Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 36

If there's one topic that's overrepresented on VA/E, film definitely has to be the unambiguous choice. We currently list 59 actors, 44 actresses, and 51 directors, producers, and screenwriters for a total of 154 spots on the list, which is too much for a genre of visual arts that's only been around for about 100 years. I think this number should be cut down to at least 100, if not lower, and actors and actresses are a good place to start. I've sorted the actors and actresses currently listed by country and moved the people on AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars to a separate list, which seems to be what this list was initially based on. The following series of proposals are all removals from the list of US and UK actors and actresses, although I have a few additions in mind as well. I'm starting off with 15 removals, but more will come later if most people agree with these. Malerisch (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Before voting, please consider the following samples of influential Americans and Britons not currently on the list. Are all of these actors really more vital than all of these people?

Americans not on the list

 * 1) John Quincy Adams
 * 2) Samuel Adams
 * 3) Jane Addams
 * 4) William Jennings Bryan
 * 5) John C. Calhoun
 * 6) Grover Cleveland
 * 7) Bill Clinton
 * 8) Jefferson Davis
 * 9) John Dewey
 * 10) W. E. B. Du Bois
 * 11) Jonathan Edwards (theologian)
 * 12) William Lloyd Garrison
 * 13) Samuel Gompers
 * 14) Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
 * 15) George F. Kennan
 * 16) Henry Kissinger
 * 17) Horace Mann
 * 18) Thurgood Marshall
 * 19) William McKinley
 * 20) James Monroe
 * 21) William Penn
 * 22) Eleanor Roosevelt
 * 23) Earl Warren
 * 24) Booker T. Washington
 * 25) Brigham Young

Britons not on the list

 * 1) Anne, Queen of Great Britain
 * 2) Stanley Baldwin
 * 3) Blackbeard
 * 4) Tony Blair
 * 5) Thomas Carlyle
 * 6) Diana, Princess of Wales
 * 7) George III of the United Kingdom
 * 8) George VI
 * 9) Owain Glyndŵr
 * 10) Henry III of England
 * 11) Henry V of England
 * 12) James II of England
 * 13) D. H. Lawrence
 * 14) David Lloyd George
 * 15) Harold Macmillan
 * 16) Freddie Mercury
 * 17) Emmeline Pankhurst
 * 18) Walter Raleigh
 * 19) Richard III of England
 * 20) Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury
 * 21) Ernest Shackleton
 * 22) Mary Shelley
 * 23) George Stephenson
 * 24) Alfred, Lord Tennyson
 * 25) Frank Whittle

Actors
AFI
 * 1) Humphrey Bogart
 * 2) Cary Grant
 * 3) James Stewart
 * 4) Marlon Brando
 * 5) Fred Astaire
 * 6) Henry Fonda
 * 7) Clark Gable
 * 8) James Cagney
 * 9) Spencer Tracy
 * 10) Charlie Chaplin
 * 11) Gary Cooper
 * 12) Gregory Peck
 * 13) John Wayne
 * 14) Laurence Olivier
 * 15) Gene Kelly
 * 16) Orson Welles (in Directors)
 * 17) Kirk Douglas (removed)
 * 18) James Dean (removed)
 * 19) Burt Lancaster (removed)
 * 20) Marx Brothers (in Comedians)
 * 21) Buster Keaton
 * 22) Sidney Poitier
 * 23) Robert Mitchum (removed)
 * 24) Edward G. Robinson (removed)
 * 25) William Holden (removed)

US
 * 1) Robert De Niro
 * 2) Clint Eastwood
 * 3) Tom Hanks
 * 4) Jack Nicholson

UK Before 20th century
 * 1) Sean Connery
 * 2) John Gielgud
 * 3) Alec Guinness
 * 4) Anthony Hopkins
 * 5) Derek Jacobi
 * 6) Charles Laughton
 * 7) Ian McKellen
 * 1) Richard Burbage
 * 2) David Garrick
 * 3) Henry Irving
 * 4) Edmund Kean

Ireland
 * 1) Peter O'Toole

India
 * 1) Amitabh Bachchan
 * 2) Kamal Haasan
 * 3) Rajinikanth

Italy
 * 1) Roberto Benigni
 * 2) Marcello Mastroianni

France
 * 1) Gérard Depardieu
 * 2) Jean Marais
 * 3) Philippe Noiret

Japan
 * 1) Shintaro Katsu
 * 2) Toshiro Mifune

Germany
 * 1) Klaus Kinski

China
 * 1) Bruce Lee

Actresses
AFI
 * 1) Katharine Hepburn
 * 2) Bette Davis
 * 3) Audrey Hepburn
 * 4) Ingrid Bergman
 * 5) Greta Garbo
 * 6) Marilyn Monroe
 * 7) Elizabeth Taylor
 * 8) Judy Garland
 * 9) Marlene Dietrich
 * 10) Joan Crawford
 * 11) Barbara Stanwyck
 * 12) Claudette Colbert
 * 13) Grace Kelly
 * 14) Ginger Rogers
 * 15) Mae West
 * 16) Vivien Leigh
 * 17) Lillian Gish
 * 18) Shirley Temple
 * 19) Rita Hayworth
 * 20) Lauren Bacall
 * 21) Sophia Loren
 * 22) Jean Harlow (removed)
 * 23) Carole Lombard (removed)
 * 24) Mary Pickford (never listed)
 * 25) Ava Gardner (removed)

US
 * 1) Doris Day
 * 2) Ethel Merman
 * 3) Meryl Streep

UK Before 20th century
 * 1) Julie Andrews
 * 2) Judi Dench
 * 3) Edith Evans
 * 4) Deborah Kerr
 * 5) Ida Lupino
 * 6) Helen Mirren
 * 7) Vanessa Redgrave
 * 8) Maggie Smith
 * 1) Ellen Terry

France Before 20th century
 * 1) Isabelle Adjani
 * 2) Isabelle Huppert
 * 3) Jeanne Moreau
 * 1) Sarah Bernhardt

Germany
 * 1) Hanna Schygulla

Japan
 * 1) Setsuko Hara

I would probably say these lists are the second most overrepresented after comedians. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove Lauren Bacall
I'm skipping Sophia Loren as well since she's notable to Italy. Bacall ranks #20 on the AFI list, and the films she starred in aren't that well-remembered. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Jucchan (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 23:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose:Bacall's contributions include also being a Tony-award-winner on Broadway; her cross-platform talent elevates her over any number of other film stars, as does her involvement with political causes. I mean, seriously, you have people like Doris Day, who was an utter lightweight, Rita Hayworth, Barbary Stanwyck, all less significant.  Debroah Kerr?  Puh-leese, no.  Bacall tops all of them.  I'd also question including Greta Garbo over Lauren Bacall.  Seriously.  Montanabw (talk)  00:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We should not blindly follow the rankings of one particular list. In this case, I think Bacall is vital, particularly for her impact on the portrayal of women on screen. Neljack (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Will Rogers
Although Rogers was "one of the world's best-known celebrities," popularity doesn't make you vital. The article calls him "the leading political wit of the Progressive Era," but there's so many other American figures better suited to represent that era: where are William Jennings Bryan, Jane Addams, W. E. B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, Florence Kelley, and Robert M. La Follette, Sr.? (He isn't mentioned at all in the Progressive Era article.) He was also the "top-paid Hollywood movie star at the time," but we don't list people like George Formby or Tyler Perry, so I don't see why he should be listed. His article also seems to indicate that his legacy doesn't extend far beyond a few US states. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Malerisch (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Jucchan (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not only was he a key entertainer of his time, he is arguably one of the best known cowboys ever. His name is on more than a couple things here in Los Angeles, although that's not global notability. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Remove Whoopi Goldberg Add Josephine Baker
Whoopi Goldberg has come from comedy and done a bit of everything, but has not been outstanding in any field. On the other hand, Josephine Baker was hugely influential, primarily as a dancer, but also as a singer and actress. And she has been described as the first black superstar.
 * Support
 * 1) Support --Rsm77 (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) support very clear and straightforward improvement of the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Whoopi Goldberg's spot in the list does seem to be based on mild recentism. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 13:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Josephine Baker, like Mata Hari seem like obvious adds.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) support add, oppose removing Whoopi Goldberg. Moms Mabley was removed here with the rationale that female black comedians would be represented by Goldberg. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

