is not as trivial as simply the number of current African American baseball players. Is Roberto Clemente's status as an icon more important to Puerto Ricans than the work of Luis Muñoz Marín? Or when it comes to Hispanic Americans in general, doesn't Cesar Chavez have more significance both in terms of his contributions to society and as a cultural hero? How many states have holidays named after Clemente? Cobblet (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He is important to the world has sports, and that is how his criteria should be judged. He is on a list of sports figures after all, not most influential people in the world. He is the FIRST Latino to make the Hall of Fame. By your logic, the list should be shortened to about 5 people at most in total for all sports figures since few sports figures have that large an impact on society as a whole. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My logic does not ignore the fact that sports figures can leave a lasting impact on society as cultural heroes. I'm just not sure Roberto Clemente qualifies based on that, and probably not ahead of the figures I just mentioned. You wouldn't be the first to suggest that we should include only five athletes, but I consider 100 athletes a reasonable compromise between that kind of person and the kind for whom, as one of them said, "there is almost nothing as important as sports". Given the number of people in the entertainment industry we've currently got, it wouldn't make sense to go much lower for sports. Still, I don't see a strong case for Clemente to be in such select company. Cobblet (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Sinai Peninsula, Add Mount Sinai
The Sinai Peninsula is only notable as where Mount Sinai is. Mount Sinai is the holiest mountain in Judaism. It is also of major significance to Christianity. As we are adding mountains important to various cultures, Mount Sinai should be on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'd prefer this as a straight add. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Mount Sinai is not the holiest mountain in Judaism; the Temple Mount is. Mount Sinai (both the Biblical place and the modern place, which may be completely different) has no real permanent holiness. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a Jew myself, I always thought the temple mount wasn't as important as the actual Western Wall. I didn't know that the actual hill had any real significance. Still, I think that Mt. Sinai is important enough to be on the list. It is where God gave the Torah to the Israelites and is important to both Judaism and Christianity. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the Western Wall is only important because it's the last remnant of Temple, which was on the Temple Mount. Secondly, the article being proposed is not about the historical Mt. Sinai; it's about a mountain which might be the place the Torah was given. Thirdly, the peninsula is pretty important on its own as the bridge between Africa and Asia. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be better to add the article Biblical Mount Sinai then? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My first thought on Biblical locations was remembering we already removed Garden of Eden, and I would place place Garden of Eden higher importance than Biblical Mount Sinai. Other biblical things we don't have which are probably higher could be Ark of the Covenant, and old and new testament.  Carl  wev   10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Old Testament redundant with the Torah and included in the bible with the New Testament? I would add the Garden of Eden and the Ark of the Covenant too.
 * The old and new testament add thread failed ages ago anyway mainly for that reason. Everything can be covered by or seen as redundant to something else, we have to decide which is acceptable and which is too much. I believe we list Ten Commandments in the 10'000 under religion, and Moses too in the 10'000 and 1000 lists, which could make Biblical Mount Sinai redundant. Thanks for your discussion though, I like Garden of Eden and Ark of the Covenant a bit more, but still not completely sure on them either. Could always open the thread and see what others think....
 * For religious locations/concepts, we are also missing both Armageddon and Purgatory I think I would support those, as I believe them more significant and important enough concepts for inclusion, especially Purgatory.  Carl  wev   14:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove Affinity (law)
Covered by kinship.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support OTOH, consanguinity is slightly more vital and in my opinion, just fits in the list. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Not really that vital. I can't see it would fit with the other law articles in terms of importance. Neljack (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support It doesn't really matter if the information isn't currently in the article, only if it should be. Malerisch (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, and move to law section --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The information in Affinity (law) is not covered in the article about kinship. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Move Sign language to Language families
Because sign language is a category of languages and not just one language, its listing should be moved from its own classification of "Visual and tactile language" to "Language families". Muffinator (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Malerisch (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as nom. Muffinator (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Discussion

Add Reading (process)
Learning to read is something vast majority of people today at least in the west do in school as children or elsewhere. In the vital 100 we have language, linguistics, writing, literature, and book, I am sure reading is vital at the 10,000 level, we list 100's of books and authors and languages, surely the process of understanding writing in the first place is vital, not to mention it's a popular pass time, or form of recreation also. I am fairly sure this should be in language near writing, but it could be seen as recreation or even feasibly education near library or near literature?  Carl wev   15:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   15:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Reading is barely squeezed out of the vital 1,000 by literature and book. Definitely worthy of the 10,000. It belongs in language because it is the act of receiving language. Recreation and education are points of view about wht reading is. Muffinator (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

