Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 32

Swap: Remove Charles Oman and Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Add John Donne and Ben Jonson
Swapping two obscure British historians (I think articles with <1000 views/month can rightfully be called that; if one historian from the same time period is vital it's Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay) for two giants of English literature.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   08:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Malerisch (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I agree that neither Gardiner nor Oman are vital - I doubt they would be feature on many lists of the most important historians. Donne is an omission I had noted with a view to rectifying, and Jonson was highly influential. Neljack (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

This will make nonfiction even more underrepresented relative to fiction. p b  p  20:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Doesn't change the fact that Oman and Gardiner are terrible choices. You're welcome to nominate more significant writers of nonfiction – I've already provided you with one possibility in this nomination. But to nominate Macaulay before Donne and Jonson would be almost as absurd. Cobblet (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Samuel Johnson is arguably more important than the two nominated (though of course he had his literary side). Other notable British non-fiction writers I'd say are at least more significant than these historians are Thomas Carlyle, William Hazlitt, and John Ruskin.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Karl Albrecht, Add Jakob Fugger
Reclusive supermarket magnate vs. one of the richest men in history and financier of the Habsburgs at the height of their power.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support An excellent proposal! Neljack (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I think the richest 20 people in the world in the year of 2012 were all added to the businesspeople list. OK at the time when the list needed to be filled quickly but now looks kind of silly. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 00:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'm more comfortable with the removal, if Walmart and it's founder are in our sights for removal and nearly there, the founder of Aldi seems a lot less vital. Fugger is def a improvement.  Carl wev   18:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Bernard Arnault, Add Coco Chanel
Businessman who made his fortune selling luxury goods vs. designer who revolutionized women's fashion in the 20th century. I don't think we currently list a single fashion designer.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neljack (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Coco Chanel is a great addition. She played a huge role in transforming the Western World (and indirectly much of the rest of the world) from a conservative clothing culture to a liberal one. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 08:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Business person or artist? architects are under artists. Others like designers, who include furniture, instrument and vehicle designers are under visual artist. Again more comfortable with removal than add, but still an improvement.  Carl wev   18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Slightly prefer listing her as a designer, but don't mind either way. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Yu the Great
Even though archaeologists remain unable to find physical evidence of the Xia Dynasty, popular Chinese tradition continues to regard the reign of its founder as the beginning of Chinese civilization. The parallel of his legend with Noah's is striking and the two figures are fully comparable in terms of significance to their respective cultures.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Per nom. Also one of the world's first pioneers in engineering (specifically flood control). Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Ajatasatru
Magadha was the most important of the ancient Indian kingdoms: it formed the nucleus of the later Mauryan and Gupta dynasties. Its power and influence peaked under the reign of Ajatasatru, who also founded Pataliputra, which became the capital of the Mauryans and Guptas.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Besides historical references, known in religious texts of Jain and Buddhist origins.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Menander I
The spread of Hellenistic influence into central Asia and northern India deserves representation and Menander is the best-known ruler of the Indo-Greek Kingdom. He's also notable for his conversion to Buddhism and his role in spreading that religion.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Milinda in Indian sources. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 07:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Kanishka
Greatest king of the Kushan Empire and emblematic of the contact India had with the nomadic civilizations of Central Asia. Especially noted as a patron of Buddhism – the council he convened in Kashmir is often regarded as the beginning of the Mahayana tradition.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The Kushans deserve representation. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support One of the "4 Pillars of Buddhism."-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neljack (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Cao Cao
A figure of decisive importance in the fall of the Han dynasty and the establishment of the Three Kingdoms. The unflattering portrayal of him in Romance of the Three Kingdoms (China's answer to War and Peace) has made him the archetypal villain in Chinese culture, even if that might be a little unfair to him: his military exploits are legendary and his contributions to Chinese poetry are also notable.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   11:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Samudragupta and Chandragupta II
The Gupta Empire represents a high point in Indian civilization and these are two of the greatest rulers India has ever known. Out of an interest in diversifying our representation of different time periods and cultures in South Asian history, I've left Chandragupta I out of this nomination.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Chandragupta II/Vikramaditya and Samudragupta, a great conquerer also patron of arts and science, which flourished in his era. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Harsha
The most powerful ruler in north India between the fall of the Guptas and the rise of Islamic influence. Noted for his military campaigns to unify the north, his establishment of diplomatic relations with China, his contributions to Sanskrit literature, and his support for Buddhism.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support One of the "4 Pillars of Buddhism." -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Emperor Taizu of Song
The Song dynasty was less militarily powerful than the Han or Tang dynasties, but the flourishing of Chinese art, literature, science and technology during this period marks it nevertheless as a golden age. Its founder is credited with introducing the political stability and bureaucratic reform that provided the basis for such prosperity.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Prithviraj Chauhan
The most important of the Rajput kings is immortalized in folk and historical literature as a charismatic symbol of Indian resistance to the Turkish invasion. His ultimate defeat at the second Battle of Tarain marks the beginning of Muslim control over north India.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support Hard to decide between Chauhan and Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad. They are both revered leaders. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 05:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A symbol of Rajput pride. A folk hero and "martyr". -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