How many entertainers and directors should be listed?
There seems to be a general consensus that too many entertainers are listed, but I think more discussion should take place to determine what the right number should be. In my opinion, 100 is a good milestone to aim for, and once we reach that number, swaps should be carried out to diversify the list. What do others think? And as for the directors, is that section right-sized or bloated? Malerisch (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your determination to pare down these sections of the list is much appreciated. These aren't really areas I know anything about, but compare the number of actors and directors to the number of artists, musicians and writers from the same period (and nationality, if that makes it easier); that should tell you what is over- and underrepresented. One of the many reasons the Victor Jara nomination bugs me is that I don't see a need for more Latin musicians if Diego Rivera isn't considered a vital artist – I would've thought he was much more internationally well-known than any Latin musician. Or compare the 49(?) American actors and 44 American writers with our coverage of American painting: in the 20th century, there's no Mark Rothko or Roy Lichtenstein, and in the previous century all we've got is Thomas Eakins – even Winslow Homer didn't make the cut. Maybe these examples only go to show how much tougher we are on painters relative to other types of artists – but perhaps the only way to get a truly representative list of 2000 people is to hold every other category to an equally tough standard. Cobblet (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need to get actors, actresses and comedians down to about 50 total, and behind-the-camera people to about 30. p  b  p  13:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of actors, actresses, comedians and directors should not be less than the number of sportspeople (currently at 118) nor should it be less than the number of 20th/21st century musicians (this is harder to count but I think they're around 130 at the moment). Actors shouldn't have less coverage than other forms of entertainment from a similar time period. Personally I think this group should actually have more articles than sportspeople for a couple of reasons. Firstly, most sports around the world are male-dominated pastimes whereas film, televisions and related arts are performed and enjoyed equally by men and women and is therefore more universal. Secondly, film generally (but not always) is more capable than sports to inspire, influence and change society for better or worse. Think of some of the oldest science fiction movies, To Kill a Mockingbird (film) or The Eternal Jew (1940 film). Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That could be a sensible way of looking at it, I'd like to remind people, that film, along with music is a vital 100 topic, sport is not. Although you could say it's meaningless, it does suggest we are treating film as more vital than sport, so for sports people to exceed film people may not be good. (I did try to get sport included in the 100 list by the way, but it failed, I would probably still support it.)  Carl wev  17:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Josef Albers
A crucial artist in the Geometric abstraction movement.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC) 12:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC) syntax fix


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I agree with Melody. Neljack (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --Melody Lavender 09:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * We do have Wassily Kandinsky and Piet Mondrian who are both much more famous and can represent this movement. --Melody Lavender (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Albers is highly famous as well, for instance his furniture design is quite influential, and his Homage to the Square series is very well-known to art lovers.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true that he is famous and a genius but we have to draw the line somewhere. --Melody Lavender 09:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And for the Geometric abstraction movement, I think Op art (which we have) might not fully cover it. It might be covered by constructivism (art) which we need to nominate, I think.--Melody Lavender 12:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Dylan Thomas remove William Carlos Williams
Dylan Thomas is one of the most influential and famous modernist poets, who significantly influenced the direction of literature in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Nothing in the article on William Carlos Williams suggests that he is a vital poet, and certainly not when compared with Dylan Thomas who is missing.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.-User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender 15:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl wev  16:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Malerisch (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Remove Gore Vidal
I don't think Gore Vidal is significant enough for literature to be on the list, he is mostly remembered as a public intellectual, and few people read his work today.
 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--
 * 2) Support, --Melody Lavender 15:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 07:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jucchan (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Remove John Updike
Somewhat well known as a journalist and Rabbit Run is well known, but is he vital?


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Jucchan (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Not the weakest figure on the list (some of the science fiction writers are even less vital, IMO), but not really vital either. Cobblet (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. He's won countless prices as a journalist and as an author. VA should not be a popularity contest, we ought to acknowledge the literary quality that his works have. --Melody Lavender 15:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * But how do the literary qualities of Updike's work compare with other authors who are not on the list? Such as a couple of dozen nobel prize winners for example? And scores of globally known popular authors? Has Updike really been so influential that he needs to be included before all of those?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Lucian
The author of a famous book True History, however, he is not included in the list despite the fact that this book is included in it.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Redundant with the book, but I would support removing the book also.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Maunus. Jucchan (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Tom Clancy
Tom Clancy in military fiction is like Stephen King in thriller fiction.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I Stephen King on the list? Of he is he should probably be removed.15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Popular, but not very influential or acclaimed. We can't include every best-selling author - it's necessary to look at their influence and critical reputation. Neljack (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. This list also doesn't need any more American writers. Malerisch (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) 'Oppose" If anything, American writers is bloated relative to a) non-American writers, and b) American non-writers.  We could stand to lose a few.  p  b  p  22:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Too much of a niche-writer, not that acclaimed as writers go. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Would support removing Stephen King too. Gizza (t)(c) 01:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add John Thomson (photographer)
This figure is crucial since his work among the street people of London is regarded as a classic instance of social documentary which laid the foundations for photojournalism. He went on to become a portrait photographer of High Society in Mayfair, gaining the Royal Warrant in 1881.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose His article doesnt give the impression that this is a vital photographer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Less vital than Alfred Stieglitz, Margaret Bourke-White, or Eadweard Muybridge, who aren't listed. We're also missing Nicéphore Niépce (the inventor of photography); Thomson surely can't be more vital than him. Malerisch (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Malerisch. Jucchan (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, photojournalism itself might be vital. Malerisch (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add I. F. Stone
An American investigative journalist and author. He is best remembered for his self-published newsletter, I. F. Stone's Weekly, which was ranked 16th in a poll of his fellow journalists of "The Top 100 Works of Journalism in the United States in the 20th Century".


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose So why should we add him and not one of the people who wrote the 15 top works of journalism in the 20th century?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose p  b  p  21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose 16th in the US, how much is that on a global scale - probably not in the top 50. Need I say more? Arnoutf (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 05:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I.F. Stone was once on the list, but we removed him here p  b  p  21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Edward B. Titchener to psychologist
A psychologist who is best known for creating his version of psychology that described the structure of mind - structuralism.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not the next psychologist to be added to the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We should probably have Structuralism, Functionalism, and Existentialism on the list, though. We have all other basic subtopics of psychology like Humanism, Cognitive psychology, Behaviorism, Psychanalysis and Gestalt psychology and there is no reason why we should leave these out. --Melody Lavender 09:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Hideki Tojo
I know we have Hirohito from this period, but Tojo, as head of government, did most of the heavy lifting during the World War II era. Most notably, he authorized the attack on Pearl Harbor. In comparison to other leading industrialized nations, we have very few Japanese leaders. Could potentially also be added in military leaders.