We do already have literacy on the list. That seems like there is some overlap with it. Reading (process) might still be vital by itself though. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove J. Paul Getty Museum
Per Johnbod's comment above, I've nominated the J. Paul Getty Museum for removal. Its collection isn't strikingly unique or notably different from the other listed museums, and it's hard to justify having six/seven museums from the United States while only having one museum from Asia and zero from Africa. The Getty is also the least visited museum listed (assuming that the Guggenheim is moved). And J. Paul Getty himself can be found in the People section, so this removal will reduce that overlap. Malerisch (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Again I would point to the Art Institute of Chicago as the only American museum not already on the list that might be worth including. I don't see any reason to list the Getty Museum ahead of that or the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. Cobblet (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   15:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Per Malerisch. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

The collection seems pretty vital to me, and I don't care if it doesn't have as many visitors. Most sites stress the importance of the classical Greek/Roman collection. But what seems more important to me is that it has an amazing collection of newer Art from the 18th to 20th century, but this doesn't seem to be promoted well, at least on the internet. I'm still undecided. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Its collection isn't bad by any means, but I just don't think it's distinct enough from the other museums already listed. Based on the works listed in the "Selected collection highlights" section of the article, I'm not seeing much variation between the Getty's collection and those of other museums. Many of the 18th to the 20th century artists whose works are in the Getty also have similar works in the other museums listed. For example, Canaletto is present in the Hermitage Museum, Louvre, Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Gallery, and National Gallery of Art; Jacques-Louis David is in the Louvre, Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Gallery, and National Gallery of Art; and J. M. W. Turner is in the National Gallery, Metropolitan Museum of Art, and National Gallery of Art. The same can be said for Édouard Manet, Claude Monet, and Vincent van Gogh, as well as the other artists. Malerisch (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Add National Museum of China
The National Museum of China received 7.5 million visitors in 2013, making it the #3 most-visited museum in the world, behind only the Louvre and the National Museum of Natural History (covered in the Smithsonian Institution) (source). It's not purely an art museum, so it doesn't appear on list of most visited art museums in the world (don't confuse this with the National Art Museum of China, which only had 1 million visitors). We need more Asian museums, and I believe that this is a good choice. I was wondering why no Chinese museums ranked high on the art museum list; this probably explains why. Malerisch (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – Editør (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