True, I should've nominated both to begin with. Frankly, when you appreciate the staggering amount of representation other regions enjoy in this section, it's easy to name a dozen rulers from either India or China that are of equal if not greater significance. Cobblet (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Askia Mohammad I
Askia the Great established the largest and most powerful empire in the history of west Africa.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 12:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba
17th-century queen who successfully resisted Portuguese colonization in what is now Angola, while building a kingdom strong enough to continue the struggle long after her death. Quite possibly the most important indigenous figure in southern Africa before Shaka. Definitely not the only woman involved in the resistance to European colonization, but unique in being well-documented in historical records. Compare Amina in Nigeria or Nanny of the Maroons in Jamaica – their roles in history may have been just as significant but far less is definitively known about them.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Djoser and Khufu
These pharaohs are only significant for the pyramids named after them – in fact hardly anything else is known about the deeds of either. I think their importance is wholly subsumed by Imhotep and Great Pyramid of Giza and there's no need to list them separately. Amenhotep III would be a better choice for the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A. Parrot (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Agathocles of Syracuse and Dionysius I of Syracuse
No sense in listing tyrants of Syracuse when Syracuse or Magna Graecia is not on the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, would support the addition of Syracuse. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Indeed. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 05:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Philip V of Macedon
Pyrrhus of Epirus is the best figure to represent Greece's war against Rome and I don't think we need a second one – resistance to Roman expansion is also personified by Decebalus, Mithridates VI of Pontus, Vercingetorix, Boudica and Arminius.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 07:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   07:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Ermanaric
We have virtually no historical information about him; whatever significance he has comes from his presence in Germanic legend. He can't possibly trump the Eddas or the Nibelungenlied (neither of which we list) in that sense.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Er-who? --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 05:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Chlothar I, Add Louis IX of France
Details on the intrigues of the Merovingian ruling family can be found in the article on the Merovingian dynasty. I'm not sure what makes Chlothar I more notable than Brunhilda (one of the era's most colourful figures, who provided inspiration for characters in the Nibelungenlied) or Dagobert I (reformer, patron of the arts, and founder of the Abbey of St Denis). On the other hand, St. Louis is a major omission: he and Philip II are considered the greatest rulers of Capetian France. His achievements are too numerous to list – suffice it to say he was considered the epitome of the ideal Christian monarch and lots of places have been named in his honour, including the American city.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  18:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I'd thought before that St Louis was a surprising omission. Neljack (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support a big improvement. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Arnulf of Carinthia
Similarly, none of the inheritors of the kingdom of Charles the Fat ought to be regarded as vital; its division is already described in Charles the Fat's biography and in Carolingian Empire. If we need one more Frankish ruler, it's got to be Pepin the Short.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Pepin would be a good add. Neljack (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Hayam Wuruk
His reign over Majapahit mainly owes its glory to the exploits of his remarkable prime minister Gajah Mada. I don't think it's necessary to list both of them when other Southeast Asian entities remain unrepresented: Kertanegara of Singhasari and Tun Perak from the Malacca sultanate are two other notable leaders from the same period.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Macau
This is consistently one of the most-viewed Wikiproject Cities pages. A previous nomination failed but would've passed according to our current rules.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Malerisch (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support again, I was surprised this was not included.  Carl  wev   10:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, good catch. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove days of week Sunday, Monday... Saturday, perhaps add Names of the days of the week
Surely there is little particularly notable about any given weekday. There are some historical connotations, but those mostly relate to the day's names, and Names of the days of the week is a good start for that. There is also some cultural significance to particular days (the week starts on Saturday in Islam, for example), but that's probably better dealt with in the article on Islam. Seven-day week may be useful. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal, not sure about the add. --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support removal, oppose add.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal, oppose add. Neljack (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal. Possibly support seven-day week, workweek and weekend, 12 hour time/24 hour time, further types of calendars and years/months, eternity (as a philosophical concept) and time value of money (as a financial concept). Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Anno Domini receives over double the number of page views compared to any of the articles Rwessel's proposing to remove. Names of the days of the week also gets more hits than any of them. Cobblet (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I thought days and months listed separately was a bit weak (pun half intended), I mean it's not like anyone would study them, not much anyway, and not singularly, they take up 19 slots in total, which is a lot. I also had Workweek and weekend on my mind which covers the mon-fri working then sat-sun rest idea, and equivalent similar theme used in some other times and places, seems reasonable topic for one slot compared to using seven for every single day.  Carl  wev   15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the topic of timekeeping, Julian Calendar was also on my mind.  Carl  wev   09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove months of the year January, February... December
Largely the same reasons as for removing the individual days of the week. Just not really individually notable. Month (already listed under Physical sciences/Measurement/Units of measurement/Time) already covers the general historical/cultural issues. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rwessel (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support removal. Possibly support seven-day week, workweek and weekend, 12 hour time/24 hour time, further types of calendars and years/months, eternity (as a philosophical concept) and time value of money (as a financial concept). Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Nonverbal communication
There are plenty of articles listed about telecommunication and verbal communication but we're missing the other piece of the puzzle. From gestures to posture, facial expressions to eye contact, nonverbal communication plays a very important part in society.

This might be more suitable in the Language or Psychology sections. I proposed it here only to put it alongside communication.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Malerisch (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   08:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Related topics include body language, kinesics and paralanguage. I chose nonverbal communication as it is the broadest article on this phenonmenon.
 * Discussion

Individual acts of nonverbal communication are extremely common. But common can't always equal vital. Otherwise, handshake, smile, salute, dress code and blinking will all be included among many other articles. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about Facial expression and Body language for ages, I think they're important and I think I'd still support them my self. But your right, if anyone else thought they were borderline this wide overview article is a great one to have. Also I just found out reading that verbal means words, not spoken. As I thought non-verbal would technically include writing, but it does not. I thought it could go into language, but social science is probably better, I touched on this at college but in sociology, not in English. Also I haven't checked the page history, but I'm presuming Gizza is the thread nom. and first support, as Gizza has the first comment in the discussion?  Carl  wev   08:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes apologies. I forgot to sign. I also support adding the main categories of nonverbal communication but at the moment am testing the waters to see what everyone else thinks of this area. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove AT&T
We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I don't see anything that makes AT&T stand out in importance from other major corporations we don't list. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose AT&T has historical importance.  p  b  p  16:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Multinational corporation
An article to replace many companies. Similar to Non-governmental organization, which is already listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I don't think it's necessary to list history articles for every major industry: instead this is the article that should cover the effects of globalization on business. Would swap history of economic thought for economic history of the world. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Malerisch (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I think we need both history of economic thought and economic history of the world. The contents of these articles are not likely to intersect much in the end, because the first is about the theoretical aspects (economics) and the second is about what happens in the real world (economy and business).--Melody Lavender (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I'm skeptical: thoughts influence actions. History of the philosophy of science vs. history of science? History of music theory vs. history of music? History of theology vs. history of religions? Cobblet (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I support more industry articles but not "history of industry" articles. That would be going too far. Except for maybe industries with a very long history such as agriculture. History of tourism for instance, is not necessary and actually redirects to tourism itself even though the main article is in Level 3. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Logistics
The proposed removal of Walmart made me think of this. Funny how we have military logistics but not logistics in general.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support important business concept. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Malerisch (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support another topic I thought was already in.  Carl  wev   17:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Another concept shared by many fields (military, business and games/sports) is strategy. Personally I wouldn't add it because it is not coherent as a topic. Military strategy is listed while business strategy, which redirects to strategic management, is not. There isn't a strategy article for games or sports except for strategy (game theory) or for specific games like chess strategy. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Neither strategy nor plan is vital, but a mental process like planning might have a better case from the perspective of psychology. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Test (assessment)
Tests or examinations if you prefer are basic part of formal education for young and older children and adults too, have been for a long time throughout most of the world, many formally recognized and widespread like A-levels GCSE and similar. Tests also feature outside of school like in job or career environment or other positions and things such as driving.  Carl wev   19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.  Carl  wev   19:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Malerisch (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Cuneiform
Cuneiform is one of the earliest writing systems and was developed in ancient Mesopotamia. Britannica says that "its overall significance as an international graphic medium of civilization is second only to that of the Phoenician-Greek-Latin alphabet." Cuneiform is at least as vital as Egyptian hieroglyphs. Malerisch (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Agree, very old, fairly wide spread, influential on later scripts, more vital than many scripts and languages we have.  Carl  wev   17:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support very significant. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Conventional warfare
Why is it necessary to list "normal" warfare? Isn't this what most of the articles in this section are about?


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, the definition of conventional is probably not stable enough for a encyclopedia article, what's high tech today is conventional tomorrow. Plus: I think the entire section on warfare by type needs reevaluation; lots of topics there don't seem vital to me. On the other hand, we don't even list the overarching article warfare. Economic warfare is missing, for example, and it's likely to grow in importance, as the recent sanctions in the Ukraine crisis show.--Melody Lavender (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Cobblet and Melody Lavender. Malerisch (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Per Cobblet and Melody. It is a hazy, malleable term. Chemical and biological weapons were conventional in the First World War but are considered to be unconventional now. Nuclear and economic are better choices. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Conventional warfare is a type of warfare. All of the articles are individual types of conventional warfare. In addition, we need to add nuclear warfare. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Cactus
Cacti are a fairly widespread, well-known, and diverse family of plants. They are frequently found in deserts and are recognized for their spines and ability to conserve water. Malerisch (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, quite an omission. I wonder how this happened, because the list of organisms seemed so detailed. It's not listed under its Latin name, and the subfamilies aren't either. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support another surprise of an omission  Carl  wev   11:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support No surprise that lots of important plants have been left out: see User:Plantdrew/Vital. Sugarcane, anyone? Cobblet (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as vital as camel. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Human eye
Vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support One of the more important human anatomy articles. Malerisch (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Arthritis
Arthritis is a major joint disorder that affects a large percentage of the population. From the CDC, it's the "most common cause of disability among U.S. adults," and 1 in 5 adults has this condition. Major types of arthritis include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis. Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Wouldn't support specifying the major types, but support arthritis. Muffinator (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This is yet another surprising omission. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support crossed my mind before, happy to support.  Carl  wev   08:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Epilepsy
Epilepsy is a major neurological disorder that is well-known for causing epileptic seizures. It affects about 65 million people worldwide. Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. I considered that we might want seizure instead, but that's just a redirect to epileptic seizure, so epilepsy is clearly the broader topic of the two. Muffinator (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Tried to swap in before, happy to support again  Carl  wev   08:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Medical diagnosis, Remove Diagnosis
The diagnosis article is currently a list of disparate topics (and resembles a disambiguation); medical diagnosis is where the appropriate material is located. Malerisch (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support makes sense  Carl  wev   15:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support My assumption is that the Diagnosis article, when added, was meant to cover medical diagnosis. This is a good swap. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, good find.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add First aid
We're poised to add emergency preparedness, why not this as well?