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  19:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Jucchan (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support hard to decide looking at the proposal in isolation but after having a look at the actual list of modern leaders, adding Tojo will improve the list. There are currently more Austro-Hungarian and Egyptian modern leaders than Japanese. Gizza (t)(c) 10:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose Historically significant does not equal vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Partial oppose on the grounds that we only have so much room. See discussion below for my more detailed rationale.   Montanabw (talk)  20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

, why not? What makes him too unimportant to not be on this list? p b  p  22:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Here are the criteria by which I decide how to vote in these matters. I think my criteria are probably quite different from yours. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They are. I don't have written criteria, but it's probably time I did.  p  b  p  22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat in opposition because I am not sure of who would be "kicked off" to make room. If there is a decision that "we should include three biographies of major players on the Japanese side of WWII," then sure, I'd be OK with Hirohito, plus Tojo and maybe someone like Isoroku Yamamoto.  But if only one, then Hirohito is the one to keep.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We're under quota for bios at the present time because of recent entertainer removals. I'm fine with another entertainer being removed for Tojo.  p  b  p  22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Add John Jay
He is one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, yet this list does not contain the article, despite the fact that the other six men (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington) can be found in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose We can't list all the Founding Fathers. Jay, while an important one, is not as important as those listed. Four of them were Presidents. Of the other two, Franklin is there as much for his exploits in other areas as for his political contributions, while Hamilton - as the first Secretary of the Treasury - was essentially the founder of the American financial system and - as one of the principal authors of the Federalist Papers - was instrumental in the ratification of the Constitution (I realise Jay was also an author of the Federalist Papers, but he authored a lot fewer and was less influential). Finally, I think we have more than enough American political leaders as it is. Neljack (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per pbp and Neljack. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose He is not the most well-known American. He was definitely important in his time, but not important enough to be listed on a list of people from world history. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose p  b  p  03:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * John Jay is all well and good (Prez of Continental Congress, Sec of State under Congress of Confederation, Federalist Papers collaborator, 1st Chief Justice), but he's not the next American political leader I'd add. Not while Earl Warren, John C. Calhoun, John Quincy Adams and William Jennings Bryan aren't on the list.  The other six Founding Fathers we have are of leaps-and-bounds more importance than Jay.  Each of them are in the top 25 of the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Americans; Jay isn't even top 100.  Six Founding Fathers seems about as high as you can go: we're talking about, what, 60 years of American history (1755-1815) of a country that had less than 10 million people by 1815?   p  b  p  20:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thing about Hamilton is that he founded America's first political party. Also, each of the four Presidents who were Founding Fathers are on here at least in part for significant things they did aside of being President: Washington for being a Revolutionary War General and presiding over the Constitutional Convention; Adams for his work in the Constitutional Congress, with the Massachusetts State Constitution, and diplomatically; Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, founding U. Va., and various achievements in architecture and the natural sciences; and Madison for his work on the Constitution.  p  b  p  01:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mixed feelings; Jay was significant as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and one of the authors of Federalist.' OTOH, how does he compare to other omitted individual founding fathers, such as James Monroe? Discuss.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd probably take Monroe over Jay. But I'd take Warren, Calhoun, JQA or Bryan over Monroe.  p  b  p  13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Monroe is a more significant president than JQA, who served one term and accomplished more as Monroe's secretary of state than as a rather unpopular President. Calhoun is significant for other reasons, but as such would need to be paralleled with his equally siginficant congressional colleagues Henry Clay and Webster.  Wrren is significant, but 20th century, Bryan, for different reasons and also in a different era.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  16:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We have Clay, FWIW. It'd be nice if Calhoun and Webster could join him, but Webster's case is probably the weakest.  He's not on the Atlantic Vital 100, didn't serve as VP or Speaker, and doesn't have as much important legislation or philosophy associated with him.  Contrast with Calhoun, who is in the Atlantic Vital 100, served as VP, and is associated with the legislation and philosophy of nullification, state's rights and the Slave Power more than any other individual.  p  b  p  21:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Theodor Herzl
Father of Zionism. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I've also noticed that he's missing. Herzl made the Life 100. Malerisch (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I think I can support this, however isn't Zionism itself, more important, as we do not have it; it seems to receive a bit more attention and it's alive today and ongoing, and is a bit wider and more evolved than when Herzl was alive. Although not an exact science, we usually treat religions and movements as more important than their founders. At the 1000 we removed the founder of Sikhism whilst keeping the religion. (Although we have Zoroaster but not Zoroastrianism, although it's been discussed as a possible swap round.) I feel Zionism is more vital I think I would support it unless someone gives a very good reason why we shouldn't have it. Someone should open tht, maybe I will? <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  11:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Agree with Carl, please propose Zionism I would like to support the addition of Zionism, maybe in the politics section? Or the religion section? Zionism is a huge ommission.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  18:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started an entry on Zionism, but why we have to choose between these and not include both? And Europe is underrepresented in 'Rebels, revolutionaries and activists.' --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , it isn't always the case that the person is less vital than the ideology or movement they started or helped grow. Hitler and Picasso are more vital than Nazism and Cubism respectively. Einstein is more vital than general relativity as well. Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, I said usually, not always, I think it's the case over half the time, but you're right not those, I agree that Picasso and Hitler are more vital. I think it is in cases like Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and Zionism though; although the Zionism one is close. It would be the case with Christianity, Buddhism, Islam too for example. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  15:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree in this case, Zionism may be more vital as it's legacy has gone beyond Herzl's life. Gizza (t)(c) 04:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Willis Carrier
Inventor of air conditioning p  b  p  14:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Air conditioning is not vital? Would you like to be in a room without air conditioning when its 100 degrees out? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seems important enough. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support one of the most interesting biographies I've read on Wikipedia. He's an inventor and also an entrepreneur. He founded the company together with six others who all invested their life savings. Almost went under when Wall street crashed. It survived and his company became one of the largest employers in the region. He also started a joint venture with Samsung in Korea. And one of his ancestors was hanged as a witch on Salem's gallows hill. We don't have enough businessmen anyway and the biography is interesting to read, not the usual school, college, marriage, two kids, invention, churchgoer, death from heart attack routine.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 14:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose While his invention (air conditioner) is undoubtedly important, it is his only lasting contribution. As a person he seems largely unremarkable and not comparable to other vital inventors currently listed in the vital article list like Brunel; Alfred Nobel or Thomas Edison. Arnoutf (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose An important invention (though not in the absolute top level of importance, I would suggest), but I agree that Carrier does not quite reach the level of importance of other inventors listed. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not vital. Nor is his invention.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose There were many pioneers who developed crucial aspects of refrigeration technology, including Carl von Linde and James Harrison. Carrier doesn't stand out among them. I think some better candidates for inventors include Al-Kindi, Christiaan Huygens, Stephanie Kwolek, Montgolfier brothers and Michael E. DeBakey. And there will be many others. Gizza (t)(c) 01:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * No it is not. Most people in the world who live in places where it is frequently 100 degrees out do not have aircondition and never will.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And they suffer from lower economic productivity and higher mortality rates as a result. A modernized economy cannot exist in a tropical climate without air conditioning, and there's no question A/C is one of the most important inventions of the 20th century; but I don't support adding Carrier because it isn't solely his invention. Cobblet (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about the importance of air conditioning. There were preceding inventions, but Carrier made the decisive step for this vital invention.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 14:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Simon Stevin
A highly influential Flemish mathematician, physicist and military engineer who translated various mathematical terms into Dutch. Also the first to show how to model regular and semi-regular polyhedra by delineating their frames in a plane.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Traslating things into dutch makes noone vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not the next mathematician I would add to the list. Where are Hermann Weyl, Richard Dedekind, Apollonius of Perga, and Bhāskara II? Malerisch (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * 1) The fact that Simon Stevin is the first European to popularize decimals makes him crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Seki Takakazu
The man who laid the subsequent development of Wasan, or Japanese mathematics. He has been described as "Japan's Newton".