According to Wikipedia, the National Museum in New Delhi had 7.4 million visitors, but I'm unable to independently verify that statistic (here is the unsourced edit). Malerisch (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See page 53 table 36. The National Museum isn't even on the list of the top ten visited attractions in Delhi. Source from the Indian government. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I suspect that the 7.4 million figure was lifted from the National Museum of Natural History, which had that many visitors in 2009. Malerisch (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Forbidden City/Palace Museum in Beijing has 14+ million visitors per year and is already listed as vital article under Architecture. – Editør (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Add International relations and public policy
Key issues and fields of study within political science. These articles have been suggested in previous discussions.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Definitely vital. Malerisch (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neljack (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Mastodon
There are currently 4 articles in the Proboscidea (elephant-like animals) order: Proboscidea itself, Elephant, Mammoth and Mastodon. Elephant is obviously vital. Mammoths are the most well known of extinct Proboscidea and became extinct only 4,500 years ago. Mastodon are far lesser known group. They became extinct around 10,000 years ago, a similar time to the Gomphothere, another group of elephant-like animals who are not on the list. The main Proboscidea article should be enough for covering these groups and others.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support I still think mastodons are one of the more important extinct mammals, but they might be too similar to mammoths to include. We are still missing other important animals, so I can support removing this for now. Malerisch (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal of mastodon, would also support adding Pleistocene megafauna Plantdrew (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Pleistocene megafauna or megafauna or specific examples of prehistoric megafauna are all possible replacements. Cobblet (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, they're just as vital as Mammoths and elephants. The fact that the name is slightly less well known makes it even more likely that readers will want to look it up on an encyclopedia. I see no reason to list Proboscidea. I'm not sure about the addition of Gomphothere, it doesn't seem more vital than Stegodon (also not on list). Out of the other animals from the order Proboscidea only Moeritherium seems to have vital quality. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I would prefer to keep this  Carl  wev   18:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Undecided on this for now. While there's no denying that mastodons are the least vital out of the listed proboscideans, I'm not convinced that it should be taken out of the list entirely. Dictionary definitions that list specific species of Proboscidea besides elephants include mastodons (1, 2 [2nd link works if you click through from Google]), and Britannica includes mastodons in its first sentence as well (3). The BBC thinks mastodons are important enough for a subpage under Proboscidea (4), and the Tree of Life highlights the mastodon as an example of Proboscidea (5). Mammoths and mastodons are also sometimes discussed together (6, 7, 8). Furthermore, the fact that list of museums and colleges with mastodon fossils on display is a Wikipedia article is quite interesting (there's no equivalent article for mammoths), but it shows that mastodons are popular exhibits (assuming the list is correct since it lacks sources). I don't know if all this makes mastodons vital, but I think it should be considered in this nomination. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Thanks for doing some research Malerisch. I noticed that the BCC provides more detailed coverage of animals than what we can provide on the expanded vital list. The BCC has 338 pages on mammals compared to our 167, 295 pages on birds when we have 147, 80 on modern reptiles compared to our 37, and 53 on prehistoric reptiles when we have 12. Their coverage of amphibians and insects is also more comprehensive although their coverage of fish is weaker. The mastadon as you said is actually a subpage of Proboscidea and doesn't have its own page per se.
 * The BBC rhinoceros page here contains four subpages to explore the animal group. There are three on modern rhinos (White, Black, Indian) and one on prehistoric (the Woolly rhinoceros, another animal that went extinct around the similar time to the mammoths and mastodons). Maybe megafauna or pleistocene megafauna are better options as they discuss all of the animals that died out during the last major Ice Age. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should remove the order Proboscidea instead and keep elephant, mammoth, and mastodon. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. The point I was making about the rhinos was that we only list one type of rhino on VA even though there are mamy current species of rhinos as well as many recently extinct species. Getting rid of Proboscidea instead means no coverage of other elephant-like animals such as Gomphotheres, which also lasted up to the most recent Ice Age.
 * If we're mass deleting extant animals that are still relevant today, how many extinct animals should we really have? Mammoth, many dinosaurs and the dodo are vital but our focus should still be on the present not the past. We're inconsistent too since we don't list Smilodon, the most famous species of sabre-toothed cat (tiger). Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Longhorn cattle
This article is currently a disambiguation page, but it's not obvious which cattle breed was intended for this link, so I'm putting this up for a short discussion instead of just fixing it. The article originally pointed to English Longhorn, but the reason for the page move was that "most links to this page seem to be intend for Texas Longhorn (cattle), a more numerous, historically-important breed." What should this link be changed to? Malerisch (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I question whether Texas longhorn is vital. It is 343rd on the list of what people search for the most in wikiproject agriculture. However, if we are going to choose between English longhorn and Texas Longhorn, I would choose Texas Longhorn. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, Texas Longhorn is probably more vital than the other options. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to lean toward PointsofNoReturn's perspective that Texas Longhorn just isn't that vital—we are missing Holstein Friesian cattle, for instance. Malerisch (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Holstein Friesian cattle should probably be added. And Angus (cattle) is likely also more vital than Texas Longhorn. We're also missing some cat breeds (only two are on the list: Manx cat and Siamese cat). We should add Persian cat at least, and maybe also Mustang to the horse breeds. And some extinct breeds of domestic animals might also be vital such as Aurochs. There should be lots of non-vital organisms to swap for these. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on Angus cattle. We also list Guernsey cattle, which doesn't seem that vital; the article states that its global population is less than 10,000. And yes, the number of cat breeds could be increased a bit. Mustang could be added as well, but there should be around the same number of dog and horse breeds. 10 breeds may be a bit too much. Malerisch (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Add Holstein Friesian cattle, Remove Longhorn cattle
The Longhorn cattle page is currently a disambiguation and so should be removed. None of the three cattle breeds on the page seem particularly vital either, so I propose to add Holstein Friesian cattle instead, which are the "world's highest-production dairy animals." Holstein Friesian cattle are also one of the most recognizable cattle breeds: they're the ones with the black splotches. Malerisch (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I'd support removing Guernsey cattle (one dairy breed is enough IMO) and swapping Brahman (cattle) for Zebu. Cobblet (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add dopamine
Compliment to the above proposal.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support As I mentioned below, this should be added to Hormones. Malerisch (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