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  04:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Local emergency preparedness.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support another topic I thought we had it already   Carl  wev   17:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Malerisch (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Arbitrary unit, Angstrom, Atmosphere (unit), Baud, Bushel, Jansky and TNT equivalent
These are all non-SI units with fairly specialized applications and aren't really vital. There are other such units we don't list: none of them should be on the list if a common derived SI unit like tonne is deemed non-vital.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Angstrom isn't that obscure, but considering that centimetre and kilometre were removed, I don't think it should stay. Atmosphere (unit) is a pretty common unit of pressure as well, but bar (unit) and torr aren't listed either, so I can support removing it too. It also makes no sense to keep TNT equivalent when trinitrotoluene isn't listed. Malerisch (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Malerisch. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rwessel (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per above. If no other metric units of length are listed apart from metre, angstrom shouldn't be either. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removal of Angstrom, support removal of all others. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Angstrom is a pretty obsolete unit at this point, although it is still occasionally used. It also has a trivial conversion to the preferred unit nanometer.  Rwessel (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Accuracy and precision
These two related but distinct concepts are fundamental to the science of measurement.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Malerisch (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rwessel (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Micrometer, Add Calipers
Micrometers are just one modern type of calipers. It's like listing analytical balance instead of weighing scale.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support but what about ruler? Malerisch (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I think I can support ruler. What other kinds of hand tools or stationery are people interested in adding? Cobblet (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Siemens (unit)
This SI derived unit was nominated here, but I don't see it on the list. I couldn't find a removal thread, so is its absence just an oversight? I'm asking this because it's the only SI derived unit that's missing. Malerisch (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like I missed it, good catch. Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Extraterrestrial life
Significant to both astronomy (e.g. Fermi paradox, astrobiology, planetary habitability, SETI) and the popular imagination.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Malerisch (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support strongly, I actually thought this was in already, would also support the all the other articles stated in lead, although a bit less sure of Fermi Paradox  Carl  wev   11:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support only for extraterrestrial life and astrobiology; adding the others would give too much weight to something that hasn't even been observed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support extraterrestrial life only per StringTheory11. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support p  b  p  23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Drag (physics)
Cobblet pointed out that this was missing, and it's definitely a key concept in fluid mechanics. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Although what I didn't think of at the time was that lift (force) is at least as important. Types of forces... I dunno how much of these we want. Tension and compression? Cobblet (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Superfluid helium-4
It's an interesting property of helium, but isn't this awfully specific? The more general article is superfluidity, but I'm not sure if that's vital either. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support too specific. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   18:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Superfluids are a pretty exotic state of matter, but less so than quark-gluon plasma and degenerate matter, no? I think those should be removed too. Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Good point. I've posted a removal thread below. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Degenerate matter and Quark–gluon plasma
These states of matter are too esoteric to be listed. Degenerate matter is discussed in white dwarf and quark–gluon plasma in quark, and both also mentioned in state of matter. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Kirchhoff's circuit laws
These laws are commonly used to analyze circuits. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Centrifugal force
The centrifugal force isn't a real force, and it's covered in centripetal force anyway. Fictitious force may be a better addition. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support An interesting topic of debate, but not vital. Cobblet (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Equations of motion
We do already list motion (physics), but I think the equations that govern motion are important enough to be listed as well. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Physics beyond the Standard Model
This article should cover many active research topics that aren't vital enough to be listed separately, including the CP violation, neutrino oscillations, and loop quantum gravity. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support; a huge omission, and I'd also support several subtopics of this such as the aforementioned CP violation. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Electromagnet
Electromagnets are definitely vital: they're one of the most commonly used elements in electronic devices. Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Antenna (radio)
Antennas are also widely used today. Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   18:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rwessel (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Smelting
The process used for thousands of years across the world to extract metal from its ore is vital.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Malerisch (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support had this on my mind  Carl  wev   11:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rwessel (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Molotov cocktail
I believe this is the weakest article in the weapons section. Whatever cultural significance the Molotov cocktail has, I'm pretty sure it's less than assault rifles. I'm not aware of any national flags depicting Molotov cocktails, for example. We already list IEDs as a notable type of improvised weapon, and we list things like riot and guerrilla warfare too, both of which should cover the application of improvised weapons in general.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. In addition Molotov Cocktail is already mentioned in Improvised explosive device. Rwessel (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