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose nope.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose someone who isn't even famous in Japan shouldn't be on the list. Jucchan (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Malerisch (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Jucchan. Gizza (t)(c) 00:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * 1) Seki Takakazu is absolutely a crucial figure in the history of Japan, as he laid the subsequent development of Wasan.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Gottlob Frege
He was a German mathematician, logician and philosopher. He is considered to be one of the founders of modern logic and made major contributions to the foundations of mathematics. He is generally considered to be the father of analytic philosophy, for his writings on the philosophy of language and mathematics. While he was mainly ignored by the intellectual world when he published his writings, Giuseppe Peano(1858–1932) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) introduced his work to later generations of logicians and philosophers.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom. I'm very surprised that this article is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Very influential in both philosophy and mathematics. Generally considered the father of analytic philosophy and one of the founders of modern logic. A striking omission. Neljack (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Vichy France
We have several articles on Nazi Germany but none on the French equivalent. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not more vital than any other Axis puppet state (Manchukuo, Independent State of Croatia, Quisling's Norway, etc.) in WW2. Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Cobblet. See List of World War II puppet states for how many puppet states could potentially be added. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Too short-lived to be "vital". Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Part of the overall Nazi occupation of Europe; biggest takedown, but covered adequately elsewhere.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

I don't mind historic regions but it does seem much less vital than Nazi Germany, I couldn't get Roman Britain to come aboard for example, that lasted 360+ years and is kind of an era in British history, Vichy France only lasted 5 years at most. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  08:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My take is that this was a puppet state that is adequately covered within general articles on France and on WWII.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Assyrian genocide, Greek genocide and Cambodian genocide
As title, since they are all crucial, especially Cambodian genocide since at least 1 million (maybe around 2 million) people died in the event, and linguist Noam Chomsky even denied its existence!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I would prefer the addition in the Anthropology/Ethnology section. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. When hundreds of thousands are systematically killed, it's important for readers to know about it. That makes these articles vital. As Maunus noted, there are other related articles that should be added as well. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. If Khmer rouge are not on the list I would support adding them, and I might support adding the Cambodian genocide on its own. We should be very careful with beginning to add genocide articles, since there are many, they are always controversial (and tend to be poor articles) and it is difficult to argue that any single one is more notable than another.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't think genocides are per se vital. Depredations of all sorts are horrific and many are historically important but not vital in human history. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Only the most notable of genocides are vital on their own, which are the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide. Many other genocides are redundant to broader topics (Cambodian genocide and Rwandan genocide will be covered in Khmer Rouge and Rwandan Civil War respectively). Otherwise we will be adding at least another 20 articles to the list. If we broaden genocide to include ethnic cleansing and forced population movement we will be adding another dozen articles. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Note that if these are added we will likely have to add also Herero and Namaqua genocide, Genocide of indigenous peoples, Porajmos and Srebrenica genocide. And probably a lot more once the ball gets rolling. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Zionism

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  20:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support and would prefer this in politics. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Agree that this would fit better under politics, possibly as a subtopic of nationalism. Malerisch (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Agree with Malerisch. Neljack (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Saitama and Sendai
Saitama is the the capital and most populous city of Saitama Prefecture, as well as being the 9th most populous city in Japan. It is a key transportation hub near Tokyo.

Sendai is the capital city and most populous city of Miyagi Prefecture, and is also the most populous city in the Tōhoku region and 11th most populous in Japan. It serves as the center for the region's economy. There are no cities in the Tōhoku region currently on the list. Jucchan (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC) I've only very recently gotten involved in this project, so I'm not sure how many vital articles on cities the project is aiming for. If the number of Japanese cities would be an issue, then I propose Kitakyushu to be removed, as it has a smaller population, is not a prefecture capital, and is situated in Fukuoka Prefecture which overlaps with Fukuoka which is already on the list. Jucchan (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support swap of Sendai for Kitakyushu. Sendai is historically more important and has a strong regional identity. Do not support add of Saitama. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I don't see how Saitama's more notable than Kawasaki or Chiba or other secondary cities within major urban agglomerations, say Tangerang or Faridabad or Newark, New Jersey. Sendai's more significant, but I don't think a region that makes up less than 10% of Japan's population necessarily needs to have its largest city added to the list. There are more important Asian cities to add, particularly in China. Shimonoseki is often considered part of the Kitakyushu agglomeration and the population of that is about two million; Sendai's agglomeration is about 1.5 million. Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Cobblet. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