This should be nominated in Biochemistry and molecular biology (subtopic of Hormone), not Health, medicine and disease. Malerisch (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If nobody objects, we can quick move it to hormones if it passes. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It belongs next to epinephrine – these are both catecholamine neurotransmitters. Cobblet (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Add physical disability
We already have disability and intellectual disability. Looks like an oversight to me, to not also include physical disabilities which are more culturally recognized due to their visibility. Muffinator (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Muffinator (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Malerisch (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add emission nebula and reflection nebula
We're missing two of the overarching classes of nebula. The other, dark nebula, was added to the list earlier; these should be too.
 * Support
 * Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose We already list two specific types of emission nebulae (H II region and planetary nebula) and I don't see why reflection nebulae are vital. Cobblet (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose; see my newer proposal at the bottom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Supersymmetry
A vital field of active research in particle physics. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Malerisch. Neljack (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose No question that the rationale is correct but when AFAIK no experimental evidence has been produced in favour of the theory I'm a little leery of including it. How about adding a broader treatment of physics beyond the Standard Model? Cobblet (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

I agree that supersymmetry has no experimental evidence, but neither does string theory, which is on the list. I don't think one is more vital than the other, so either they should both stay or both be removed. Malerisch (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * True. If we include either physics beyond the Standard Model or theory of everything I don't think we need to list specific theoretical proposals. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Add Software engineering
We have a lot of topic concerning programming languages and theory, but none about the actual process of creating software.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Wheelchair
Vital. Rollator (Zimmer frame with wheels) might also be vital.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - A wheelchair is the international symbol for disability. Hearing aid, white cane, and crutch are also notable. Muffinator (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Malerisch (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support The wheelchair is the most important symbol of disability. I would also consider adding the objects mentioned by Muffinator above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the related topics of hearing loss and blindness are already on the list, with nothing comparable for crutch. Muffinator (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Prosthesis

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support but [ justification needed ] Malerisch (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   09:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support,vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Medical radiography and Medical ultrasonography
X-rays and ultrasound are fundamental medical imaging techniques.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Medical radiography includes projectional radiography and x-ray computed tomography; those are vital enough to be listed as well. Positron emission tomography should also be considered. In these cases, some specificity is good (e.g. tomography is less vital than the specific technologies). Malerisch (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, vital. I agree that this is a case where the specific articles are more important than the general. Scintigraphy is even more important than PET-Scan, though. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support vital. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Locomotive