When it comes to modern unconventional warfare, perhaps the biggest omission from the list is suicide attack. Cobblet (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Reflecting telescope, Refracting telescope and Catadioptric system, Add Optical telescope
There's no need to list all three subtypes of optical telescopes. It would be better to list other types of telescopes such as radio telescope, which has important applications in astronomy.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Malerisch (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Optical microscope
And if we can have types of telescopes we can have types of other optical instruments. The optical microscope page receives as many views as the three pages on optical telescopes combined.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Malerisch (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I'd like to nominate electron microscope one day, but the most generally familiar type of microscope should come first. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The electron microscope is an incredibly significant invention. I would definitely support adding it. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Digital photography
One of the most disruptive technologies of recent times, taking over the photography industry almost overnight. Alternatively we could add digital camera.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. I prefer the photography article slightly ahead of the camera. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Malerisch (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Redirect the talk pages of each section to here
There's been a few people posting on these talk pages to make suggestions, but they've always been asked to post here. Since there doesn't seem to be any point to these talk pages, should they be redirected here? Specifically, I would like to redirect to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. Malerisch (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/People
 * 2) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/History
 * 3) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography
 * 4) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts
 * 5) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion
 * 6) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life
 * 7) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences
 * 8) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences
 * 9) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences
 * 10) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology
 * 11) Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics
 * I would re-direct them. I did not even know these talk pages existed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support redirect: p  b  p  01:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support redirect. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support redirect. Cobblet (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Kingsley Amis
Don't think he is quite notable enough for the list. Remembered chiefly for Lucky Jim and The Old Devils, neither of which is all that central to the canon.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support We seem to be rather heavy on English-language writers from the 20th century. The Movement is already represented by Philip Larkin; and I don't know if the angry young men are significant enough a movement to require a specific representative. Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Rsm77 and Cobblet. Rated by the Times as the 9th best British writer since 1945. Considering that the list should include writers from the whole world and throughout history, he is ranked too low. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   07:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per above. Malerisch (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Intended as a swap for Samuel Johnson, who is clearly more important. Whether Amis is the least notable person (or British/Irish writer) currently on the list may be a bit more open to question. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * What about Enid Blyton? Do we really need a second British children's writer in addition to Roald Dahl, especially when a non-English children's writer of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's stature isn't listed? (Although The Little Prince is on the list – another example of the author vs. magnum opus dilemma I alluded to in the previous thread.) Cobblet (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Blyton is all that significant, though certainly well-known in Britain. I wouldn't describe Saint-Exupéry as simply a children's writer - as far as I know most of his books were for adults. But I don't think he really needs a place in the list, as most of those books are not so famous (certainly in the English-speaking world). --Rsm77 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to keep Blyton, and possibly add Saint-Exupéry.  Carl  wev   13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Vladimir Ashkenazy and Daniel Barenboim, Add Arturo Toscanini and Herbert von Karajan
Ashkenazy and Barenboim are very good modern conductors and pianists, but they're nowhere close to the all-time greats in either category. Since they're listed under conductors, I suggest replacing them with two that are truly of legendary stature.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Karajan and Toscanini are two of the most influential classical musicians ever. Ashkenazy and Barenboim, while great musicians, can't compare to them. I recall that in the last few years BBC Music Magazine has conducted surveys of prominent conductors and pianists (100 each, I think) to find out who they regard as the all-time greats in their fields. Ashkenazy and Baremboim both failed make the top 20 list for either conductors or pianists. Karajan and Toscanini were both high up on the conductors list. I don't usually pay much attention to such lists in classical music, but I think the opinions of their peers is entitled to some weight. Neljack (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom and Neljack. Malerisch (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support agreee with Cobblet and Neljack. Toscanini and Karajan are far more acclaimed conductors than Ashkenazy and Barenboim. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Support add, Oppose removal. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Lorenz Hart
We have plenty of Broadway lyricists and Hart is markedly less notable than the others we list. It's hard to justify including him when more important American figures in jazz (Count Basie, Nat King Cole or Ella Fitzgerald) or drama (Eugene O'Neill) during the same time period aren't listed.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom.  Carl  wev   14:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 10:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Amelia Earhart
This failed once but I think it deserves another chance. Earhart's significance in breaking down barriers to women in science and technology can hardly be overstated. She was a worldwide celebrity in her time and remains one of feminism's most potent icons.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I would add Sacagawea as well. Malerisch (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   14:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support p  b  p  17:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Neljack (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Earhart and Sacagawea. I would also move Lewis and Clark Expedition from People to History. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (explorer) have their own biographical articles. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support and I completely agree with Gizza. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Khadija bint Khuwaylid and Mary Magdalene
Women of incredible importance to their respective religions. It beats me how Mother Teresa got on the list before they did.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support In comparison to Old Testament figures, we are sorely lacking in New Testament ones. p  b  p  13:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neljack (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

What about Aisha? Malerisch (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I know nothing about Islam and the very last thing I want to do is stir up a Sunni vs. Shia debate on her legacy. Somebody else can open that nomination. Cobblet (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Mulla Sadra
We have no Islamic thinkers in the 550-year gap between Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Iqbal. In particular the intellectual renaissance in Safavid Iran associated with the rise of Twelver Shi'ism is neglected. Mulla Sadra is popularly regarded by that country as its greatest philosopher, period.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support big omission. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Báb
I don't see why a relatively small and new religion like Bahá'í needs two representatives on the list. There are several religious movements of comparable size and newness (Spiritism, Mormonism, Cao Đài, Tenrikyo) that aren't represented at all.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I also noticed this anomaly a few days ago and was thinking of suggesting a removal. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

The current list of religious figures has 128 people. Of these, 56 represent Christianity, there 15 for Islam, 6 for Judaism with a further 12 common to all Abrahamic religions, 18 for Hinduism, 15 for Buddhism, 2 each for Bahai and Sikhism, and 1 each for Zoroastrianism and Jainism. I support an increase to 150 people or maybe more. Christianity and Judaism are well represented comparing them to other religions of similar history and influence. I think most if not all of this increase should go elsewhere.
 * Discussion

I'm thinking of proposing to add Meera, whom I believe is definitely vital. Not sure if it should be a straight add or a swap with someone like A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada or Ramana Maharshi.

I wonder if there's also room for some notable atheists, agnostics and the like. They are better suited to go in Philosophers. But I'm not sure if there are any atheists who are vital purely on that basis. The best known ones in the Anglosphere (Richard Dawkins, Paul Kurtz, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Christopher Hitchens) are too recent IMO. Schools of atheistic or rationalist thought existed in ancient civilizations too. Lucretius, Xenophanes, Epicurus, Diagoras of Melos, Ajita Kesakambali or Carvaka, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Muhammad al Warraq, Wang Chong and Fan Zhen are all possibilities. The strongest candidates are those that are notable in other things as well though. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed the page on Meera as I was reading about Indian culture and I was wondering if it could be a good choice. But would you characterize her as a religious figure or as a poet? Hildegard of Bingen, the closest Christian analogue I can think of, is listed as a writer. I was also considering a swap of Bhaktivedanta for Helena Blavatsky, who seems to have done than anyone else to arouse modern Western interest in Eastern religion. Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. She is a poet so writers may be the better section. Then again, there are many legends and myths associated with her life so she could fit in either section, especially since the religious figure section is called 'figures" and not "leaders". Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Judas Iscariot
We have most of the good guys in the New Testament, we need the bad guy, who also is a major figure in some of the texts that didn't make into the Bible, and pops up frequently in art and literature. p b  p  13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  13:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 10:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Does anyone else think that Christianity is overrepresented on the list? There's currently 56 figures under Christianity while only 15 under Islam, 18 under Hinduism, and 15 under Buddhism. Malerisch (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I agree that relative to each other, Christianity is overrepresented and Judaism is also adequately represented (taking in account the 12 common figures among the Abrahamic religions). The number of people representing Christianity isn't as overrepresented compared to the entire list of biographies. Religious figures as a whole are underrepresented considering their worldwide influence over the course of history. The total number can easily go to 150. Possibly at high as 200. Still might have to remove some Christian figures but not as many as the additions to other religions. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 10:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is one place where the artificiality of our classifications is obvious – a lot of the Christian figures could've just as easily been listed as notable writers or philosophers, and also the popes are scattered all over the place. I think there are maybe a handful of second-rate figures that could go though, and figures from other religions and cultures are certainly underrepresented. Cobblet (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that Christianity's right-sized and Islam is underrepresented. We should probably have 25 Islamic figures.  Who they should be I can't tell you.  p  b  p  04:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Aryabhata
The leader proposals above reminded me of a bigger hole to fill. Aryabhata was the first in the line of Indian mathematicians and astronomers during the classical era. His feats include his explanation and accurate measurements of solar and lunar eclipses, the place-value system, discovering the earth's rotation, and various work on trigonometry and algebra.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Associated with the origins of zero and decimal system. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Johann Jakob Balmer, Add Paracelsus
I have no idea why Balmer's on the list – there must be dozens of physicists with a greater claim to fame. In his place I nominate one of the most significant figures in all of Renaissance science. Paracelsus rejected the medical dogmas taught in medieval universities (which was still based on the theories of Hippocrates and Galen like the four humours) and introduced the concept of using chemical compounds as medicine. In the process he incorporated scientific principles into medical practice for the first time. He's also credited with being one of the first to recognize a relationship between mental problems and physical illness; Carl Jung credits him with opening the door for psychiatry as a discipline. Paracelsus has been compared to Copernicus and Luther in his impact on Renaissance thought.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Charles Hard Townes, Add Robert Hooke
Hard to see why Townes is singled out over the two other scientists with whom he shared the Nobel Physics Prize for laser-related work. I don't think any of them can really be said to have played a more decisive role than the others. Hooke was a pioneer of microscopy (his book Micrographia introduced the subject to the public), telescopes (built the first Gregorian telescope), the wave theory of light (which he used to explain his discovery of diffraction), and watchmaking (the anchor escapement); he discovered Hooke's law and was an early proponent of evolution. Oh, and he was the assistant of Robert Boyle during his air pump experiments and Christopher Wren during the rebuilding of London.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Couldn't the same reasoning for removing Charles Hard Townes be used to remove Steven Chu? They both shared Nobel Prizes with two others on laser-related work. Malerisch (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