@Cobblet, How does the Kitakyushu agglomeration have a population of two million? List of agglomerations by population lists Kitakyushu as having a population of 1,590,000 people, around the same as Sendai. I was personally also going to propose Kawasaki and Chiba as well. Yes, there are important Chinese cities to add, but I don't think that would be a problem since Geography is under quota by about 50 articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jucchan (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Jucchan, I prefer to use this list. I don't know how exactly that person defined the Kitakyushu-Shimonoseki agglomeration but if Yamaguchi Prefecture has a population of 1.6 million and Kitakyushu proper has a population slightly under a million, two million for the agglomeration doesn't seem unreasonable. I admit though there isn't that much separating it and Sendai and I'm not too attached to keeping it. We've previously removed cities like Goiânia and Portland, Oregon, which are standalone 2 million+ agglomerations; without some exceptional historical or economic significance (such as the port of Yokohama) I don't think the satellite cities of Tokyo can be considered more important. Cobblet (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Add Ancient Roman architecture
We have Romanesque architecture on the list but not ancient Roman architecture, which sounds strange.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support We don't have many architectural styles, particularly when you compare this to the number of specific buildings listed. Ancient Roman architecture was influential and innovative, particularly in its use of features such as the arch, vault and dome. Neljack (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Neljack. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  19:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I would support removing Romanesque architecture.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I could support these additions if an honest attempt was made to include architectural styles across the entire world and not just the West. Otherwise this will just exacerbate the bias in this list. Why not add Ancient Egyptian architecture, Mesoamerican architecture, Islamic architecture, Chinese architecture and Indian architecture as well? Even many of these articles are about a group of styles equivalent to adding an article on "Western architecture". Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * We need all those articles, they are all obvious omissions, I think. I would support all the ones you mentioned, maybe even subarticles like Ottoman architecture, Persian architecture, Indo-Gothic, Indo-Islamic architecture and Hindu temple architecture. An encyclopedia without Romanesque architecture would be unimaginable.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone outside the Western world would consider Romanesque architecture vital. Roman architecture, on the other hand... Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Mesoamerican architecture
Huge omission. Incan architecture is at least represented by Machu Picchu but I couldn't find any Maya architecture. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support''' Major world tradition.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support for the moment. The style vs building debate isn't really resolved but in this case, as there are no representatives of Mesoamerican architecture on the list, adding this will be better than nothing. I guess we can push architecture up at the expense of music in case space needs to be made. We don't need so many individual songs. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose We dont need all these overarching architectural traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Maunus. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
We could add El Castillo, Chichen Itza or Tikal. Chichen Itza itself is on the list in "Historical Cities" and Tikal would also fit better there. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding many architectural traditions could lead to a slippery slope where every building has an equivalent architectural style article. Khmer architecture can be added on the basis of Angkor Wat. Expressionist architecture or Australian architecture could be added due to Sydney Opera House. If Borobudur is added would Javanese temple architecture have to be added as well? We will have to draw the line somewhere to avoid excessively inflating the list. And if we have to choose between the building and generic style, I would choose the former in most cases. For example, I would prefer Taj Mahal over Indo-Islamic architecture or Mughal architecture despite there being many other impressive and iconic Mughal buildings such as Red Fort. The building articles have more substance to them. Generic is not always more vital than specific. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, IMHO, we need ONE article on the western hemisphere for crying out loud. Let's not be Eurocentric.  End of story.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This problem has been bugging me as well. I've outlined my solution below, which uses RSes to determine which of these articles are the most important. I've used this as my source for the following outline of possible architectural traditions, but other sources as possible as well.
 * Megalith
 * Architecture of Mesopotamia
 * Ancient Egyptian architecture-- nominated
 * Ancient Greek architecture
 * Architecture of India -- nominated
 * Hindu temple architecture
 * Chinese architecture -- nominated
 * Japanese architecture
 * Ancient Roman architecture
 * Church architecture
 * Byzantine architecture-- nominated
 * Islamic architecture--- nominated
 * Romanesque architecture
 * Gothic architecture
 * Mesoamerican architecture
 * Inca architecture
 * Architecture of Africa
 * Renaissance architecture
 * Baroque architecture
 * Neoclassical architecture
 * Modern architecture
 * Postmodern architecture
 * I'd say that this is a pretty balanced list in terms of recentism and globalization. It's also not excessively detailed (22 articles), considering that we have 31 music genres listed. We have to draw the line somewhere between what's vital and what's not (e.g. Japanese architecture but not Korean architecture, neoclassical architecture but not Gothic Revival architecture, and Islamic architecture but not Ottoman architecture), and IMO this is a good way of choosing. By the way, Chichen Itza isn't actually on the list—a proposal to add it failed here. Malerisch (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That place is a good place to start although far from perfect. I would replace architecture of Africa with two specific types in addition to Ancient Egyptian even if it means that some parts are not represented. The continent being the second biggest by population after Asia is too big to lump into one article. I'll need to look at the rest of the list in more detail. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you for this list. It's remarkably similar to what we have + what is suggested here. We must be on the right track. How did you come up with this list? What are RSes? --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I just pulled the outline from the table of contents of the book I linked above, which divides the history of architecture into specific styles. RSes was supposed to refer to WP:RSes; sorry if that wasn't clear. Malerisch (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to decide on either only buildings or style articles. It might make sense to have both or just one. I would oppose any "one building per style" tendencies. And I would support the addition of Tikal. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Narrative
The overarching analytical concept for all analyses of literature.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Huge Omission. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Natural History (Pliny)
A crucial book in Ancient Rome whose corresponding article is not include in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support An influential and famous work. Neljack (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the first encyclopedia ever. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Ancient Rome is well represented overall. Need a better rationale to include more.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Accordion
Widely used, accross many genres around the world. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 11:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) Supportas nom.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  11:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  20:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support p  b  p  14:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza (t)(c) 09:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Frame drum
Similar argument as slit drum above, I don't think it's within the top 150 music topics, and many other types of drum or other instruments equal or higher importance are missing like base drum, steel drum, Taiko, Sitar.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  09:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Jucchan (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --<font style="background:lavender;">Melody Lavender 19:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support we can possibly replace it with a well known and fairly widespread frame drum, the tambourine. Gizza (t)(c) 07:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Salsa music
The list currently has only three non-Western musical genres Gamelan, Indian classical music, and Bossa-Nova. Salsa is both a music style and a dance style that has a worldwide following, and represents the Latin American continents in the minds of most of the rest of the world.