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   12:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Strongly support. But I'll probably add an "oppose" to the individual types after thinking about it a bit more.  Locomotives are very important to trains, although there's really not that big an impact to what trains do based on the type of locomotive.  Rwessel (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, oppose the individual locomotive types. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support If we don't want to add steam locomotive and consistency between ship and train topics is a concern, I suppose I could support a swap of steamboat for marine propulsion. Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support this and oppose specific types. Covered by the main locomotive article and steam engine/steam, electrification/electric motor and diesel engine/diesel respectively. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support but not too sure on the individual types. Malerisch (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support and also not sure about individual types. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Convertible, Hatchback, Sports car and Station wagon
Specific car body styles are not vital. Passenger vehicles are overrepresented relative to more specialized ones – heavy equipment like bulldozers, off-road vehicles like snowmobiles, etc.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Six automobile manufacturers is also excessive when you consider that most types of manufacturers are not represented on the list at all. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 07:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Was just thinking about bringing these up, no one seems to like them, and the other 2 went quickly with lots of support.  Carl  wev   09:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose p  b  p  20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too sure why sport utility vehicle is excluded from this proposal. Why is it more vital than sports car and station wagon? Malerisch (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Only because they're often technically considered light trucks. I've suggested in the past that I'd be comfortable removing the truck subtypes as well; but to keep New York City subway but not pickup truck is bias against rural America ;-) Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Objection to Disability and related topics being marginalized under Medical
I wish to object to the way Disability has been sorted under Medical. Disability as a topic is far more than a medical issue, it is a broad societal issue as it is relevant to topic areas ranging from politics to engineering. Disability should be listed under Society and social sciences#Issues. By classifying Disability as an exclusively medical topic Wikipedia is insulting and dismissing the entire history and achievements of the disability rights movement and rejecting the social model of disability which is widely accepted and supported by governments and organizations such as the UN and others of similar stature. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you're overreacting a bit here. The categorization of the vital articles is really just there to provide an internal framework for the discussion, otherwise talking about 10,000 articles would be impossible.  It's not really visible in the main namespaces as such.  There have definitely been discussion as to which category an article should be listed under, and quite possibly this should be moved.  I think that there's a problem with articles that have significant justification to be under more than one category.  For example Month is listed under Physical sciences/Measurement/Units of measurement/Time, while it clearly is also of significance to Everyday life/Timekeeping.  At least some of these should have a link to the primary location, at least for reference.  This is likely a much bigger problem for the level-4 VAs simply because of the size of the list.  Also, one of the main reasons for the categorization is the assignment of article quotas - how that would impact counting towards that quota is an interesting question (although counting it only under the "main" entry would be no worse than what we have now.  Rwessel (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The general topic fits much better under society and social issues. Maybe Physical disability should stay under medicine. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not too sure about this. As far as I understand it, the issue boils down to whether the list should favor the medical model of disability or social model of disability. From what I've read, the medical model is still a dominant view: quoting from the article itself, "the social model of disability is a reaction to the dominant medical model of disability." The World Health Organization doesn't dismiss the medical model either: "ICF looks beyond the idea of a purely medical or biological conceptualization of dysfunction, taking into account the other critical aspects of disability" . The previous WHO definition used the medical model more exclusively. Britannica claims that both models are dominant . The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that the medical model is "often adopted" but also that the social model is the "dominant legislative, social-science, and humanities paradigm".


 * Usually, the point of a social movement is to incite change from a dominant status quo. Whether the disability rights movement has done that yet, I don't know. And couldn't the same argument be made for the autism rights movement, which I'm sure would like to see autism categorized under Society as well? Let's make sure not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the meantime. I'd prefer if WP:DISABILITY or WP:MED could provide some input. Malerisch (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How about actually reading the Disability article - it addresses many topics outside of medicine. Look at the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, look at major national legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act - medical issues make up only a small fraction of the totality of those instruments. Do you guys seriously believe that the Paralympic Games is an international medical conference? I bet there would be an epic sh#tstorm if someone here dared to classify Feminism under Gynecology - but it seems to be perfectly ok to do exactly the same thing to Disability. Yes Wikipedia does not right great wrongs but neither is it's role to intentionally commit and perpetuate great wrongs either. By the way I am speaking from the WikiProject Disability POV. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no harm in moving the disability entry under Issues in Society. Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , I've reconsidered my position in light of your comments—I can support moving the disability section to Society. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't resort to WP:CANVASSING to garner support: your posts here and here are hardly neutral in tone. Malerisch (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I asked relevant WikiProject members to participate in this discussion about moving Disability to Social Issues - I didn't tell anyone how to !vote. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If we move Disability to Social Issues, the same argument can be had about the medical side of disability. Also it wouldn't make sense to have Disability in Social Issues, and it's sub topics in the Medical section. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does it not make sense? Would you not put Paralympic Games under Sport or the ADA under Human Rights Law? It isn't a monolithic all-or-nothing issue - which is rather the point I made in the first post: Disability has multiple aspects, many of which have little or nothing to do with Medicine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also does it really matter where the article is put considering it has no actual effect on the contents of the said article.--V3n0M93 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It matters insofar as an index such as this (effectively a taxonomy of Wikipedia's content), is an indication of Wikipedia's POV about the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My main problems are two: First by putting disability and the different types of disabilities in different lists makes the list harder to maintain. Second moving it to social issues neglects the medical aspect of it. Obviously wherever we put it it's a lose-lose situation. Does anybody else have any ideas? Also the idea of this project is finding the 10 000 most vital articles that should be refined to be of high quality. The categorization is just done to make the maintenance of the list easier. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since abortion and euthanasia are already listed as social issues, these concerns are there to begin with anyway – but I think we'll manage just fine. IMO this would hardly be the strangest move proposal I've seen: there's Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 30. Cobblet (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggested move. Disability is only partly a medical topic, so it makes sense to list it under the more general heading of society. Neljack (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)