At least Chu has some significance beyond his Nobel work compared to his colleagues or to Townes. I agree the case for him isn't exactly the strongest though. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Alfred V. du Pont, Add Leo Baekeland
We already list Alfred's grandfather who established the du Pont industrial dynasty; I see no reason to list Alfred as well. In his place I suggest the man who started the plastics industry with his invention of Bakelite.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Biblical Mount Sinai
Alternative to the above proposal.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for reasons basically stated by Carlwev in the previous thread – we're lacking too much in terms of "big" Biblical topics to make adding a detail like this a reasonable proposition. I'd much prefer adding things like The Exodus or Book of Exodus, Genesis creation narrative or Book of Genesis, Gospel, and Book of Revelation. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose About a place in Bible, story covered in Moses and Ten Commandments, more vital Jewish/Christian topics missing like ones Cobblet and I said; Plus More vital mythical locations missing or removed, like Purgatory, Camelot, Garden of Eden, Armageddon etc   Carl  wev   09:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per Cobblet and Carlwev. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 10:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Satire
Important topic and genre in literature and other arts, I would call this more vital than many books we have.  Carl wev   17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  06:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I was thinking, maybe we should list some genres and topics under main art rather than literature, as sci fi, fantasy, horror, satire can all be genres of literature, film, tv shows, radio shows, theatre, comics, video games etc, not only literature alone, these are wider arts genres, not just literature genres. what do people think?  Carl wev   17:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * That would be a good idea. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Tyndale Bible
Least notable of the four(!) translations of the Bible on the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   10:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Don't think the Luther Bible is that notable either. --Rsm77 (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Luther Bible
I didn't even notice this and the Gutenberg Bible were on the list as well. We still have the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Vulgate and the King James Version.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Am thinking of this and Tyndale Bible as a swap for Old and New Testament which I support--Rsm77 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, do we need the other versions as well. I think bible should be enough. --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support It's amazing that there are 7 translations/manuscripts of the Bible listed. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add supervillain
We have an article on superheroes but not an article on supervillains. Without supervillains, there would not be any superheroes, making them almost just as important as a group. I will also be proposing a few supervillains to go along with this proposal below.

Hero and Villain should be on the list in addition to superhero and supervillan. Not so sure about the individual examples. We also don't have Monomyth which is vital IMO.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I don't think superhero should be on the list, either; it should be replaced with the more general hero. Superheroes are an almost exclusively American concept (apparently "Super Heroes" is trademarked by DC and Marvel?!), and supervillains equally so. I could see adding villain, though. Superheroes are just another type of stock character; why not add funny animal, action hero, damsel in distress, femme fatale, and mad scientist? However, superhero fiction could be added to represent this particular genre, which is more vital and in line with science fiction, fantasy, horror fiction, etc. Malerisch (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Malerisch. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Malerisch. I support adding villain and replacing superhero with hero. Maybe superhero fiction as well. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Should we list narrative and/or narrative devices like character (arts) (which ought to cover the concept of protagonists/antagonists), plot (narrative), setting (narrative), etc.? Cobblet (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Add The Joker
Perhaps the most well known supervillain in comic book history. He appeared in the original Batman comic book in the first issue in 1940. Whenever someone thinks of Batman, that person almost always thinks of Batman's archnemesis The Joker. If we are going to add supervillains to the list, he should be on it.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for a few reasons:
 * 2) *We don't need more than one character from each comic franchise (yes, technically it's one DC Universe, but the splits are pretty clear). In this case, we already list Batman, so the Joker and Catwoman don't need to be listed. We don't list literary works as well as characters within them (except in a few special cases like Odysseus or Faust): Prince Hamlet, Iago, Jay Gatsby, Leopold Bloom, Atticus Finch, Hikaru Genji, and Sun Wukong aren't listed. Comics shouldn't be different.
 * 3) *If The Joker and Catwoman were added, we would list 7 Marvel/DC characters. That's quite excessive; we only list 6 ancient Greek leaders, 6 modern Chinese leaders, 6 modern Indian leaders, 6 modern French leaders, 7 modern German leaders, 7 modern UK leaders, etc. Fictional comic characters are not that vital.
 * 4) *The comic characters section is already exclusively American; adding these would only exacerbate the problem. Non-US characters need to be swapped in.
 * 5) *Are these really the best choices for fictional villains? Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, and Magneto are just as good contenders.
 * 6) *Keep in mind what fictional characters/franchises have already been removed: Harry Potter here, Frodo Baggins, Gandalf, Luke Skywalker, Spock, and Darth Vader here, and James T. Kirk and Holden Caulfield here. The Joker and Catwoman don't stand out as more vital than these. Malerisch (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Per Malerisch. Well said. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose: Fictional characters is right-sized now. p  b  p  13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, not that notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add catwoman
One of the most iconic supervillainesses in comic book history. She also appeared in the original batman comic books. She has also been Batman's love interest in many of the comic books. Since we have Wonderwoman, a superheroine, then surely we can have Catwoman, a supervillainess.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose See above. Malerisch (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Malerisch. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Fictional characters is right-sized now. p  b  p  13:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose:, not notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Old Testament and New Testament
It seems disingenuous that we have several editions/translations of the Bible, and dozens of people from the Bible, but not the two major divisions of the Bible. p b  p  21:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support It makes sense to include divisions of the Bible. I did notice that the article Gospel is not a vital article. Should that be proposed too? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support That does seem rather strange. I'd thought gospel would be a good add too. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. As the (canonical Christian) Gospel(s) are just the first four books of the NT, I'm not sure they'd deserve their own VA listing.  Rwessel (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion
 * I'd support a swap for one or more of the translations/versions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Several versions are currently proposed for removal. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Energy industry
Another vital industry with a wide scope not on the list. The article is not well developed yet but it should cover historical aspects of the industry, such as the importance of Edison's General Electric. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Definitely a vital industry. Malerisch (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Criminology

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. I think adding it here is fine. Malerisch (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support A significant field of study. Neljack (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Tried this once here we were over quota then and the atmosphere was a bit more hostile. I think this stands another chance, genuine topic of study and of interest to general reader and expert. Crime is in the vital 100 so I believe study of it deserves at least vital 10,000 especially when we list over 20 crimes too. The only reason given for not having it was, we already have crime, but I think that's not a good reason myself, I think it's important enough in it's own right for inclusion and if we missed everything covered in some form by a vital 100 article we wouldn't have much left. Not 100% sure were it would fit, somewhere in social science surely.
 * Discussion