I was wondering if Son Cubano or Ranchera would be a good choice as well. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Salsa <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  14:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 06:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Add interactive art
A crucial article which is not included in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not crucial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose recentism. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add photorealism
A crucial article which is not included in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support it must have had a huge impact when it was first introduced. --Melody Lavender (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not crucial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I love it as an art form but it's recentism. Get back to me in a century. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Origami
Important Asian art form
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  21:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  13:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carlwevs rationale convinced me. --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I want an argument for why this is a more important artform than other ones. Does anyone know any origami artists of worldwide significance? Any art academies focusing on origami? Anyway that origami has influenced the cultural trajectory of the world or inspired ideas and movements? I would feel very odd if this was added and Installation art for example was not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of this article, it's a decent article in many languages, represents non western art, and in my view for art in general more vital than most individual paintings we include. It had crossed my mind before. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  13:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * , there appear to be a number of origami artists significant enough to have Wikipedia articles, one such being Akira Yoshizawa. There also appear not only to be museum exhibits devoted to origami, but whole museums.  Installation art and origami are very different movements: one is significantly older and focuses on a particular medium (paper).   p  b  p  17:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading Yoshizawas article and our article on Origami I still tend to oppose. Installation art is one of the main artforms of the last 40 years and is practiced and exhibited world wide. Origami is ...not. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mixed feelings about this. Yes non-Western art needs better coverage (although Japanese art is the second best-represented after Europe) and paper folding has a long tradition. But it feels like it is being added due to its novelty value outside of East Asia notwithstanding the comments above. I just hope haiku isn't proposed to be added because it's a non-Western genre of poetry and therefore supposedly more vital than the individual poems we include. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Wood carving
Similar rationale to leather crafting above, major art medium unrepresented. p b  p  02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) support Much more significant and widespread than Origami or leathercrafting.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  13:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Wood cut also crossed my mind. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  13:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Prehistoric art
I couldn't decide between this and cave painting so I picked them both, as one covers the painting and one covers all visual art, including carvings and statues etc as well as painting. They are both overview articles and can be improved on. They should cover the art of all cultures world wide that were around, and so is a global article, and the artforms lasted for tens of thousands of years, much of human history. An encyclopedia with 650 arts articles including over 100 in visual arts would surely have at least one or two articles on the beginnings or earliest known representatives of art, I think with that many articles for visual art these should be encyclopedia material. They covers virtually the whole world for all prehistory. Obviously prehistoric art includes cave painting and if we only wanted one it would presumably be prehistoric art, but I think we can have cave painting too considering how widespread, how long they were made for and how well known they are. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the only topics to cover these are prehistory and visual art themselves, but I have just noticed we have rock art too, but I still support these additions anyway. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender 08:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support suggest swap with rock art as well Maplestrip (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Would support a swap per Gizza. Cobblet (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this overlaps too much with rock art. There's no point having multiple articles where much of the information is repeated even if they are very general articles like these are. I could support a swap. I'd prefer add articles that hone in on the subject matter. Possibly Art of the Middle Paleolithic and Art of the Upper Paleolithic. These articles will cover the same time period in more detail. Gizza (t)(c) 13:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add rigour
Though this article only has six language editions (no having Japanese one!), the topic is still crucial, thus it should be added to this list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose its a word not a thing. And its not a word that has a huge literature written about it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This reminds of the proposal to add risk almost a year ago. Particular types of rigour, like risk, may be vital but the word itself is better suited for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Both of these articles could be restructured into disambiguation pages. FWIW mathematical proof, an example of the application of rigour to mathematics, is already listed. Perhaps critical thinking can be added instead? And I still think financial risk or risk management is vital. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add chicken or the egg
A crucial article in philosophy which is not included in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) 'Oppose This is not a vital question in philosophy at all. Would be an absurd addition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Already have causality. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaning towards no. Adding this would mean adding other philosophical questions like If a tree falls in a forest, meaning of life, brain in a vat and stone paradox. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * But those are not at all philosophical questions at all... They are popular pseudophilosophy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well they are hypothetical situations that give rise to philosophical questions. If a tree falls in forest addresses the issue of reality and chicken or egg addresses causality. But these concepts are already listed as vital, which makes it pointless to add the thought experiments. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Sacrifice
This is rated as a top importance religion article and it appears in many languages. It is a wide general article in that it covers animal and human sacrifice which have been used by many cultures from many parts of the world separately and in many times of history. An important part of religious practices and an interesting topic that I would imagine would be looked up in encyclopaedias. The topic doesn't favour one region, culture or religion as the practice was quite universal and widespread. Compared to sacrifice, there are some religion topics that stand out to me as more questionable and less vital for an encyclopaedia, such as divine presence for example. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  14:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  14:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Good catch. Jucchan (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Arnoutf (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support it is indeed better than divine presence. Gizza (t)(c) 00:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Vegetarian cuisine
We have vegetarianism on the list, but I think their cuisine is vital, too. There have been efforts now and then to put cuisines by country on the list. I believe this comprehensive article which touches many cuisines is a better option.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Redundant with vegetarianism: the articles should be merged. Cobblet (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)""
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet. Ca2james (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I dont think the articles should be merged, but really there is no need for both on this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Cobblet. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose not vital. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Ethnocentrism
Vital concept (we should know here at VA!).--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is indeed a core concept in anthropology and ethnology - and with a lot of consequence in everyday life.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support and we do know. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Jews
Historical importance; 20% of Nobel laureates. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Because they are an ethnic group p  b  p  03:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support regardless of the rationale given (which would keep many from voting in support because we probably list many of those 20% nobel prize winners individually anyway). We do list several ethnic groups and this is a very important one. Muslim, Christian and others mentioned are not ethnic groups. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I think they fit with the other ethnic groups we have and should have representation apart from the state of Israel which is a result of their historical significance as a minority ethnic group, and hence epiphenomenal to their notability.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support in ethnic groups <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  09:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Muslim was removed here, so there seems to be consensus on not including the adherents of major religions. (We don't list Christian or Hindu.) I don't quite follow the Nobel Prize rationale; there have been more American Nobel laureates than Jewish Nobel laureates, but we don't list Americans either. Malerisch (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Malerisch. Redundant and not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose while it is true that jews are not entirely comparable to Christians or muslims in that they are both a religious group and an ethnic group, I dont think the proposal is warranted. Especially not by the Nobel laureat argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Malerisch, but I think topics like Antisemitism and Zionism should be strongly considered; I've never really understood how they could be less vital than branches of Judaism or Jewish holidays, neither of which I think are anywhere nearly as essential. Cobblet (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Even as an ethnic group, Jew is redundant to Israel. The ethnic group list is best suited for minorities and pan-national ethnicities. A group which is synonymous with the majority of a single nation generally doesn't need to be added if that nation is listed. While many Jews live outside of their homeland, so do many Irish people, Vietnamese people and a hundred other sorts of people. Gizza (t)(c) 04:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I think that is a very weird statement as Jews have never been synonymous with the state of Israel, and in fact make one of the best examples of a pan-national ethnicity and of a diaspora community, and a minority ethnicity. You seem not to take into account the extraordinary history of the state of israel which was created as a new homeland for the global Jewish diaspora to return to. Jewish diaspora history and the Jeewish relation to Israel is not really comparable to the diaspora communities you mention at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I would support a swap of Semitic peoples for Jews. Semitic people is a linguistic grouping including many ethnic groups, and one of those Arabs are already included. Would make more sense to me to swap.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Add macrosociology, mesosociology and microsociology
All of them are crucial, yet this list still does not contain them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Too niche-interest to be vital, IMO. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per ChrisTroutman.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add social phenomenon
It is a crucial sociological term, however this list does not contain it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC) RekishiEJ (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)! fix


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Not vital. This is a term and not a thing. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Agree with Maunus, the article should probably be merged. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 03:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Social issue is already listed in Society and social sciences > Society > Issues. Malerisch (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Sorry, I didn't notice it. Thanks for your mention!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Restructure horse articles
Remove:
 * Clydesdale horse and Friesian horse

Replace with:
 * Draft horse and Warmblood

Rationale: While Clydesdale is a popular breed and a GA, and the Friesian is also a currently-popular breed, the broader "overview" articles are more suited to a vital articles collection, as they encompass all breeds within the broader classification and inclusion will be more (um, pardon the pun) "stable." All breeds within the classification are included, not just what is a popular breed this week. Although it is flattering to see GA-class articles on the list, the reality is that an incentive to improve the overview articles is also a good idea; we have horse as a 100o-list vital article and pony on the 10,000 list, so there is precedent for the overview works to be included.

Remove: Standardbred

Replace with harness racing under the sports section.

Rationale: The Standardbred IS the leading harness racing breed, but there are others, notably the Orlov Trotter and assorted Coldblood trotter breeds. A comprehensive overview article is more suitable in this respect. Unlike some of the other breeds on the list, the Standardbred has not been the foundation bloodstock of other horse breeds to nearly the extent that some other breeds have been, though it has been used to improve other harness racing breeds. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support all of the above, as nom. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  01:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support replacing Clydesdale horse and Friesian horse with draft horse and warmblood per nom—these are indeed major types of horses. I also Support removing Standardbred since it's likely less vital than the American Quarter Horse or the Morgan horse, which aren't listed. However, I just can't support adding harness racing: why isn't it sufficiently covered by horse racing? Malerisch (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the addition of harness racing, draft horse and warmblood. In many countries harness racing is just as popular as horse racing, so I'm not sure about removing the breed that is associated with it. Quarter horse which Malerisch mentioned sounds like a good addition, in terms of breeds we're missing Mustang, and instead of removing breeds, I would not oppose to adding more breeds to horses and also cats. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