 * (Also if you look at the previous add thread attempt, it was 5-2 support on 9 Nov, I nearly closed it as passed on that day, but for some reason I left it open longer, for another oppose to appear and fail it; silly me.)  Carl  wev   14:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral about this proposal. I don't know if criminology covers anything substantially more than what's covered by crime, criminal law and forensics. And not every study of a Level 2 topic is listed on Level 4. See somnology, sexology, bacteriology, thanatology, horology, popular culture studies, musicology, communication studies, religious studies and pyrology. I can support it as a swap, maybe with forensics. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Printer (computing)
Someone mentioned printer, and I think they have a point, We have things like computer mouse, monitor, keyboard, Hard disc drive, motherboard, 4 programming languages nearly another one soon, computer printer seems to fit in I believe. We also don't have Image scanner is that worth some thought?. To me a computer printer and scanner seem more vital than having 4 or 5 programming languages.  Carl wev   15:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support. as nom.  Carl  wev   15:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. I'm not sure if this should go in this section or Media and communication: printing, photocopier, and printing press are all located there. Malerisch (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Prefer placement with the other printing technologies. Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support and place along similar print technology. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 14:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

You could be right, all printing tech together may be sensible, what do others think?  Carl wev   16:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Information technology
I find it mildly amusing that in spite of the alleged bias toward IT, we don't have IT itself on the list. The section itself is also titled "Computing and information technology". Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   12:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 14:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Computer architecture
Vital topic. Discusses the relation between software and hardware.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Harold Lloyd
Lloyd doesn't make AFI list (his contemporaries Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton do, though), and "one of the most popular and influential film comedians of the silent film era" isn't a very good reason to keep him. I'm not seeing much vitality here. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Thanks for going through the actors - I'd thought that section seemed rather bloated. Neljack (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Suppport p  b  p  17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Would support removing Buster Keaton too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Douglas Fairbanks
There are too many actors already listed that pass him in importance, and his business career isn't significant enough to make him vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Robert Redford
Founding the Sundance Film Festival does not make you vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support The Brad Pitt of his day. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Would prefer either adding a more famous director associated with the indie film movement like Tarantino, or more people who represent the flowering of international cinema which happened at about the same time, say Krzysztof Kieślowski or Abbas Kiarostami. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, supporting independent movies does make him vital. He also founded the Sundance film institute and a TV channel to support independent cinema. The comparison to Brad Pitt? Argh. No. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Perhaps it doesn't, but I think hat in combination with two academy awards, and lead roles in some of the 20th centurys most iconic films and a leading role in promoting independent cinema it probably does.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Paul Newman
Newman doesn't make the AFI list either, and he only won one Academy Award. I'm not sure why he's listed. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Paul Newman doesn't deserve to be on this list - I'll remain neutral on that one. But I just want to say Oscar wins are a not particularly good indicator of notability. Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock never won any. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I agree and I'm tempted to oppose. I don't think AFI-positions make actors vital. Newman was very popular in Europe and he was considered a excellent quality actor - Europeans don't usually agree with the AFI list as far as acting ability is concerned. As opposed to many AFI-actors, he did act on broadway. Paul Newman acted in several films based on literature works: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Tennessee Williams), a TV-version of Thornton Wilder's Our Town; Tennessee Williams' Glass Menagerie and several Pulitzer Prize winning screen plays. He was good at picking scripts and Paul Newman was also a youth icon, a rebel of his era, who almost got James Dean's role in East of Eden. I've just convinced myself while I was writing this text that Newman is vital and will oppose now. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Morgan Freeman
I don't see why he's vital. He only won one Academy Award, and I'd say he's less vital than other non-vital actors like Daniel Day-Lewis and Dustin Hoffman. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson starred in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Shining, Chinatown, Five Easy Pieces, Easy Rider, and The Departed. In my eyes, that makes him clearly more vital than Freeman.--Rsm77 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The list is heavily skewed towards white actors. Are Kirk Douglas and Jack Nicholson really any more vital than Freeman? Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose again, if I remember correctly. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Michael Redgrave
Redgrave doesn't appear on the AFI list. The article doesn't give much insight as to why he's listed, either. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Suppport p  b  p  17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Suppport --Rsm77 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I am convinced by what Malerisch and Rsm77 say. I also think Richardson has a good case for inclusion. Neljack (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering that Redgrave was a British actor who disliked Hollywood and was most notable for stage roles, it's not surprising that he doesn't appear on the AFI list. I'm still considering whether he nonetheless should be removed. Neljack (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose He was a major British star, probably the Anglo equivalent of Henry Fonda or someone like that. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Betty. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud already represent British stage actors of his generation. I do not think Redgrave was all that significant as a film actor - most notable roles were probably in The Lady Vanishes and The Innocents. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also say that Redgrave is less vital than Ralph Richardson, who isn't on the list (should he be?). Malerisch (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Arnold Schwarzenegger
In a previous nomination that failed, Sylvester Stallone was brought up as someone who is probably more important than Schwarzenegger. He's not an exceptional actor, and I don't think we're calling things vital based on popularity alone (e.g. Harry Potter). Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - frankly astonished he's listed and not such versatile and acclaimed actors as Dustin Hoffman. Alfietucker (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've seen his Hamlet. Betty Logan (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I think he'll be a better fit in the sports figures section under "Bodybuilding". Even there he still isn't vital. Schwarzenegger won Mr. Olympia seven times while two other bodybuilders had won it eight times each. He's also got a political career. Despite all of this, he's not a polymath. Just a person notable for many reasons and vital for none. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Edward G. Robinson
Robinson ranks #24 on the AFI list, but that doesn't mean that we should keep him, as the removal for James Dean shows. He doesn't seem to have much enduring vitality. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Wasn't really a lead; was mostly a supporting heavy. p  b  p  17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Christopher Lee
Lee's probably on this list for the same reason that Ian McKellen is (The Lord of the Rings), but he's never won (or even been nominated for) an Academy Award. He's not vital. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A long and distinguished career, but not vital. Neljack (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We don't have Lugosi or Karloff or Peter Cushing for that matter. A top genre actor but not a vital topic. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Suppport p  b  p  17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support not vital. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion
 * Although I tentatively agree that Lee shouldn't be on the Vital list, the Academy Awards are not the be-all-and-end-all of awards, neither shoud the lack of award be taken as any reason for exclusion of people from the list. Stage work, although leaving a less permanent record, is equally important. - SchroCat (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove Mary Martin
Martin doesn't make the AFI list. Her career doesn't seem that exceptional, either. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Unremarkable career by the standards on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Suppport p  b  p  17:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Carole Lombard
Lombard is ranked #23 on the AFI list, but that doesn't mean she's vital. Being "the highest-paid star in Hollywood in the late 1930s" isn't a good reason to be on the list. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support James Dean syndrome. Betty Logan (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support How we list so many actors that did not really contribute anything new to the art form without listing someone like Constantin Stanislavski is beyond me. Cobblet (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Glenda Jackson
Jackson has a few notable awards, but she's not vital. Why is she more important than Cate Blanchett or Jessica Lange? Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Two Best Actress Oscars, but then there are plenty of people who have won two lead acting Oscars who aren't on the list. More recently she's had a distinguished political career, but nothing that makes her vital. Neljack (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   13:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think we should swap her out for Julie Christie, who was the defining British actress of the 60s and 70s. We currently have over 60 actors and just over 40 actresses so the balance needs to be evened out a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose too much ignorance going on with these lists. You are comparing apples with oranges and on the utterly fatuous reason on awards won. Jackson is (or was) primarily a stage actress, and not as high profile as Blachett or Lange. That doesn't mean she isn't more important than either of those, expecially given her current political career. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Yes, I would prefer to make these swaps for other female actresses.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the numbers need to be evened out. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree both on the goal of gender balance within the actors' list and the fact that her political career cannot make her vital. There are countless British politicians more vital than Jackson and there are a countless number of high-profile actor-politicians across the world (including Arnie who is soon to be removed). Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Add Setsuko Hara
Japan's most notable actress, she is best remembered for appearing in classic films directed by Yasujiro Ozu including Tokyo Story, Late Spring, and Early Summer.
 * Support
 * 1) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

The actresses list is very dominated by the US/UK and Hara has a very strong case. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * , is Setsuko Hara considered to be a greater actress than Machiko Kyo, Isuzu Yamada and Hideko Takamine? You know Japanese cinema far better than I do but I'm just looking for confirmation. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My impression is certainly yes with Machiko Kyo second. Looking around for something more like evidence I found Hara's page in Japanese Wikipedia notes in the lede that she was voted no.1 actress in the list shown at Kinema Junpo. Some of the names listed are not so well known internationally, but that is not the case for Hara... Incidentally, I have thought before that Shintaro Katsu is not an especially good choice on the expanded actors' list. He is no.7 on the Junpo list. Would not necessarily replace him with a Japanese actor - maybe Chinese or somewhere else. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Bessie Smith
One of the most popular and best respected singers of her day and still highly respected for her contributions today. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support One of the greatest blues singers. Neljack (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

And Nina Simone is also not on the list. How is Mariah Carey on the list and these two not? There are other modern musicians who really should not be on there.--Rsm77 (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add David Attenborough
We have many in the entertainment business, be it music, film or sport, sport in the spot light right now. We have over 100 people among actors, actresses and directors in the film industry, vast majority of which are in the realm of fiction as opposed to facts. When it comes to facts we have a list of journalists, plus some writers of non fiction I suppose. Not only is there no broadcasting person in the realm of nature I'm not sure there is any person on the list primarily known for documentary or factual films at all outside of the news readers and reporters in journalists, apart from perhaps Oprah if you want to count chat shows, I'm aware fiction TV and movies is by far the bigger than factual TV and film, but to have over 100 fiction film people but zero factual does not seem wise of fair representation of on screen entertainment. Also in the general area of entertainment to miss of a man such as this but argue over approx 100 athletes including 13ish tennis players among others. Attenborough is been in his business over 60 years, only just slowing down now in his 80s, I can't think of a bigger name, not only for nature but for fact/documentary film in general, he is a heavily decorated sir with numerous awards and I believe him to have had a large impact on his industry and culture, and a larger impact on the wide area of entertainment in general than many existing people across the several areas of entertainment. I bought him up passing a few times a couple of people said they liked the idea, no one said they didn't so I'll open this now. A long time ago there where 1 or 2 documentary film makers but I removed them as they where fairly obscure and not comparable to Attenborough really.  Carl wev   11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   11:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support We do have Joseph Pulitzer. Perhaps we can add a few more modern journalists, reporters, television anchors. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I think it's reasonable to list one biography related to nature documentaries, especially someone who has accomplished so much in the field. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove George Cukor, Add Georges Méliès
The former is a respected Hollywood director, and his inclusion on the list puzzles me slightly since he didn't really transcend his peers (most of which are not included) in any way shape or form. The latter is the French pioneer of film as a narrative form who made numerous technical advances and contributions. If you were to write one side of A4 summarizing the motion picture industry you wouldn't mention Cuckor, but you would mention Méliès. Betty Logan (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.
 * 2) Support this is definitely an improvement. Directors and producers who innovated and brought something new to filmmaking are more vital than those who were just commercially successful. Good nomination! Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Was wondering why Méliès wasn't listed. Cobblet (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Aaron Sorkin, Add P. T. Barnum
Creator of The West Wing vs. progenitor of the modern entertainment industry, considered one of the hundred most influential people of the last millennium by two different sources.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Barnum's also on The Atlantic's list, for what it's worth. Malerisch (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support You can sum up the behind-the-camera work in film or television with about 20 people. Sorkin ain't one of them.  Regardless, Jkfp2004 will kill me for removing Sorkin.  p  b  p  13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Desiderius Erasmus
Erasmus was an important humanist and theologian. Namesake of multiple institutions and programs, mainly in Europe.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  18:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support One of the most prominent intellectual figures of late Renaissance Europe. Had a lasting influence. Neljack (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I had assumed he was on the list already. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Hugo Grotius
Hugo de Groot was one of the founders of international law. Not sure in which subcategory he should be listed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nominator – Editør (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A huge influence not only in international law but also in international relations. Neljack (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support definitely vital. Maybe a polymath section should be created for people like Grotius? Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, I agree with Gizza, creating a polymath section might be a good idea.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I'd object to the creation of a polymath section – I don't see how grouping Hildegard of Bingen, Grotius, Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī, and possibly even Winston Churchill in the same section would improve the organization of the list. Calling Grotius a social scientist seems reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Are there more people from the field of law listed as vital article? – Editør (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of people who were both lawyers and politicians but we don't have anyone who's exclusively a lawyer, as far as I can tell. And I think the only judge we have is John Marshall. Cobblet (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is a no agreement on a polymath section, so I guess that Social scientists, economists and political writers is a good choice for now. – Editør (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Emperor Gaozu of Han
Founder of the Han dynasty. His struggle against Xiang Yu for control over China can be likened in historical and cultural significance to Caesar's Civil War, right down to the level of linguistic idiom: alea iacta est, meet 破釜沉舟.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Raja Raja Chola I
Responsible for the establishment of the Chola Empire as the dominant economic and naval power in South India. His conquests gave the Cholas complete control over the maritime trade routes between the Arabia/Africa and East/Southeast Asia and set the stage for the spectacular military campaigns of his son Rajendra Chola I.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Builder of spectacular temples and a revered figure in important Tamil tradition. Regarded the greatest Chola king. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Alauddin Khilji
The most important ruler of the Delhi Sultanate. His political and economic reforms ushered in a period of prosperity and enabled him to build a sizable army, which he used to expand his empire and defend against Mongol invasions (one of people in history who successfully did so).
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support vital Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Ahmad al-Mansur
The Saadi dynasty of Morocco reached its zenith under his rule. His military and diplomatic skill preserved Morocco's independence in the face of Christian and Ottoman threats and that laid the foundation for the development of a distinct national identity.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Midas and Croesus, Add Nebuchadnezzar II
I don't think these two semi-legendary kings are vital – there's a litany of better choices from Greek (Amazons, Dionysus, Icarus, Leonidas I, Minos, Pan, Sisyphus, Theseus, Titan (mythology)) and biblical legend (Job, Samson, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah). Since they're listed as political figures from west Asia, I suggest replacing them with Babylon's greatest king, notable as a builder and a conqueror (Hanging Gardens; the destruction of Jerusalem).
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 14:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Lothair I and Louis the German
The Treaty of Verdun (not listed in the History section) is more vital than the three sons of Louis the Pious who inherited his kingdom as a result of that treaty, and I'm not sure why two of them should be singled out over Charles the Bald. Succession wars are a staple of European history and I don't think it's necessary to list every participant in each war: we don't list, say, Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor despite his role in the Spanish, Polish and Austrian successions. Nor do we cover the history of any other region in the world at this level of detail: would people want to see articles on each of the participants in the Tripartite Struggle for post-Harsha India, or all of the Southern and Northern Dynasties of China?