, I'm not that attached to the harness racing article, as yes, a summary ought to be included in the horse racing article, but I threw it in because I felt that I should not suggest removing an article without proposing an appropriate replacement. (I won't throw a fit if you don't add it - if we must prioritize, my proposal for Dressage, above, is one I feel more strongly about) As for the other horse breeds, there are only two breeds ranked as high importance by WPEQ: The Thoroughbred and the Arabian, both of which are on the list. See Category:High-importance_equine_articles. The Morgan and the Quarter Horse are important in America, more so than the Appaloosa, actually (Appaloosa might be on the list just because it's an FA, don't know) but in the rest of the world, they are less so, we could as easily add the Haflinger as an equivalent popular European breed. I don't think this group would add all the breeds WPEQ lists as mid-importance (I think there are over a dozen), but it was appropriate to have the Lipizzan on the list due to its significance in equestrian riding arts, history and so on. I'm actually chatting with Carl and PurpleBackPack about maybe getting WPEQ to give you folks a more coherent list of where our priorities would be for you all to peruse. I've heard that 10-15 horse-related articles might be appropriate, scattered across several subject areas here. Thoughts? Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * If we're aiming for 10–15 horse-related articles, I think it would be a good idea to identify which articles are currently listed. I count horse itself, 9 horse breeds, equestrianism, horse racing, Secretariat (which will probably be removed soon), saddle, and stirrup for a total of 15 articles. IMO this doesn't seem excessive, so 15 articles sounds about right. For horse breeds, geographic diversity and historical importance should be prioritized, and the current selection with your changes above should be most of the ones needed. (A swap of Appaloosa with something else sounds reasonable.) Malerisch (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nine horse breeds? If that counts pony, ponies aren't a breed. The breeds are Arabian, Thoroughbred, Andalusian, Standardbred, Appaloosa, Friesian, Lipizzan, Clydesdale. Here, I recommended tossing Standardbred, Friesian and Clydesdale, and proposing replacement articles, but we could just toss Standardbred without a replacement. I think we could also delete Appaloosa (which, by the way I was on the team who brought it to FA, so I'm saying that I'm OK with tossing something I worked on and an FA). Do I need to open a new request on that? Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right; I forgot about pony. (Maybe that section needs to be retitled since it's currently "Animal breeds".) You'll have to open a removal proposal for Appaloosa, though. Malerisch (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with removing Appaloosa. I would expand the number of horse-related articles sligtly because of their importance in history. Equine anatomy is vital, maybe also Equine conformation and Therapeutic horseback riding. Those two I'd much prefer over horses in warfare. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I was on the team that brought Appaloosa to FA and TFA, so when I say that it's not "vital", I am sincere and not knocking an article ** I wrote much of it! ** What I see is that the list is extremely US-centric.  Morgans (full disclosure : I worked on the GAN) are virtually unknown outside North America, Appaloosas are cool, but have small numbers and have not been a significant contributor to any other breeds to speak of.  Quarter Horses are immensely popular in the western hemisphere and growing worldwide, but again, they have not gone on to create other breeds.  From a worldwide and historic point of view, the Arabian and the Thoroughbred (full disclosure, I am lead editor on Arabian horse and on the team that took Thoroughbred to FA and TFA) are the only modern breeds with sufficient historic impact worldwide to pass that particular test; hence why I suggest adding the "type of breed" articles - warmblood and draft horse - as replacements for others. Ditto Mustang; it's American; see, e.g. feral horse for a better overview. I personally think that harness racing can incorporate the Standardbred, but also major trotting horses of other breeds. But for now, let's take these a step at a time. As for the others, the conformation article is in poor shape, I'd favor Equine anatomy; ditto the therapeutic horseback riding one, it suffers from recentism, horses in warfare is far better and moresignificant.  JMO  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on all the GA and FA. The shape that the articles are currently in is insignificant. It's part of the purpose of this list to figure out which articles are supposed to be improved first. Morgans are unknown outside the US, but Appaloosas are known worldwide. Feral horse might be an alternative. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feral animal or feral organism should be in before any particular type of feral animal. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Sugar beet
Noticed this was missing too with the talk of sugar, surely vital 10'000 too, look at the article, more vital than many plants bugs and fish we have; we are removing some flowers and butterflies soon to bring numbers down. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  09:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  09:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm very surprised by the fact that it is not listed in the Level 4 list!--11:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)RekishiEJ (talk)
 * 3)  p  b  p  15:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Most folks don't see them in an unprocessed form and might not be very familiar with them, but certainly worth including as a major agricultural commodity Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Obstetrics
Obstetrics includes the midwife side, dealing with child birth itself, and also deals with the pregnancy and post birth as well. I was thinking about suggesting midwife, but Obstetrics includes it and much more, it's a wider article. Care of mothers and babies during pregnancy and birth and shortly after, is pretty standard, common and important part of medicine and health care, in most of the world, even if in a more limited capacity in poorer parts of the world and further back in history as well, all places would have some form of Obstetrics. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  08:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  08:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) SupportA crucial article which is not currently included in the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support clearly more important for the human species than sterilization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Per above. We've all been born, so an issue that affects everyone (grin)!  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose we have Obstetrics and gynecology. That's what the specialty is usually called.--Melody Lavender (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Melody. Good observation. This obviously makes both obstetrics and gynecology redundant. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding Midwife would open the door for including other occupation articles. I wouldn't be opposed to that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add preventive medicine, public health and epidemiology
All of them are crucial, yet still not currently included in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support despite the mild overlap between public health and epidemiology. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  13:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Cobblet (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Health insurance
I'm not sure between placing in medicine, or finance under insurance; leaning toward medicine, but would support the other too. Looks like an important topic to me, look at the article. We have insurance already, but we have several main types of tax in addition to tax itself, having a small number of the main types of insurance also seems to make sense, health insurance seems important. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support And I would put this under insurance. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support while we have to make room for types of insurance, health insurance stands out as more significant touching medicine, welfare and finance. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Per my comments below. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't support this under finance when so many critical financial concepts are missing. In addition to the many articles that I mentioned in the virtual currency proposal above, there are articles such as recession/business cycle, interest rate/monetary policy, government budget and mortgage, which are similar in that they affect the everyday person but are much more vital. If there was another insurance-related article that could be added IMO it would be actuarial science as it is an independent and growing field of study within economics (many universities throughout the world have academic degrees dedicated to it now).
 * Discussion

This might be better under medicine but still don't know why any type of insurance is singled out. Life insurance, home insurance and vehicle insurance are just as common. I will probably oppose this. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Feel free to open threads for the topics you mentioned. I was already contemplating life insurance and mortgage myself, most of the articles you suggested like recession seem very like decent ideas, I may open some myself. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  10:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to have a broader discussion on quotas or at least targets for different sections within the Society section and the list more generally, including Business and Economics. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 15:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Add computer case
A crucial article about computer hardware which should be added to the list a.s.a.p.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose The box the computer comes in is really about the least significant thing I can thing of in terms of computing. Except perhaps the power cord.  Yes, you need both, but they have darn little to do with computing.  Rwessel (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose no rationale given. Clearly not more vital than toilet paper or toothbrushes which also does not need to be on this list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The important part of the computer is the stuff inside. p  b  p  15:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose almost as non-vital as celtuce. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

we don't even have the most basis cases of box, bag and container, which protect everything from water and dust. Nor do we have the overarching article packaging. How can computer case be more vital than those articles? Gizza (t)(c) 10:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * 1) Well, computer cases are vital as they protect motherboards from water and dust.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * that does not mean that computer case shouldn't belong to this list. Box, bag, container and packaging are all crucial articles about everyday life, so someone should propose that they all be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Add x86
An article about the most commonly heard instruction set, however it is not included in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose No single ISA is really that important.  Yes, x86 is very common (although certainly not the most commonly implemented ISA - ARM and several of the smaller embedded ISA would via for that honor), but there is little particular about x86 that impacts the evolution of computing technology.  Had IBM picked a 68K in 1979 for the PC, we might well be all using 68Ks in our desktops, and talking about Motorola instead of Intel, but nothing would really have changed.  Rwessel (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Computer programming
We have several aspects of computer programming, and have discussed several more, but we don't seem to have the main topic itself


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support definitely, another funny oversight we need to fix. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  14:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support what an oversight. I'm sure it'll pass without any problems...--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jucchan (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rwessel (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Absolutely crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Valve
Valves appear in many places and have literally thousands of uses, they are a basic mechanism important to many areas of technology, engineering, infrastructure and industry, not really covered by any article that isn't a wide overview like plumbing etc. But we list other things covered by plumbing like pipe, tube, bathtub, shower, but we do not list valve nor the well known example tap (valve) that makes baths and showers work. (Also they're not exclusively used in only plumbing but many areas anyway.) <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  17:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  17:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Excellent catch. Cobblet (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Maplestrip (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add mechanical television, analog television, digital television, terrestrial television, pay television and IPTV
Since television is many people's pastime, it is more important to them than radio broadcasting. And terrestrial television is not less important than cable television.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose no rationale given. Television is vital, all its historical manifestations are not.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I could support digital signal and analog signal but probably won't. Gizza (t)(c) 01:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Maplestrip (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add sound film
This article is no less crucial than silent film, yet this list does not include it.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not crucial. Would have been vital in a 1930s encyclopedia. Today this is just the primary topic of the article Film.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * 1) Now most motion pictures are colour ones, but color motion picture film is still included in the list. Both sound film and color motion picture film technology are great inventions in history of film, so both articles are crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Add mathematical notation and mathematical beauty
These two are crucial mathematical topics, yet this list does not have them.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support mathematical notation. Understanding the symbols that represent mathematical expressions and ideas is vital. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose mathematical beauty. This is more a topic about beauty/aesthetics than mathematics. Adding it would mean many other types of beauty such as aesthetics of music can be added as well. If there is one particular type of beauty that can be added IMO, it is physical attractiveness (human beauty) because it has far broader implications on society. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not crucial. Probably very few encyclopedias would even have these topics. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Square root of 2
Probably the first discovered irrational number.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose and?.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose I'm not sure first-discovered really makes the square root of two sufficiently notable. Rwessel (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, it's a popular irrational number, which makes it important for an encyclopedia, but it simply isn't vital enough. It lacks actual value in and of itself. Pi is important because of geometry, √2 isn't. Maplestrip (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Pi seems to be discovered first, whether or not you take the earliest suggested date or the latest proven date, not that that makes √2 any more or less vital though, and it's still probably one of the first, even if not "the first". <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add cube root
It is as crucial as square root, yet it does not belong to the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I fail to see how it is as crucial, even the importance rating on the article is listed as Low. nth root suffices. Jucchan (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Redundant to nth root. p  b  p  22:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Nth root indeed suffices. Not to mention cube (algebra) isn't on the list and shouldn't be. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add hyperbolic geometry and elliptic geometry
Though they are all sub-fields of non-Euclidean geometry, I still regard them vital.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add mathematical model
A crucial article which does not belong to the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add operations research
A crucial article which does not belong to the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per first half of nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Key component of industrial engineering. Cobblet (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose per second half of the nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add recreational mathematics
A crucial article which does not belong to the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Far more important forms of recreation aren't listed. Cobblet (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Cobblet. Also overlaps with puzzle. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I do agree that it doesnt belong on the list. But not that it is crucial.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Mode (statistics)
One of the main ways to represent central tendency, arithmetic mean and median, the other two, are already on the list. Jucchan (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  09:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose While mode *is* one of the three classic measures of central tendency, it's actual use is pretty rare, unlike median and mean. Rwessel (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards support. Mode is probably better than the general central tendency article. I'm also wondering if skewness or statistical graphics have a shot. Probably not skewness. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add correlation does not imply causation
A crucial article in statistics which is not included in this list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose This is not even a topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 22:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, Causality itself would be more interesting. Maplestrip (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Again this seems to be redundant to correlation and dependence. There are a few paragraphs dedicated to this idea in the parent article. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add infinite monkey theorem
A crucial article in probability theory which is not included in this list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I had a hunch that this is just the kind of article people are looking for in an encyclopedia. And there, I looked it up and it ranks 1120 in Wikipedia traffic, that's a movie-star ranking. Absolute must-have. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose That it isn't included in the list or that you think it's crucial doesn't make it so. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose There are thought experiments ahead of this in vitality. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose, lol. Seriously, this is getting absurd.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Jucchan (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

, I don't mind the use of page views when comparing like-for-like (same time period, geography/nationality, and topic area or content) but otherwise it will lead to ridiculous results. Human penis size, Fuck and Female ejaculation are even more popular than infinite monkey theorem. Does that make them vital? (Anal sex is also more popular but I can at least see a case for its inclusion since oral sex is on the list]]). Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 07:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The page views reflect all traffic on Wikipedia, and that's basically Google. It would be much more interesting to have stats that show what people look up directly in Wikipedia using the main page or the search that is built into firefox. The page view statistics include mostly movie stars and currrent events. I see no reason why we have so many sex articles on the VA/E list. And I don't quite understand the comparison you're making here. The fact that the article at hand ranks almost as high as the ones you're mentioning might mean it's vital, because many people find it just as interesting as stardom an sex, even though it's on about geeky, dry subject like statistics.


 * Infinite monkey theorem is rated top importance by the statistics project itself. That's already a pretty good argument for inclusion, though it can be treacherous.
 * It touches on the foundations of statistics, it's meaning in real life, and for other disciplines.
 * It serves to illustrate the problems associated with the assumption of Randomness. Does it really exist? Is the monkey a good example for a machine that produces random output?
 * Guessing at why the article is viewed so often, I would say it might have to do with religion. Our readers are mostly Americans, there are many Christians, and many US-Christians believe in Creationism. Their rationale is that there must have been a creator because the chances of the creation of life by accident are very low. Creationist Christians are likely confronted with the infinite monkey theorem in discussions. Can a spontaneous healing from an incurable disease be explained by an intervention of God or is the lucky one simply at the better end of the bell curve - a place where someone has to be at some point, according to the infinite monkey theorem.
 * The 38 articles currently on the list are not enough for covering statistics. We need additional articles in that section, as per set quota. This article is the perfect candidate.
 * Probability theory is a discipline that is taught in many other disciplines. This article is iconic for probability theory.
 * You're the only one giving something resembling a rationale, while, , don't even bother to give a rationale for opposing. If other thought experiments are more vital, let's discuss them as well. I do think we might need more of these thought experiments or even actual experiments inthis section and others. That's what I think people tend to look up in an encyclopedia. Seven Bridges of Konigsberg (Euler and graph theory), Traveling salesman problem (illustrates different algorithms, the article currently looks like it's only about graph theory, which is not true. Could be used to illustrate Dijkstra algorithm, has applications in computer science and so on), Eight queen problem, Towers of Hanoi and I believe we do have Hilberts hotel --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominator provided no argument for proposing it either, and hence cannot expect a rationale for opposition. The monkey problem is an illustration of an important philosophical problem, that of infinity and probability, but it is not the problem itself. If we need to add specific problems they should not be added in the form of popularizing formulations but in the actual way that the problem is being used in the discipline. I would consider having for example mind-body problem, free will, problem of other mind, problem of evil, etc. The hit count of infinite monkeys is interesting, but not in this case decisive at all - User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The burden is on the nominator and unlike the nominator you provided a rationale. I don't know if page views is a reason to call an article vital. I assume there are differing ideas about what makes an article vital. For me, vitality describes an article that one would expect to find in Britannica or other such encyclopedia. This article, though popular, seems unnecessary to me. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)