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The Carolingians are indeed rather over-represented. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Pope Clement VII
Commissioned Raphael and Michelangelo and excommunicated Henry VIII, but an ineffectual pope overall: his reign is marked by an inability to stem the tide of the Reformation more than anything else. Nor was he notorious or controversial in the way Pope Alexander VI was; he was just weak. I'd venture that Pope Urban II, who helped carry out the Gregorian Reforms and ordered the First Crusade, is probably a more vital figure in history.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Bagyidaw
Less important to the history of Burma's Konbaung Dynasty than Alaungpaya, Bodawpaya or Mindon Min, all of whom are listed. I count ten Burmese political figures on the list – like I said, Southeast Asia's remarkably well represented.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Not as vital as Anawrahta as well, another Burmese leader listed. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Add Georges Lemaître, Remove Steven Chu
Chu's vitality is pretty similar to that of Charles Hard Townes, who's been nominated for removal above: as I mentioned earlier, they both shared Nobel Prizes with two others on laser-related work. I suggest adding Lemaître instead, who proposed the theory of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe and first derived Hubble's law (not Edwin Hubble). Malerisch (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Georg Cantor
Cantor invented set theory, a major branch of mathematics. He also developed the theory of transfinite numbers, which are key to a thorough understanding of infinity. Malerisch (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Gerd Müller
A great goalscorer, but as an all-round player not quite at the level of others listed. We already have plenty of strikers, and Müller is more on a par with the likes of Marco van Basten, who has already been removed. Neljack (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neljack (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, I was going to nominate him. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support although I wouldn't mind seeing van Basten readded – three Ballons d'Or ought to be enough for anyone, abbreviated career or otherwise. Cobblet (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   13:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add East Asia
I'm not sure why this region is missing. It's one of the few regions to which we devote a "History of" article, and I think it belongs on the level 3 list as well. If you support, what are your thoughts on level 3? History of the Middle East is listed along with Middle East, so why not list History of East Asia and East Asia? Malerisch (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

We're also missing the divisions of Europe: Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and Western Europe. These are from the United Nations geoscheme. Malerisch (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Those divisions of Europe are pretty fuzzy (the usage of the UN geoscheme is pretty much limited to UN publications) and IMO it's better to list only well-defined concepts like Scandinavia and European Union.
 * As for the presence of East Asia on level 3, I think it would be better to just add Korea. (Mongolia and Taiwan are not as integral to the concept of East Asia.) I would keep the Middle East on the list unless we decide to add a significant number of modern Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel and Syria. It's also been suggested that we remove all the histories of regions and continents from that level, which I think is actually quite reasonable. Cobblet (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't remember exactly which regions where removed when we culled the region list, I think N S E W Europe where in then, can't remember if E Asia was or not or Central Europe. I am pondering between Korea, S Korea, and E Asia for 1000 list, like Cobblet said maybe Korea is good idea. If we are looking at 1000 list geography I keep wondering if we can remove one of those lakes that were up for ages and put back Caribbean/Caribbean Sea.   Carl  wev   09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Purgatory
I just think this is an important topic compared to some religion topics and people we have. I thought it should go with heaven and hell in afterlife, but maybe under Christianity, as it's more specific. Nirvana is to do with after life but is under Buddhism as it's pretty specific to that religion. I was also wandering if Saṃsāra is worth thinking about? as we have nirvana and dharma, they often appear together when studying Hindu/Buddhist afterlife beliefs, thoughts?  Carl wev   15:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Ayyavazhi
Ayyavazhi is a Hindu new religious movement that began in the late 19th century. It is covered by new religious movement. See also the successful proposal to remove other new religious movements (the Hare Krishnas, Scientology and Falun Gong) Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_25.

There are plenty of more vital articles related to Hinduism and Eastern religions missing in comparison to Ayyavazhi. The elephant-headed god Ganesha for example, is far more important within the religion and is well known to people outside the religion. There are at least 5 new Hindu movements I can think of off the top of my head that have been more influential than Ayyavazhi as well.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove General Electric
We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose GE has historical importance.  p  b  p  16:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  Carl  wev   17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per my reasoning below (under Walmart). GE is a major corporation with significant importance, both historically and presently. Furthermore, I don't see why we don't have room for the topics you've mentioned—have they ever been nominated? I could just as easily say that we have no room for many organisms because we don't list wildlife, microorganism, prokaryote, birth, or decomposition, but these can be rectified by adding the topics rather than removing others. Malerisch (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove IBM
We seem to have no room for topics like anti-trust law, merger, blue chip, financial industry, pharmaceutical industry, oil industry and many others. I don't think we should list individual companies at this level, except for those with historical importance, like the East India Company.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose IBM has historical importance.  p  b  p  16:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  Carl  wev   17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose IBM is even more vital than GE. Malerisch (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Delta Cephei
Only notable for being the prototype Cepheid variable, which we already have on the list.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. It should be covered in Cepheus as well, and I don't think it's more notable than Tau Ceti, Barnard's Star, Proxima Centauri, Spica, Regulus, Alnitak, or Epsilon Eridani. Malerisch (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add protostar and pre-main-sequence star
We're missing two important stages in the evolution of all stars. Pre-main-sequence star is also a nice catch-all for several variable types (FU Ori, Herbig Ae/Be, and T Tauri stars)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Swap: Remove circumstellar habitable zone, add astrobiology
Circumstellar habitable zone is too specific. Astrobiology covers this topic and multiple related topics quite well in one article.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Agree that CHZ is too specific. You can just as easily add Planetary habitability, Search for extraterrestrial intelligence and Communication with extraterrestrial intelligence. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

If we're going to add interdisciplinary topics to astronomy, I would list astrophysics before astrobiology. Malerisch (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * They should both be on the list IMO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure though it's better, I think I would prefer to have astrobiology, and circumstellar habitable zone as well as astrophysics too. I think I would prefer to look up habitable zone before most constellations and stars.  Carl  wev   11:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've proposed some constellation removals below. As for stars, Eta Carinae, Sirius, Vega, and Alpha Centauri should definitely stay on the list due to their notable properties. I would propose removing Algol, but we unfortunately have no general eclipsing binary article to replace it with. As for the others currently on the list not proposed for removal, I think Achernar, Antares, Alpha Crucis, Beta Centauri, Deneb, and Pollux are our best candidates for removal at this time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove compact star
Already adequately covered in white dwarf and neutron star, the only two types of compact stars currently known.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. The general topic is less vital than the specific ones. Malerisch (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove occultation
A cool phenomenon, but certainly not of fundamental importance to our understanding of the universe.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Malerisch (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom. Just a technical aspect of astronomy. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Astrophysics
A huge omission.
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   10:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Ballistics or Projectile
As we're removing specific weapons, it might be the time to add more general topics in military technology. The mechanics of ranged weapons is an important concept.


 * Support
 * 1) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ballistics I think ballistics is the best choice here since it's the more general article. Malerisch (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support ballistics Cobblet (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support ballistics, too. Perhaps ranged weapon has potential but needs improving, mostly a list.  Carl  wev   11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support ballistics Rwessel (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

An alternative could be adding ranged weapon since melee weapon is already listed. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Electric locomotive

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Diesel locomotive

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   12:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion