Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 38

Add Lao She
Author of the modern classic Rickshaw Boy, he is one of the most important modern Chinese writers (of which there is only one on the list so far). Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rickshaw Boy is indeed one of the best-known works of modern Chinese literature. Cobblet (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Logical1004 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Rickshaw Boy and Lao She would be much better represented by Chinese literature. --Melody Lavender 07:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There are no articles on literature by nationality listed. Unlike architectural styles which tend to be regional and therefore limited in numbers, the number of articles on literature by nationality is huge (have a look at Category:Literature by nationality). It will be an odious task replacing Shakespeare with English literature, Goethe with German literature and Tolstoy with Russian literature. And every other writer with either a county, former empire or civlisation. Can't see it happening. Gizza ( t )( c ) 09:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gizza, the examples you're giving are ridiculous. The bulk of important biographies has been added. At this point we are starting to suggest including biographies of people nobody has ever heard of, usually on the grounds of having to represent so and so. In this case chinese writers. Let's add whatever they are supposed to represent. Category:Literature by nationality is not helpful. The relevant projects are also not very active, so the category can't easily be used to make a judgement on which ones are important. Instead of literature by country/region/continent I would prefer to include more genre-like articles, like Romanticism (literature), which is a redirect, currently. --Melody Lavender 10:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Our work's far from finished when it comes to biographies. I don't know if you saw my comments below, so perhaps you're just referring to Lao She and Mo Yan, but the Chinese writers I've suggested aren't exactly people "nobody has ever heard of". For example, Han Yu is called "comparable in stature to Dante, Shakespeare or Goethe" in the article. Lao She and Mo Yan aren't at the same level of significance, but we certainly could use a second modern Chinese writer besides Lu Xun if we've got solid consensus for including modern five Japanese writers – the modern literary traditions of those two countries aren't that far apart in terms of significance. By the way, I sincerely hope you're not implying that the entirety of Chinese literature forms a single "genre". Western literature isn't a "genre" either. Cobblet (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Orhan Pamuk
Turkey's best-selling writer and the country's only Nobel Laureate in Literature. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support for nom. Logical1004 (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support crystalclear (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Add Premchand
India's one of the most influential Hindi/Urdu writer. Premchand is considered the first Hindi author whose writings prominently featured realism. He used literature for the purpose of arousing public awareness about national and social issues and often wrote about topics related to corruption, child widowhood, prostitution, feudal system, poverty, colonialism and on the India's freedom movement.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Logical1004 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Anand Patwardhan
Anand Patwardhan is India's one of the most distinguished, and certainly one of its most controversial documentary filmmaker and activist whose films have won many prestigious national and International awards. His notable films are : Bombay: Our City (Hamara Shahar) (1985), In Memory of Friends(1990),In the Name of God (Ram ke Nam) (1992), Father, Son and Holy War (Pitra, Putra aur Dharmayuddha) (1995), A Narmada Diary(1995),War and Peace(Jang aur Aman) (2002) and Jai Bhim Comrade (2011).

Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Logical1004 (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose (strong). He is your local "phenomenon". any films from top 250/500 lists, no personal style and inventions, no english critical reviews, no top festivas and awards (academy, bafta, venice, cannes, berlin), just 300 000 references in google.
 * 2) Strong Oppose Patwardhan isn't among India's 20 most notable directors. Satyajit Ray currently represents Indian art film. The next director from India should be a mainstream director. There are many Bollywood directors ahead of Patwardhan for instance, some of whom like Guru Dutt are critically acclaimed internationally and not just creators of box office hits. Then there are other art film directors more vital than Patwardhan. As a point of comparison, we don't list Michael Moore. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 03:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with the reasons given by Gizza. I included his name for the active activist role played by him through his documentaries. And as there are many more names that can be included in the list before him, I withdraw his name from the nomination list. Logical1004 (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Sundiata Keita
Along with Musa I of Mali, Sundiata Keita was one of the two great rulers of the Mali Empire. He overthrew the Ghana Empire and founded the Mali Empire, has been accorded heroic status among the Mandinka people and is the protagonist in the Epic of Sundiata. His expansion of the empire laid the foundation for future growth, Sahelian trade and spread of culture by the empire throughout West Africa. Gizza ( t )( c ) 06:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support - Gizza  ( t )( c ) 06:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Malerisch (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Some trivia (doesn't really add to his vitality). One of Sundaita Keita's nicknames was "The Lion King". The Disney movie also adopted various ideas from the Epic of Sundiata into the movie. Gizza ( t )( c ) 06:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Maybe I should re-propose this as a swap. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 22:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Anand Patwardhan
Nominated here. In current time, he is one of the activist, who raises many relevant issues through his documentaries. Logical1004 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Nomination taken back as discussed here. Logical1004 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove architectural style
Similar rationale to removing religious denomination. Too vague and generic. Actual styles are far more informative. Gizza (t)(c) 07:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Gizza (t)(c) 07:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I do not like that many umbrella articles and this one seems redundant. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Malerisch (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Keyboard instrument
Time and again we had discussions and proposals about whether the piano is a string instrument or a percussion instrument. This problem is often solved by adding keyboard instrument as a group of musical instruments. There are many. They are just as vital as any other vital classification on the list.--Melody Lavender 10:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Melody Lavender  10:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

In my view this would create as much problems as it solves as Pipe Organ (now listed as wind) and Carillon (percussion) are operated by some kind of keyboard. Arnoutf (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Melody, are you talking about adding keyboard instrument as a vital article or making a new section called "Keyboard instruments" where you will include piano or both? I could get behind adding keyboard instrument but agree that a new section can complicate things. Gizza (t)(c) 10:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm only suggesting to add the article. It will obviously also create the possibility of a new section. I would suggest to leave at least carillon where it is, not so sure about pipe organ. It'll fit in both categories, and I don't see this as a problem, it's not going to cause edit-wars. I will suggest the addition of accordion next, it'll best fit in that category. Keyboard instrument is also viewed by more than 1000 people per day. The article on Musical instrument classification also suggests that keyboard instrument is often used as an additional category. And while we're at it: I think Carillon might not be vital. --Melody Lavender 11:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As article ok, as category not convinced. Accordion would fit wind instruments too ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Swap Bossa nova for Bolero
The list currently has only three non-Western musical genres Gamelan, Indian classical music, and Bossa-Nova. Neither of these are of equal importance to the Bolero which has been embraced by all of Latin America and exported to Europe and beyond. Boleros have been introduced to the repertoire of both Jazz and Classical music, and remains one of the most widely practiced forms throughout Latin America. Bossa nova is already represented with two who are currently the only Latin American musicians on the list. There are no representatives of non-Brazilean Latin American music at all.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 02:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a few more genres, chiefly non US/Europe would be good. Could we not have both of these? I think there seems to be a consensus to shrinking works of modern music, maybe a few instruments too for making room if needed, but if you think Bossa nova is simply not worthy it's your call.  Carl wev  17:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I am trying to be cautious since any proposal by me to add more Latin American artists or genres have tended to generate instant opposition. I would be happy to have both. I am tryin with a straight add proposal below.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Carl is right, we need both.--Melody Lavender (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Bolero
The list currently has only three non-Western musical genres Gamelan, Indian classical music, and Bossa-Nova. Neither of these are of equal importance to the Bolero which has been embraced by all of Latin America and exported to Europe and beyond. Boleros have been introduced to the repertoire of both Jazz and Classical music, and remains one of the most widely practiced forms throughout Latin America. There are no representatives of non-Brazilean Latin American music at all.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neljack (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Melody Lavender 06:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Despite being an old genre, bolero and son have been revived by clubs such as the Buena Vista Social Club. Gizza (t)(c) 09:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose This ahead of rumba or calypso music? I don't think so. The three other musical genres you mentioned (reggae's another one) are much more significant. Tango's also listed as an example of Latin American dance. Cobblet (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * It is way ahead of RUmba and Calypso music in influence and importance, yes By many many leagues. Maurice Ravel never wrote a famous "Rumba" for example. Rumba is a dance (not a style of music as Bolero is) that is only practised in standard dancing, it has no popular following.The fact that you would vene mention Rumba which is entirely unknown in Latin America shows your parochial perspective. A much better example of a possible competitor to Bolero would be Salsa which is also missing. Calypso music was a fad in the 1960s, and is no longer practiced outside of the carribbean. It is also not an example of Latin American music, coming from Anglophone caribbean. Reggae also from the Caribbean and becoming popular only through the US is not a non-western music genre and it is still much less significant worldwide than Bolero. You dont seem to know much about music to be honest Cobblet. Bolero was already a hundred years old and had influenced classical composers in Europe when Bossa Nova, Calypso and Reggae were still not invented. It is good that Tango is on the list, that means Argentina is represented. But There are a billion people more on the continent whose widely influential music genres have no representation at all. Ideally the list should at least have Cumbia, Ranchero, Salsa and Bolero. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Entirely unknown in Latin America, maybe (I haven't lived there), but rumba's certainly much better known in the rest of the world, and not just in the West. I see the Wikipedia article claims that what's popularly called "rumba" is bolero; if a source can be found for that, I might flip my vote, although it could still be argued that the internationally known variant is more notable than the original dance. For comparison, waltz is vital but ländler is not, even if the latter is the original dance form and Schubert and Mahler have used it in their music. Indeed, calling bolero vital because of Ravel's piece would be akin to calling mambo vital because Bernstein used it in West Side Story or habanera (music) vital because Bizet wrote a famous example in Carmen. I may not know much about music, but I do know bolero is hardly the only Cuban dance form that's been borrowed by Western music, and not even the first in that regard (again, see habanera). By the way, the population of Latin America's actually less than 600 million; not that that would stop me from supporting the addition of salsa. Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Add conflict of interest
A crucial article which is not included in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Whatever is vital in conflict of interest should be covered in corruption. Professional ethics would be higher up the ladder but still not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 02:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Gizza. Malerisch (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove religious denomination
Redundant to sect, cult, schism, heresy, etc. Note that similar articles in other fields are not included such as film genre and literary genre. Gizza (t)(c) 00:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support a Good example of an article too broad and vague to be useful for this kind of list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support seems like a wiktionary case to me. --Melody Lavender 05:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Haredi Judaism
I suggest adding the article on Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Judaism to the list of Jewish denominations. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Maunus, 'Judaism' section currently include Conservative, Orthodox and Reform Judaism. Haredi is missing to give a whole picture. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The rationale below makes sense, especially given that we have 10 different protestant denominations on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:27, 28 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  11:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 18:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Changed my mind. Haredi Judaism is vital like any extremist sect is. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose No rationale given for proposal. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The fact that 10 Protestant denominations are listed suggests that quiet a few of them should go as opposed to increasing the number of Jewish denominations. Judaism already has the same number of denominations as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, all far bigger religions and some of which with just as much history. Adding a 200-year-old denomination with 1.5 million followers will open the floodgates and can potentially result in another 50 additions. And as Ypnpn says, it is a subbranch of Orthodox. Gizza (t)(c) 11:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Ultra-orthodox Judaism before ultra-orthodox Islam? No offense meant to the former, but really? Is anyone even looking or thinking about the list as a whole before casting their !vote? Cobblet (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I'm not sure any small sect of a religion is really that vital. However, if we are going to include a specific sect of Orthodox Judaism, Hasidic Judaism is probably a better addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Gizza and Cobblet. Orthodox Judaism suffices. Malerisch (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Although note that Haredi is considered a subcategory of Orthodox. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , if you say that every extremist sect is vital, will you support adding Wahhabism, Salafi, Nichiren Buddhism, Hindutva, Brahmanism, Digambara and Khalistan movement or just the extremist sect of Judaism? Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support alot of those. I need to look into each specifically, but I would definitely support Wahhabism. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Garuda
Of the 21 mythological creatures listed, 3 are fairly cross-cultural (Demon, Unicorn and Dragon), 3 more are cross-cultural but are dominant in European and Near eastern folklore (Mermaid, Sphinx and Vampire), one each have their origins in Ireland, Scotland, Arabia, Native America, China and the Afro-Caribbean community (Leprechaun, Loch Ness Monster, Jinn, Bigfoot, Chinese dragon and Zombie respectively), another 3 are pan-European (fairy, werewolf and magician (fantasy), while the remaining 5 come from Greek mythology (centaur, chimera, Cyclops, Pegasus and Siren (mythology).

As you can see, the list is imbalanced with zero representation from large chunks of the world. The Garuda bird is among the most famous of legendary creatures in South, Southeast and to a lesser extent East Asia. Garuda features prominently in Hindu and Buddhist mythology, is the national symbol of Indonesia and Thailand and is frequently used as a heraldic symbol in India and Mongolia.


 * Support
 * 1) Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 09:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Cobblet (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Logical1004 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

The other obvious point is that Greek mythology in particular is overrepresented. And I'm not sure why Bigfoot is included when Yeti and Yowie are not. Gizza (t)(c) 02:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Swap: Remove Hindu mythology, Add Ganesha
Hindu mythology is redundant to Hinduism. Likewise we don't list Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Buddhist mythology, Jewish mythology etc.

The elephant-headed deity Ganesha is one of the best known in Hindu mythology. Ganesha is worshipped across denominations and is one of the most recognizable deities outside its home culture. In pre-modern, times images and sculptures of Ganesha were found from Afghanistan to Japan, indicating his widespread appeal. Ganesha also receives more page views than many of the 30 or so articles on Greek mythology, despite the latter generally being more familiar to and studied by an Anglophone audience.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support add, oppose removal - this is too big and complicated a topic. We need the overview article. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 18:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support add, oppose removal as important genre of mythology. Hindu mythology or tales of the deities are a critical part of Hinduism, paralleling role of Greek mythology. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support addition, Oppose removal. Jucchan (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose : Hindu mythology exists with other mythologies like Arabian mythology, Australian Aboriginal mythology, Chinese mythology, Egyptian mythology, Greek mythology, Japanese mythology, Korean mythology, Norse mythology, Persian mythology and Roman mythology. Rather I will support including Christian mythology. Islamic mythology was a part of Persian mythology, so that can be skipped. Logical1004 (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose : Can't be more agree with Logical1004 crystalclear (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Why not Shiva, Brahma, Krishna or any of the many other Hindu deities?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because they're already listed. Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, so Ganesha would be added to that section?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the division between religion and mythology and sometimes history and literature among the "living religions" is clumsy. Mahabharata and Ramayana are listed separately, as are Moses and Noah.
 * Ganesha would fit with Shiva and co. The only problem with adding Ganesha I believe is the continued relative lack of representation of goddesses. Kali is on the list, but at least one of Durga or Lakshmi should be listed. I guess they can possibly replace Arjuna and Rama. Then again some of the Greek mythology articles could be removed to make room for all other religious and mythological traditions. 30 articles on a tradition, which with the exception of Greek neopaganism, has been dead for the last 1500 years, only having iconographic and literary significance since then is excessive. Gizza (t)(c) 05:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The influence of Greek mythology on European culture has lasted for centuries and is incomparable. I'd rather remove some geographical areas to make room for more mythology articles. There are lots of sea-articles that we could remove and replace with the overarching article. We list several parts of the East Indian archipelago which we could replace with this article plus the most important subarticle South China sea. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 11:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Semitic peoples add Jews
Per above, we have Arabs and Semitic peoples on the list, even though Arabs is subsumed under the latter together with Jews and some other semitic speaking groups who do not have a shared ethnic identity.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support removal only Cobblet (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support removal. Jews has been added already. Gizza (t)(c) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Semitic languages is listed. Malerisch (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add: Linguistic typology
A major field of linguistics, besides theoretical linguistics and generative grammar probably the main one.


 * Support
 * 1) Support
 * 2) Support User:Maunus, please sign your proposals. Cobblet (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add: Fusional language, Isolating language, Agglutinative language, Polysynthetic language
The four classic typological categories. Although they are mostly not considered that informative in contemporary typology they are basic knowledge for anyone interested in human languages.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza (t)(c) 13:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Seems to me that a well-written article on linguistic typology should cover these concepts in sufficient detail. Not sure why we'd consider the different ways in which morphemes are arranged to be vital, but not the concept of a morpheme itself or the field of study associated with them. (FWIW, we list both phoneme and phonology.) Cobblet (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Cobblet. Jucchan (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose; morphological typology (possible COI: I've worked a lot on that article) covers all of them. Tezero (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Why we should consider the way morphems are arranged? Because that's what linguists do. And writers, babies, and language learners. When you're typing here you're deciding how to arrange morphems, even though it may have become quite automatic. And yes, morphology should also be listed. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Yes, but you're missing my point: is it vital enough that we need articles on all the individual ways in which this can be done, in addition to the field of study that uses these categorizations? Phonemes may be vital; types of phonemes aren't. Cobblet (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically the problem is, I think, we should diversify across fields of study as well as geographically and chronologically. Why does linguistics deserve less attention than any other subject such as agriculture, computer science, business, politics, chemistry or medicine? In that vein I think we need subarticles for linguistics (which is vital level two) on level three even, let alone on level four. And subtypes of languages are a very good starting point. The fusional type vs. agglutinative type are must haves. They are rated high importance by the projects and people who are bilingual or learn other languages often know these terms and even use them in everyday conversations to illustrate the difficulty of switching from one, let me call it, thought pattern for constructing language to another.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 08:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also true, but still you are ignoring the problem of balance: if you want more detailed coverage of linguistics, do four articles related to morphological typology constitute our highest priority? Anyone who's tried to learn a tonal language will recognize the importance of tone (linguistics); how is that a less vital concept than the concept of agglutination? Everything you've said about regarding the importance of morphology-based language classification is equally true of word order, another common way of classifying languages based on syntax; why not include that? Indeed, why prioritize the classification of languages based on how they handle morphemes over the concept of a morpheme itself? If the entire field of morphology can be subsumed by grammar, as Maunus insists, how are typological classifications not subsumed by linguistic typology? Cobblet (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When I said that Grammar subsumes morphology that was not meant as an argument not to have morphology. I would probably support that if someone were to suggest it. I just dont think it is the most important of the missing linguistics topics. The morphological types are vital in and of themselves, inspite of being "subsumed" both by linguistic typology and by grammar and by morphology. That is because they are the kind of topic lay people are most likely to look for in an encyclopedia, and that is because it is basic knowledge about linguistics, that is in fact more crucial to know than the more general topics. I think that frequently the more specific topic is more vital than the more general one and this is one of those cases.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't think these topics are as "basic" as you make them out to be. When Xtools eventually gets fixed and the number of views for these pages becomes available, we'll be able to see how many people do in fact look up these topics. I'm pretty sure, for example, that the article on the IPA gets a lot more views then these, since it's wikilinked whenever the pronunciation of a word is given using it; and yet you seem to find that less vital.
 * Secondly, I agree umbrella topics are not necessarily more vital than the subtopics they encompass, particularly when they are more abstract and therefore less likely to be sought for by readers. But sometimes the subtopics themselves are too specific to be individually vital, and an umbrella article that includes (or should include) discussion of all of them while also providing context for their relationship can be more useful for the reader. While one is far more likely to encounter the terms sine, cosine and tangent than the umbrella term trigonometric function in everyday experience, it would make little sense to focus our effort on improving each of the former articles individually when an article that treats them collectively would be more informative for the reader. Hence it's the last article that's included on our list. I think there's a similar argument to be made to not include these linguistic classifications individually.
 * To use some more relevant analogies (while also pointing out just how many concepts related to a language could be considered as "basic" as its morphological classification), which would make more sense to you: listing word order as a vital article, or listing Subject–verb–object, Subject–object–verb and Verb–subject–object (and perhaps even the other rare cases as well) individually? Is listing writing system sufficient for our purposes, or should we also be listing things like logogram or abugida? Many aspects of a language's grammar could also be considered "basic": is listing verb enough, or do we need to add concepts like grammatical conjugation, voice (grammar), grammatical tense, grammatical aspect and grammatical mood as well? Are we prepared to add all such similarly basic concepts? Where do we draw the line? Cobblet (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our coverage of the topic linguistic theory is inexistent, we only have a handful of articles, that's why I think almost all the articles that came up in this thread are worth adding. It's not a matter of prioritizing, because there is so little on the list. I, too, think that the individual types are more vital than linguistic typology itself. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a matter of prioritization: that's the very purpose of this project. I've mentioned about fifteen different linguistics concepts in this thread that we don't list, and I'm sure you and Maunus could think of dozens more. Just how many such "important" (I won't say "vital", since I myself don't believe they all are) language-related concepts do you want to add? Are you prepared to add similarly "important" articles for every academic subject, and is it possible to do so and still limit the total number of topics on the list to ten thousand? Compare the recently proposed additions to economics, for instance, most of which will probably not pass; does it make sense to treat linguistics more generously?
 * One more point: we recently rejected punctuation as being a vital article, but I think morphological classifications of languages and many of the other topics I've just mentioned would be significantly less familiar to a lay audience (by which I mean people with no formal exposure to linguistics at all), if that is a criterion for vitality as you and Maunus sometimes suggest (but sometimes also reject). Cobblet (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think I have ever proposed that familiarity itself causes vitality. It is the degree to which people are expected to be familiar with a particular topic that causes vitality. If everyone is familiar with something then they are not going to look it up. People look up that which they are unfamiliar but encounter in away that make them think that they should know more about it. Punctuation is not such a thing I think. Polysynthesis/Agglutination/Fusion is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I support adding morpheme. Gizza (t)(c) 00:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove: Comparative linguistics
This is basically the same as historical linguistics today, since what was originally comparative philology has been split into the disciplines of historical linguistics and linguistic typology.


 * Support
 * 1) Support
 * 2) Support Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jucchan (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose important subfield of historical linguistics. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * But Melody, currently the only fields of linguistics we have is historical linguistics and one of its subfields.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove Monty Python's Flying Circus
Perhaps Python doesn't need itself and it's TV show, article about the comedian group should be enough and cover this. They are notable for other things not just this show, and comedians are being trimmed. Longer explanation above also, several other users seem to agree. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  09:56, 12 November 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  09:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Maplestrip (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jucchan (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) SUpport my personal favorites of the comedians on the list but I think there are too many already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I'm a lumberjack, I'm axing this. We need the room for something completely different. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Add abnormal psychology, behavioral neuroscience and educational psychology
All of them are crucial.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, vital topics, relevant to almost everbody. Neuroscience has been mentioned several times as a topic some people want to include. Education is chronically underrepresented, psychiatry is unfortunately also very relevant to everyday life. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 08:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Not vital. I would consider abnormal psychology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Maunus. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add social learning theory
A crucial article which is not included in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, vital. It's been pointed out by several editors that we lack education topics. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 08:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Sericulture
Sericulture is the farming of silk worms. I read that it's thousands of years old, but so is use of wool and cotton but we don't list the farming or industry article of those textiles either. We already include the primary silk worm/moth species Bombyx mori, We already include the material it makes, silk, along with other textiles wool, cotton and more, but as far as I can tell we do not include the farming or industry article of any other fabric in addition to the fabric article itself. For industries the ones we include are very limited in number to avoid redundancy to main article. We couldn't even add health care industry, software industry among others, and there are a huge more industries missing that where never even proposed, so I don't think the Silk industry can be stand alone vital in addition to silk comparing to other industries. From a farming point of view, we have a few, farming articles in addition to the animal like Dairy, Aquaculture, potentially Poultry farming soon, but there are loads we don't have, I don't think silk worm farming is more vital than the missing, Pig farming, Sheep farming for example which are wide spread and decent articles. Then from a textile/fabric industry point of view I'm not convinced Sericulture can really be considered more vital than missing articles, Textile industry, Textile manufacturing. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  18:00, 13 November 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  18:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The vital topic is Silk which we have and which should cover sericulture as well.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. Maplestrip (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Redundant to silk and Bombyx mori, both of which are listed. Malerisch (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose and the other articles that Carl mentioned are absolutely vital, too. I was going to suggest Textile industry or Textile manufacturing (couldn't decide which one, I think both are vital) myself. Health care industry, software industry I have already proposed, and were closed with no consensus, I believe. As Carl puts it: there are loads we don't have. Well, we should have them. Production processes and the business procedures associated with them occupy many people and are the subject of a considerable amount of everyday life as well as scientific research. I don't think we can exclude business/industry topics. It's just not what this list is supposed to be. There is no mission statement that says: Make a list that covers a worldwide view and diversify chronologically and globally, but by all means leave out all business and industry topics (except of course indepth coverage of car manufacturers). Silk is a major textile topic and it has had huge importance throughout history. If anything, cut the silk worm.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 08:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How are you going to keep the list at 10,000 if everything humans produce is vital AND the industry that produces it? Even if you remove all the raw materials (which seems like a poor idea to me just to make room for the industry) you will not be able to manage the list like this. Foe me the hierarchy of vitality is Raw Material < Product < Industry, only in very few cases should the industry be included if it has very convincing arguments that it is comparably vital to the product and the raw material.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In many cases the industry or the product might be more vital. In this case for example: who cares about the silk worm? The process of producing silk is the interesting aspect and of course the product, silk, is the most vital.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason I opposed the proposals involving healthcare and software industries is that I don't believe tertiary and quaternary industries are nearly as vital as primary and secondary industries. I'd be much more inclined to support food industry (better than agribusiness or food storage IMO, as it should cover both) than healthcare or software, and have previously nominated and successfully added textile manufacturing (listed under Textiles). Cobblet (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * The question with these seem to be whether "where they come from" is a vital topic on their own, or so it seems to me. That might depend on how complicated the industry is and how important the topic itself is. Maplestrip (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Primary sector, Secondary sector, Tertiary sector are probably the most vital additions, before we add any specific industries in any sector. I would tend to say we should have the major industries from all three basic sectors, and also from the Quaternary sector as well as the Quintenary sector (no typo, this really is a red link) - even though these terms are rather new, the industries and business activities behind this terminology has existed for ages.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 11:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Quinary sector of the economy has been deleted twice. It was WP:PRODDED twice due to original research, lack of references (unchanged for years), and a failure to distinguish itself from the tertiary sector. It will be an uphill task convincing everyone that an article that doesn't make it in a list of can make it in a list of 10,000. Gizza (t)(c) 11:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that quintary sector didn't get a separate article hardly indicates that all human services articles are non-vital. Human services (which are what the proponents of a quintary sector say it's about) should get a fair share. Only because the term isn't established well enough to get an article on Wikipedia, the subarticles it is trying to group aren't not vital. They are in the traditional tertiary sector anyway.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 12:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  12:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the labels for the sectors are vital, and would prefer specific industries. The underlying theory of division of labour seems more vital than the derivative concept of economic sectors. Cobblet (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Division of labor is definitely vital. Primary, secondary, and third sector as well as public and private sector are vital terminology to understand articles in the business section of a paper. Quaternary and Quinary sector are novel terminology and are definitely not vital, as DaGizza's post clearly shows. The other three sectors really are basic terminology, and the articles we currently have on those topics are a disgrace.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a sampling of "basic terminology" I quickly gleaned from the front page and main subsection pages of the WSJ website: profit (accounting), net income, dividend, budget, revenue, expense, stimulus (economics), volume (finance), market capitalization, price–earnings ratio. Are all of these vital? Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see most of these included, but would have started with more basic things like balance sheet, entrepreneurship, leadership, strategy, workflow, and human resources. We don't even have business administration. Technical analysis and Cost accounting could cover several of the ones you mention. Budget seems the most vital of them. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the topics mentioned above are arguably vital but many of them are better suited for an economics and business dictionary. I've rattled off a long list of similar topics before (now archived here and here). I guess Sericulture isn't really an "industry" article. It's more of a production/making article which is better than the industry but not sure if it is good enough. Sericulture industry or Silk industry is probably notable enough to have its own article (there must be reliable sources about it) but it is nowhere near vital. Actually the Silk industry in China article exists. And there would be silk industries in other countries even if it is not as significant. Just goes to show how incomplete Wikipedia still is. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Add typography
A crucial topic in printing which does not belong to the list.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Malerisch (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Maplestrip (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  19:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support An integral component of graphic design. Cobblet (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support; it surprises me vastly that this wasn't already listed. Tezero (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose no rationale given. Plus this field is of only historical relevance. Redundant with printing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

this suggestion reminds me of Programming style, but unlike that topic, this also has a broad history and impact on common people. It's also a current topic I am somewhat a fan of - note it includes fonts and such - but I'm not entirely sure how crucial it is in the broad sense of things. It's like a small artform, but its importance and impact seems big enough. Maplestrip (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Union (set theory) and Intersection (set theory)
Two fundamental operations in set theory, and thus, also in mathematical logic. Jucchan (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Jucchan (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Jucchan. I was contemplating if Venn diagram could also be added but probably not. The operations are sufficient. Gizza (t)(c) 04:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support; standard basic operations in discrete mathematics, a huge field, comparable to multiplication and division in arithmetic. Tezero (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose no rationale given.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Re-Inventing Vital Articles: All Disciplines are Equal - Fair Quotas: 25 x 400 = 10,000
While I do support the natural growth kind of system that we currently have for determining quotas, it's become obvious that some subjects routinely miss out on quota. So I have been thinking how I would approach the quota problem if we were to start over. The result was this list with 25 "tabs" that by and large match academic disciplines + one every day life tab as a catch-all. Each of these topics would have 400 slots to fill. The people section would be spread up proportionally:


 * History
 * Geography
 * Music and Dance
 * Visual Arts: Painting, Film
 * Literature and Theatre
 * Philosophy, Ethics, and Logic
 * Religion, Anthropology, and Ethnology, including Culture
 * Business, Economics, Finance, and Industry
 * Linguistics
 * Law
 * Media and Journalism
 * Politics, Military, and Criminology
 * Psychology, Sociology, Education
 * Everyday life including Cooking
 * Biology and Ecology
 * Medicine and Neuroscience
 * Chemistry and Pharmacology
 * Physics including Measurements
 * Astronomy, Space, and Earth Science
 * Agriculture
 * Computing
 * Architecture, Urban Planning, Infrastructure
 * Mechanical engineering, Manufacturing, and Industrial Production,
 * Electronic Engineering, including Optics, and Control engineering
 * Mathematics

This may look like a huge restructuring, but in fact there are only a few topics that would gain significantly (such as Architecture, Agriculture, and Law) while some would lose significantly: Geography, Biology, and History. Given this list of 25 topics that deserve equal consideration, how do we justify that the latter take up a disproportionate amount of space on VA/E? --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion on what this list should look like, but I think the consensus arising from past discussions on this page would disagree with your assessment in many places. Cobblet (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And those are? Explain. --Melody Lavender (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll have to read the archives yourself, for I have no interest in summarizing every opinion expressed on the quotas of each and every subsection of the list, and how they diverge from your proposal, for your own convenience. I'll only note that in the case of the history section, I cannot recall a single person who has suggested it to be too big; instead there are some who have suggested it is too small. Nor has anyone ever suggested that we abolish the people section completely. Your proposals constitute huge restructurings indeed, with hardly any basis in prior consensus (contradicting it more often than not, in fact), and I see no point to discussing them as a whole. If you want to prioritize some changes you feel particularly strongly about, perhaps opening separate threads on those is more likely generate some productive discussion. Cobblet (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great that you found out that nobody has ever suggested that the history section is too big, and I assume it was never the case for any of the other disproportionate sections. That's exactly the point. It should really be discussed then, because some sections are much, much larger than others and there is obviously no rationale a persistent regular user at VA can give us just like that, from the top of his head, without much research. I do understand that you do not want to disuss this. It touches the foundations of the project and is certainly a very difficult subject. The fact that the history and the geography section are much bigger than others should have a clear reason that can find considerable consensus. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You assume wrongly. And it is essential for an encyclopedia to tell us where we are and where we came from. For those reasons, I oppose any reduction of the geography quota and would support raising the history quota by another 50 articles. Cobblet (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly your reason for a bloated history section is: "We need to know where we come from" (50% of articles then, I guess) and you would attribute 50% to all other topics, because we also need to know where we are? --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I say these were the only essential functions of an encyclopedia? Did I not say what I felt a better size for the history section ought to be? Cobblet (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? I takes clear, straight thinking to answer those questions. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and ignoring, misunderstanding and misinterpreting other people's comments is not likely to help either. Cobblet (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good insight! Congrats. --Melody Lavender (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This comment relates to Melody’s first comment. I didn’t read any of the conversation between Cobblet and Melody when writing this. I liked the fact that you thought outside the box Melody. However, I will have to ‘’’oppose’’’ this proposal. I won’t be able to write down every reason why right now but here are some of my thoughts.

First of all, I look at every article individually in order to decide whether it is vital or not. The topic of the article and the content that article would have when it is in a good state is determines, not what academic discipline it is part of.

As it is, many articles that are listed as vital are interdisciplinary. Lumping them into even more narrow groups will make things very difficult and arbitrary. For example, there are many scientists who have contributed to two different fields equally. You would have to toss a coin to decide where they go.

The biggest problem will be the contradictory and counterintuitive results it will lead to when comparing the articles across different sections. Some of them already exist even with the better proportioned quota targets right now. There are over 1100 geographic entities listed and 176 articles related to language. Despite this, the Odisha state of India is not listed as vital whereas the Oriya language, the language that these people speak is listed. Ask any person from Odisha or more broadly, anyone involved with WikiProject India and they will tell you that improving article on the region is a far greater priority than the language. And this is reflected in the talk page importance tags. There is so much more to Odisha than the language that they speak.

This brings me to my next point. The “Geography” is hardly about geography per se. The vast majority of articles in Geography are locations or features on the planet Earth. The people who contributed to the Featured and Good Articles in this section aren’t experts or hobbyists in “geography”. They more likely have an expertise or interest in a particular country or city. In terms of content, the geography section of a country is just one of many along with history, politics, foreign relations, demographics, culture, economy and environment. So in terms of the actual content, you could argue that countries can go into many of the proposed sections.

The “History” section tends to be a combination of significant historical events and articles on geographic locations at an earlier period of time. The article about a region during a particular historical era is nearly always less vital than the general article on the same region since it will deal with the present and all of the past. Therefore I believe that the article about Aragon is more vital than the Kingdom of Aragon. Both articles deal with roughly the same territory but one covers 700 years of history while the other covers thousands of years of history and non-historical information. I know that you proposed a reduction in history too but I mentioned this example to illustrate the potential problems that can arise if the quota for history is raised too high relative to geography. The articles in history are usually more specialized.

I’ll have more to say on this later if I get the chance. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't clarify my point about Odisha and the language. Under this proposal, the language section will double and geography will be cut to one third of what it is now. Even if Oriya language is borderline vital in the current list, its spot will be cemented if language doubles. There is no hope in hell that Odisha will make it on a list of 400 geography articles (unless what constitutes geography radically changes).
 * As a minor point, I disagree with quite a few of the classifications of knowledge in the proposal. IMO, criminology is better paired with law, pharmacology with medicine and neuroscience, optics with physics, theatre with other performing arts (film and possibly dance) and ethnology with sociology and anthropology. Don't know why astronomy and earth science/geology are squeezed in together when something very narrow in comparison like computing gets its own section. Also the cities are currently listed with urban planning. Would they still be listed there or elsewhere in this proposal? I have read the discussions above now and have nothing to add apart from what I already wrote :)  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just another note. Everybody changes their opinion, which is of course fine. I've changed my opinions on what is vital during my involvement here. But in this history swap proposal, you supported the addition and opposed the removal, suggesting that you might overall support an increase in history. So this view to now cut history is a very unexpected change.
 * Anyway, my personal preference is for the quotas to follow the article count usually, but with some further discussion and evaluation. For instance, organisms has been cut down quite successfully in recent times. It wasn't as rushed and divided in opinion as the cut to geography so the current consensus at VA is to clearly not have 1000 articles on organisms. This gives us the possibility of moving 50 of biology quota somewhere else, like a section which is over the limit but addition proposals are still successful. Maybe that is history, maybe it is another section. When we discuss this, we will still have to take into account the general support to boost the medical section. Will the cuts to organisms be more than the additions to medical so that there's some free space left over?
 * Also wrt Earth Science, there may be support to increase its quota, judging from the support to add many geological epochs and periods. As a matter of principle, I believe that chemistry and physics are more fundamental branches of science and should have more articles devoted to them than earth science. So I like the current arrangement although I'm open to increasing Earth Sci to 275 as a matter of practicality and compromise, making it on par with chemistry and physics. I will strongly oppose earth science going beyond the other two branches. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not just people or cities that could fit in multiple sections. Crops and animal breeds can stay in biology or go in agriculture. The current proposal to add sugarcane has received strong support and is likely to pass. I don't think anyone cares if sugarcane ends up in biology or agriculture. It is an article that is recognizably vital and which after being added, will hopefully be improved by someone at the WP:Core Contest or someone who uses the vital list as inspiration or guidance in deciding which articles need attention.
 * Obviously, if crops and breeds move into agriculture then the quotas need to be adjusted. One reason why history is over the limit at the moment is because the "History of..." articles were moved there without the a corresponding quota increase. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 13:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, voting for an additional history article was illogical, I found myself doing that on some occasions, that's why I got down to the roots and created this discussion. This here is not a proposal, only a general discussion for now. There are some "tabs" that are not completely thought out, like criminology for instance. Could fit into law, but also into sociology/psychology. It makes sense to have religion and anthropology on the same tab, but there are also synergies between religion and philosophy. To a degree the tabs take into account that we have many interdisciplinary articles but in the end, no outline will be perfect.


 * State or language? Maybe locals might think it's more important to develop a geographical location. Linguistics is a more abstract topic, maybe that's why people aren't aware of the importance. VA should ideally also cover the articles readers ought to read or editors ought to improve. Many smaller cities like Stuttgart and Nürnberg could be cut. Bodies of water is simply too detailed for this level.
 * It's fair enough that you feel Stuttgart and Nürnberg aren't vital. But we added Rotterdam and Riga recently: I doubt the people who supported those additions would consider Stuttgart and Nürnberg less vital. I understand you may find the geography section bloated, but I don't think consensus is on your side. Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Several history articles could be moved out of history and into other sections. Silk road, for example, should be in economics. Salic law might have had a chance to stay in a history section on the law tab. There are even earth history articles and a whole bunch of anthropology topics on this tab.
 * The Organism section at 950 is too large. I know all these creatures are interesting. But so is criminology, anthropology and pharmacology.--Melody Lavender (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What this basically amounts to is vaporizing the biographies section. Many biographies would likely be placed under history or politics, and history would be smaller than it is now.  Sections that aren't taking on the bulk of biographies would see a substantial increase in their quota.  Melody, while your proposal is well-founded, I think it's actually more radical than it seems on the face of it, and, as such, I can't really support it.  A better approach would be to discuss the raising or lowing of various section quotas.   Folding biographies into other sections has been proposed before; I wanna say the last time it end in NC.  p  b  p  16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a proposal (yet). It's just taking a closer look at what we are doing here. Inventors would go under engineering, mathematicians under maths and so on. It would be much easier to decide whether to list the mathematician Peano or the Peano axioms. Van Gogh's biography would be next to his work, and so on.
 * Putting the bios with their non-bio counterparts will drastically reduce the number of bios. Most of them won't make when you compare their real-life influence and impact with larger groups. Sports teams will replace sports people. Political parties will replace political leaders and so on. People might go down as low as 500. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing but it's a radical change from the status quo. Personally I like the current 2000 quota. I guess it's a pro-biography bias because the 2000th article on a person/duo/band is not as vital as the 8000th abstract concept in the non-bio sections of the list if you take actual influence on society as the primary factor. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly our bios tend to get higher hits than the things the people concerned were famous for, and hits should be one factor in choosing what is "vital". Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am positively disposed towards the idea of a strict quota system and of basing revisions to the VA process by working with the quota system. But not this one. The main problem is that the choice of 25 disciplines is arbitrary. If accepting the premise of the 25 disciplines I think geography, History, Biology and biographies very clearly need to have (much) higher quotas than topics such as Law, Computing, Architecture and Agriculture, because they account for much larger fields of human knowledge (and also simply account for the majority of stuff that people look for in a traditional encyclopedia). My proposal would be to set a quota system based on the wikiprojects (although not all wikiprojects would of course get a quota) and then allow the wikiprojects to decide which articles fill out their quota. That would remove the arbitrary element of voting, and make the process much more objective and streamlined + vitality would be decided by the group of editors who are experts in a given field.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you measure the size of a field of knowledge? I put psychology and sociology on one tab because these are historically rather new fields. The 25 subdivisions of knowledge are not perfect, but you could hardly call them arbitrary. My starting point were the academic fields taught at a university. How can we say one field is less deserving of vitality than another? Also, I don't think the voting process is arbitrary. We may not have enough participants to get a perfect result yet, but we are currently still operating at a level where almost everyone can decide what's vital or not. It does take some research, but the ability to give a good estimate of what is important and what is not is a human quality every one has (pattern recognition). We may make mistakes, but they can be corrected later. The wikiprojects would likely just give you an outline of a college textbook. What we are doing has a name in real life, editorial team, managing editor, journal editor, or similar job title. It takes someone with a different perspective (that of the reader) to look beyond the expert view that the wikiprojects have. One thing we are missing is a clear definition of vitality. It would make our work much easier to have an explicit written vision of what vitality is. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think it is too hard to realize that biology, geology and history are much larger and more important fields of encyclopedic knowledge than law and computing. I have no problem saying that History is a more important and larger field of history than Chicano studies or Object based programming or ethology or Cosmetology. This view is a conclusion easily drawn from my concept of vitality which I have written down for all to see. About vitality I agree that what makes this project so frustrating and basically irrational is the lack of a standard, but I also dont think we could ever agree on a standard. That is why I believe the best thing woudl be to relegate the decisions and definitions of vitality to the wikiprojects. Yes, your 25 sections are arbitrary, not because you have chosen them wrong, but because that is the nature of cutting up knowledge along disciplinary boundaries. They are also not really a help because hundreds of vital topics could be located in two, three or more different sections.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all bios get many hits, and page views are just one aspect of many. Some of the vital bios get record low page views like Kumārajīva and Samuel of Bulgaria. Maybe First Bulgarian Empire which he represents would be enough for the list, considering the grand scheme of things. And there is another aspect that I find disturbing: classic history articles are about rulers and elites. I'd like to see more articles on ordinary people's everyday life. And I think we could achieve that by giving more quota to anthropology, which would naturally have more quota if we stuck to a more classical division of topics like the one I'm suggesting.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The person who did more than anyone else to bring Buddhism to China is vital. For every person on the list who is of borderline vitality like Samuel of Bulgaria I will find you a corresponding Vasil Levski who is clearly vital and yet not listed. There is nothing inherently "classical" about your division of topics; it is as subjective as anyone else's. Cobblet (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've taken the existing articles on the list and broken them into twenty-five groups of roughly 400 articles each.


 * 1) Artists, Musicians, Entertainers, and Sportspeople
 * 2) Writers and Journalists
 * 3) Scientists
 * 4) Politicians and Leaders
 * 5) Religions and Military Leaders and Activists
 * 6) History: Basics and Ancient
 * 7) History: Post-classical to Modern
 * 8) Geography: Basics
 * 9) Countries and Regions
 * 10) Cities
 * 11) Architecture and Visual Arts
 * 12) Literature and Music
 * 13) Philosophy and Religion
 * 14) Everyday Life
 * 15) Education, Politics, and Business
 * 16) Psychology, Culture, and Language
 * 17) Vertebrates
 * 18) Other Organisms
 * 19) Biology and Medicine
 * 20) Physics and Measurement
 * 21) Astronomy and Earth Science
 * 22) Chemistry
 * 23) Engineering, Transportation, and Industry
 * 24) Technology
 * 25) Mathematics

-- Ypnypn (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've given Organisms and regions a seperate tab now + some other changes that came up in the discussion above and added the number of biographies we currently have in each discipline:
 * Further analysis
 * History 664   + people: 19 +21 + 475  = 515 = total 1179
 * Geography 428 + people: 31 = total 459 
 * Countries, Cities, and Regions 732 = total 732
 * Music and Dance 157 + 13 = 170 + people: 175 + 7 = 182 = total 352
 * Visual Arts: Painting, Film, and Museums 101+69 +20 =190  + people: 107 + 109 + 50 =  266 = total 456


 * Literature, Fictional characters and Theatre 190 + 31 + 32 =253  + people:  242  = total 495
 * Philosophy, Ethics, Logic, and Religion 420  + people: 59 + 131 = 190 bios  = total 610
 * Anthropology, Ethnology, Sociology, Culture and Paleoanthropology 9+ 29 +90 + 30 = 158  = total 158
 * Business, Economics, Finance, and Industry 94  + people:  33 +33 = 66 bios  = total 160
 * Linguistics 175  = total 175


 * Media and Journalism 60 + 33 = 93  + people:  14  = total 107
 * Politics, Military, International organizations, Criminology, and Law 65+ 56+ 69+ 28 + 76 =294  + people:  + 48 +46 = 94  = total 388
 * Psychology, Education 81+70 = 151  + people:  29  = total 180
 * Everyday life including Sports, Timekeeping, and Textiles 345 + 15 +28 = 388  + people:  114  = total 502
 * Agriculture including Cooking 38 +121 = 159  = total 159


 * Biology and Ecology 269  = total 269
 * Organisms 951  = total 951
 * Medicine, Medical Technology and Neuroscience 228 + 12 = 240 = total 240
 * Chemistry and Pharmacology 281  + people: 24   = total 305
 * Physics including Measurements, 561  + people: 64  = total 625


 * Earth Science and Astronomy, and Space 255 + 44 = 299  = total 299
 * Architecture, Urban Planning, Infrastructure 52 + 70 + 99 = 221  = total 221
 * Mechanical engineering, Manufacturing, and Industrial Production, 18 + 87 + 84 =189  + people: 31  = total 220
 * Electronic Engineering, and Optical technology, Control engineering 35 + 26 = 61  = total 61
 * Mathematics and Computing 275 + 79 = 354  + people: 43 +13 = 56   = total 410

Comments?--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 16:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why did you cluster as you did. E.g. Psychology and Museums - While museums tend to be about Art or History. On what basis did you include some subdisciplines (Medicine, Pharmacology, Medical Technology) and not others. These decisions are to a large extent subjective/arbitrary. There is no problem with this per se, until we decide on strict quota where all categories are equally important; because in that case the subjective categorization leads to overrepresentation of a specific category based on the categorization. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the categories and groupings are arbitrary, and consequently the statistics are not very useful.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the museums, I changed it right now and put them in visual arts because that's what 99% of our museums currently are. You're also right that some disciplines aren't included. That's exactly the point. If you're still missing subdisciplines, please tell us. We are overlooking some subjects or not giving them adequate room. And these numbers are not decisions, they are the current numbers, not quota suggestions. Some disciplines obviously get very little or no attention. That's the whole point of this list. It's not as clearly visible when we use our regular table.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 18:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Museum was meant as an example, not a definitive remark (e.g why are timekeeping and textiles with sports?). Splitting engineering disciplines (electronic mechanical) or biology from organisms makes these subcategories smaller; while combining disciplines (psychology education) makes them bigger, etc..


 * If you think there are specific disciplines that you think receive too little attention it is probably better to name them explicitly and give suggestions to expand rather than trying to come up with some abstract superstructure. Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The everyday life category (with sports and timekeeping) is there because we need a category as a catch-all for left overs. Organisms and regions are getting there own subcategory because people want the biology section and the geography section to be larger than average, because of these two sections. We have to categorize the articles somehow, so there will always be a superstructure that may or may not appear abstract. It's really not about creating a superstructure but taking what is already there. What is already there and what is documented and sourced is a division into academic disciplines. With the current structure obviously many disciplines are hard to develop. When you see an overview of what we have and what we should have, we might make some progress. The list is under construction. It needs to be analyzed from every angle. And as you say, there needs to be some fair and even attribution of quota. We are going to have to give the stock market a fair share, as well as the pharmacology section. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are astronomers, linguists, anthropologists, physicians and architects listed as vital but they are not counted in their respective categories here. Gizza (t)(c) 21:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge Sections: "Anthropology", Sociology, "Culture", "Society","Ethnology" > "Culture and Society"
The distinction here is largely arbitrary and separates the disciplines of anthropology and sociology from its subject matter. The disciplinary division between sociology and anthropology is itself rather arbitrary and most of the central concepts and subject matters are shared. Merging these section would allow us to have a single section dedicated to topics of both of the disciplines. Since most of these sections are very small it wont even become too unwieldy. Examples of the problems generated by the separation is that ethnology and anthropology are separated though mostly the two are used as near synonyms. Ethnography which is the main method of anthropology is located in the ethnology section. Cultural concepts developed in anthropology such as "culture", "oral tradition", "taboo" are located in the culture section etc.


 * Support
 * 1) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support all, except Oppose sociology because it's an entirely different field. Sociology is more related to Business and Economics or to psychology.
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

There doesn't seem to be any clear distinction between anthropology and ethnoglogy. The same subject is taught under different names at different colleges. Ethnology is usually deemed to be synonymous to Social anthropology and cultural anthropology. The topics that have accumulated in Culture and Society have to be sorted manually, because there are all kinds of fields of study represented in there. But as a first step both could be merged with Anthropology/Ethnology. Sociology OTOH is a different field all together. It has many concepts in common with psychology. The borderline between group-psychology and sociology is virtually inexistent.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC) And did I mention: I was going to suggest that? --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * This is wrong. Historically sociology and anthropology are the same discipline with different empirical focuses one on non western societies and one on western societie, but they share the same basic theoretical foundations - Sociology founded on the ideas of Durkheim and Weber and Anthropology on the ideas of Durkheim and Boas (though Sociologists also read Boas and anthropologists Weber). The central concepts of culture, society and social analysis is entirely shared between the disciplines and most of the main theoretical figures are also used in both disciplines Geertz, Latour, Bourdieu, Goffman etc. work across the disciplines. Often scholars cannot even be readily identified as anthropologists or sociologist. Group psychology only covers a minuscule part of what sociology is. Your view of sociology seems much too limited to fit with how the discipline is actually practiced. Sociology is the study of society. So is social anthropoloyg. Group psychology is the study of individual behavior in society which is different. In fact I would say that anthropology is closer related to psychology than sociology because anthropology historically is much more interested in individual behavior - you find anthropologists using Freud, Jung, Vygotsky and Piaget in their work, and others using Evolutionary psychology, and working in subdciplines such as psychological anthropology and phenomenological anthropology. That kind of focus on the individual mind is almost nonexistent in sociology. Cultural psychology is basically an outgrowth of anthropology as well. Today the division also rests a bit on the relative frequencies of qualitative vs. quantitative research methods (and the pevalence of post-modernist thinking), but this was not the case as much in the past. Also keeping Sociology separate would separate the discipline form its empirical matter and most of its foundational concepts.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you found me out, my view on sociology is from the organizational behavior standpoint. Still, I do recognize some of the points you mention. Maybe we could give the business section an OB-department. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. I definitely think that some of the more organizational behavior concepts from sociology could be included in business/economics even if they originate from within sociology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

New Section: Time keeping (subsection of culture)
Add to this section, Calendar, Year, month, Day, hour, Minute, second, and all the seasons and holidays. These concepts are currently divided in sections on physics, everyday life and culture (where the holidays make up more than half). Nonetheless all of these, arguably except(day/night) are cultural concepts. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, because second is more closely tied to science than culture. Being an SI unit, it defines most other units of measurement such as meter, ampere, candela, newton, pascal, joule, watt, volt, coulomb, hertz, sievert, etc. I understand how units such as calendar, year, and day can be considered mostly cultural concepts, but I don't think second has the same amount of everyday usage or importance. Everyday life in all cultures formed around the cycles of years, seasons, and days, but people's lives weren't shaped by their interpretation of a second. Jucchan (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add Anal sex
To go with oral sex.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support In this case the traffic ranking alone is a reason to include it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Vital even if the traffic wasn't so high. Basic type of sexual act with significance in culture and health. And it complements oral sex as Maplestrip said. Though I wonder how many of the views came accidentally via Google (searching for pornography) similar to the Facebook anomaly. The average time spent on the article page would be a very helpful statistic. Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Logical1004 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support not that it's needed but I support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  11:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, popularity of topic does not equate to significance; frankly, neither does oral sex; both can be covered in a general overview of human sexual behavior. What's going to be next? Every other position or performance? Do we include missionary position in the list too?  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * 1) 766 in traffic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Fable
Is "Fable" a relevant-enough genre to be a vital article?

Well, sorry I didn't sign and support this claim. Anyway: Fables, like fairy tales, have been used to teach simple yet useful morals to people, and there are some differences: fables use primarily animal characters, and fables are much more focused on giving out morals and do not focus in going over to a happy ending. Since "fairy tail" is included, maybe fable should be included as well. User:Gonzales John (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014
 * Support
 * 1) nom
 * 2) support--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  18:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, I worry that we already have something similar, though, but if so, I can't find it. Feels like such a big oversight... Maplestrip (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The article needs a lot of work though <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  11:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Please sign and support your own proposal. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 17:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * we do have a few similar articles already listed. There's folklore, fairy tale, oral tradition, narrative and legend. Fable seems to be a better choice than some of them. Storytelling is another related article but which isn't on the list. We probably shouldn't have all of them. Gizza (t)(c) 00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than "add this, remove this," maybe we should just try to decide which of these should be in and which of these shouldn't in one go. There's a lot of overlap between these. I have a hard time making up my mind as-is.
 * It's a lot harder to find enough people to aupport a mass add or bulk removal than to add and remove single articles. Story telling might be redundant with oral tradition. All of the articles mentioned by : folklore, fairy tale, oral tradition, narrative and legend cover different territory. I think we need them all. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 12:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Add B.R. Ambedkar and Subhas Chandra Bose
The current shape of the list suggests that the United States is the only country with vital human rights activists which isn't the case. Human rights struggles have occurred worldwide and manifest themselves in different ways. Ambedkar was the most significant social rights campaigner for Dalits and other low-caste Indians. He was successful in setting up various affirmative action measures in the country and the was main architect of India's constitution, which at an official level enshrined caste equality from the moment of India's independence.

Bose was the second most important Indian independence fighter after Gandhi. Bose's methods of violence were an alternative to Gandhi's pacifism in the 1940's. He allied himself with the Axis Powers during WWII, was at various times in charge of the Indian Legion and Indian National Army that fought against the Allied Powers during the war and was head of the Free India provisional government. Both of these people have entrenched legacies in India.


 * Support
 * 1)  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ambedkar. I've thought about nominating him before. He had an enormous impact on the Dalit community - ensuring legal equality for them, security affirmative action measures that still exist today, promoting education, leading a mass conversion to Buddhism, etc. Combined with his role as the principal author of the Indian Constitution, I'd say that makes for a compelling case for his inclusion. I'm still thinking about Bose. Just how influential is his legacy in India? Neljack (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support AmbedkarUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Logical1004 (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support crystalclear (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

We're under quota so removals don't need to be made but in comparison to the related articles listed, both activists are more vital than the two recent Prime Ministers of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh. In a book on modern Indian history, the chapters on Ambedkar and Bose would be larger than that of Vajpayee and Singh. There are also three articles on the Indian caste system, all of which overlap with each other and are largely repetitive. If space has to be made in the future, one of those can be removed. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * I chose Bose as I think he is the best representative of the radical side of the Indian independence movement. While there were people like Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan who espoused non-violent protests, there are others from both left and right-wing backgrounds including Bose, Bhagat Singh, Lala Lajpat Rai, Veer Savarkar who used violence to achieve their goal. This side is not as well-known but it very much existed.
 * In terms of his legacy, Bose was close to receiving India’s highest civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna in 1992 1 and may possibly receive it in the near future 2. Currently 47 people have received the award of which quite a few are post-independence politicians who received it from their own party and are not very deserving of it. Taking them out, the list becomes quite exclusive and the majority of the remaining recipients are already listed as vital.
 * Of course the list is just one of a myriad of things to consider. But in my opinion, Bose’s controversial legacy due to his alliances with fascist and communist leaders is one reason why he is widely studied and part of what makes him vital. In very different circumstances he is similar to Gough Whitlam in that they were a mix of good and bad and divided opinion. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Add poultry farming
It is the parent article of free-range and intensive animal farming.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per same rationale I have given for opposing the removal of silk production below. This one here is even more vital. The Poultry article can no where near cover the many different meat production methods this article will include some day.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 08:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) oppose no rationale given. We would have to add a lot of specific unique types of farming.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per below discussion. Maplestrip (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per discussion. Logical1004 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Most major and comparable types of farming are already included - beekeeping, dairy, animal husbandry, organic farming, aquaculture, livestock, orchard and even sericulture (silk farming). Adding poultry won't lead to mass additions. If bloat is a concern, one of the gardening articles, or maybe urban agriculture can make way, not that I believe agriculture is overrepresented in the grand scheme of things. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 06:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

The more I think about the this I'm leaning toward support, I can't see it as less important sericulture or Beekeeping. In fact the more I think about sericulture or silk farming/industry the more I think we should remove that, in fact I may open that. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  17:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think poultry is the vital topic and that article should cover poultry farming as well.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering Maunus' comment, adding poultry farming would be like adding dairy farming despite the fact that we have dairy. It covers the same topic. I change my vote.. Maplestrip (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, you've convinced me that poultry farming is subsumed by poultry. Poultry should then be moved to agriculture or biology (along with other domesticated animals). It is currently under "Everyday life" which doesn't make much sense. Gizza (t)(c) 01:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Add: Universal Grammar
The concept of Universal grammar is perhaps Chomskys main contribution to the field of linguistics and the philosophy of language. Anyone interested in language should know about this whether or not they agree with Chomskys theories.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, vital to linguistics, computer science, and then some. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Too abstract and specific to be a "vital" article from the perspective of a general audience. Anyone interested in chemistry must understand VSEPR theory or Lewis acids and bases (any modern high school chemistry class must teach such concepts) but even as a chemist I would not consider such topics "vital" in any way. There is no way we can possibly limit the list to 10,000 articles if we decide that each fundamental concept within any important academic subject has to be individually listed. Cobblet (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Important, yes, but is it the most essential linguistics article we're missing, particularly when Chomsky himself is also listed? I note that morphology (linguistics), neurolinguistics and International Phonetic Alphabet are not. Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Morphology is subsumed under grammar, and neurolinguistics is not really a major field yet. There are several others I would include before that. IPA, is a script, not really that vital in my opinion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. OK, but the same is true of syntax and that doesn't stop us from listing it. Could it not also be said that the concept of universal grammar ought to be covered in an article on grammar? 2. I brought up neurolinguistics because you once brought up aphasia, which was initially added but then later removed – not sure if you were aware of that. Cobblet (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think UG is separately vital from its relevance to grammar because it is basically an extremely significant philosophical argument about the nature of language. As fo syntax I think we could have both syntax and morphology and grammar and UG without anyone of them being redundant with the other, but I would prefer UG before morphology but after syntax (for UGers UG subsumes grammar which is considered the same as syntax which in turn subsumes morphology, for non UGers UG doesnt exist, and grammar subsumes morphology and syntax). I think aphasia is more vital than neurolinguistics and that it should be on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going off topic but since there is discussion on language, I noticed vowel and consonant are missing. Are they needed? pretty fundamental part of all languages, and we have things like letter, phoneme, syllable, etc. The distinction of vowel to consonant must come up a lot when studying language from any part of the world. I think IPA and morphology are pretty decent too. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think vowel and consonant are more important than letter and syllable in fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cobblet (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing how this is significantly different from just grammar p  b  p  19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Grammar is the study of the structure of languages. Universal Grammar is a controversial and extremely influential theory that says that all the languages fo the world in fact have the same universal grammar and that this universal grammar is innate and hardwired into the human mind, for proponents of this theory the study of linguistics is to find a way to describe all the languages of the world with a single grammatical system. This theory means that the study of "grammar" has implications for computation, for psychology and cognitive science, neurology, human evolution, and for our philosophical understanding what "language" and "mind" is. "Grammar" itself if just taken as the rules of a specific language, has none of those necessary implications. I also would never expect the article on grammar to give a full treatment of the UG theory and its relevance for the study of human cognition and language.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Universal grammar is different from grammar, it's on a much more basic level. UG can represent Chomsky's work and will be comprehensible to most readers. Other vital articles that we should choose to represent the groundbreaking work of Noam Chomsky are Generative grammar and the Chomsky hierarchy. They are vital but they will be hard to understand for many. Both articles are not yet well developed, but if you look at the subarticles, for example Context-free grammar, you'll see that they will be full of math mark-up when they achieve B status. As opposed to those, UG is an article that everybody can understand. We should have the others, too, because if we have nine works by Shakespeare, we can have three major theories by Chomsky who is one of the most important scientists alive and has had a pervasive influence on many areas like psychology, linguistics, philosophy, computer science, politics... --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  12:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Add economic system, economic growth, Gini coefficient, Misery index (economics) and Human Development Index
All of them are crucial yet not included in the Level 4 list.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support economic growth and HDI, Oppose the rest. Jucchan (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Not vital. Would consider Growth and HDI.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Gini (economic inequality is sufficient) and Misery (unemployment rate itself hasn't been added). Undecided on the others. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Too many nominations in one post, I'd prefer to discuss them separately. Reviewers won't have the time to research so many at once and the likelyhood of passing them all at once is lower. Economic growth is the most vital must-haves out of these.--Melody Lavender (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Split p  b  p  22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Tim Schafer
Currently, as far as I have been able to find (please tell me if I'm wrong), there is only one name in video gaming on this list; Shigeru Miyamoto. Besides that, there seem to be about four other articles on video game-related topics. Tim Schafer, creative designer of Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, Psychonauts, Brütal Legend and Broken Age, co-designer of Day of the Tentacle and The Secret of Monkey Island seems to be a perfect addition to this list. His works has brought the medium to places it has never gone before, and despite commercial failures these works are often praised by critics.

I'd also note Gabe Newell, John Romero and Jenova Chen as possible candidates - perhaps something to discuss at a later point depending on how this goes.

I'm also not entirely sure if "Bussinesspeople" is the correct category for gamedesigners, another thing I'd like to leave open for discussion


 * Support
 * 1) Supported as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I dont think any video game designers are vital yet. I think it is recentism. No video games have had the sufficient impact on human culture and society in general yet to qualify.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Maunus. Neljack (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose because there are way more important video game-related articles to be added. Jucchan (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose crystalclear (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a "designer" section in Visual Artists, which is probably a better location for this proposal. Gizza (t)(c) 13:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Sounds perfect to me, I just put the proposal in the same place as where Miyamoto was located in the list. I'm not sure if he should be moved also, though, seeing as he could be concidered "more a bussiness person" than Tim Schafer... Which seems silly. Maplestrip (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was thinking videogames are a little thin, we have pong Miyamoto, console and mario. Pokemon got booted, that's fairly big in the video game world. I would go next for companies or games but even those may be unlikely. Articles like History of video games, Nintendo, Atari, Sony, Sega, Tetris, Pac-Man are the most vital articles if any in the video game area I can think of, but inclusion of companies seem to be hated, although to me Nintendo would probably seem better than Mario and Miyamoto. We also have Sony's co Founder, when I think Sony itself would be better, but again we seem to hate companies, but comparatively (not universal) love biographies. As for biographies I think hardly any could really be considered for this area, I can think of a handful equal or better than Tim Schafer, none of which I would suggest either, like Sid Meier, Will Wright, Hideo Kojima, John Carmack, Hironobu Sakaguchi or Satoshi Tajiri for example. I would like to suggest some articles I mentioned above as possibilities though, thoughts? <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  15:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing; videogames seem underrepresented (compared to the 120 movie-related articles ;)). In the world of videogames, company names are used as bandnames in the music world. I understand why companies are discouraged, though, and if they weren't, that would add A LOT to this list besides gaming companies.


 * Besides Chris Crawford and Satoru Iwata, we've basically gotten every person I was thinking of down now, but none seem perfect. WikiProject Video games puts less importance on videogames, series and persons compared to companies and genres (high compared to TOP). I'd definitely support Tetris, as well as Pokémon, but doubt either series are better than people who have made multiple highly acclaimed games. Suddenly I believe Minecraft will get into this list ten years from now. Maplestrip (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * At the moment, History of video games, Nintendo, Atari, Sony, Sega, Tetris, Pac-Man, and Pokémon seem like good additions. I would keep Mario and Miyamoto even if Nintendo is added. Mario is the biggest icon in videogames. Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, and Super Mario 64 are some of the most influential videogames. Miyamoto is definitely the most influential person in videogaming (so far at least). Miyamoto would also leave The Legend of Zelda covered in some form. Jucchan (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't even know Mario was in this list, but I found him now. Hmm, perhaps Sonic? Probably not. Legend of Zelda could also be interesting, but also probably not. Either way, we should look out for not everything to come from Japan. I'd support History of Videogames anyway. ...It's really hard to decide which articles would be good, we're basically just naming possibilities without getting anywhere. Any specific articles that stand out? Tetris, Pac-Man and the Pokémon franchise seem to... Maplestrip (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Especially Video game design, Tetris, Pac Man, but also World of Warcraft, Minecraft, Sonic and Tomb Raider sound interesting. Maybe also History of video games. I don't think companies or brand names are a good idea. And I can't quite get myself yet to support a game designer. There is a List of best-selling video games which can help and Video game genres can help diversify across types of video games. It is hard to decide, but we should diversify chronologically, typologically and content topic wise. Don't hesitate to nominate some in the visual arts section, some might fail, but some will probably make it.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

... Alright, I'm going to put up a few more nominations tomorrow. We'll see what makes it. I would note that sales does not equal importance, though, so best-selling videogames wouldn't be a very good guideline in my opinion. Thanks for the general support either way~ Maplestrip (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, best-seller lists are only one aspect. Tetris is already nominated here.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Latin Empire
Knowing something of the history of the period, I was surprised to see this article listed as one of the vital 10,000. The Latin Empire -- which was mostly located on the European side of the Bosporus & not in Asia -- was simply not that important of a state. It is of lesser importance than the Empire of Trebizond or Despotate of Epirus, & neither of those are notable enough to make the cut as a vital 10,000. The Latin Empire's primary claim to notability to historians was as a failed Crusader state based on Constantinople, which was the greater part of its territory for the majority of its dismal existence. It had little impact in contemporary events -- except to serve as an embarrassment to the Papacy & Republic of Venice. But a point of more interest to Wikipedians, the the most important aspects of this article are already covered by other articles currently included in the expanded list: Nicaean Empire, Crusades, & Crusader states. -- llywrch (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) llywrch (talk) as nominator
 * 2) Support Have long felt this should not belong on the list. Suggest adding something like the Fatimid Caliphate to replace it. Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Malerisch (talk) 09:12, 23 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  11:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) My college world history textbook mentions it, so it's definitely crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Out of fairness, I did a search thru the archives to find any argument for including this article, & failed to find one. I suspect this was proposed early on, & its inclusion was never properly discussed. -- llywrch (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * When the expanded list was in its "growth" stage many years ago, anybody could unilaterally add whatever article they wanted to the list. It took some time before we started to discuss and !vote on things. In this case, Latin Empire was added over 3 years ago . Gizza (t)(c) 08:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if any of the other articles added in that edit are worth checking out to see if they are also not very vital. There must be many missing kingdoms/empires/states/regions in history with bigger area, population, time span and significance than Latin Empire, Fatimid Caliphate is indeed better I think, Latin Empire lasted little over 50 years. For history I was thinking about Early Middle Ages, High Middle Ages, Late Middle Ages and also Çatalhöyük. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  11:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at the other entries added in that edit. Some I have no problem with (Meroe, Elam, Sabaeans); some I'm unsure about (Nok culture & Saka could be worth including, but the articles in their current shape do not make a convincing argument for including); & some I would likely vote for removing (Atropatene, Caucasian Albania, Kingdom of Iberia, & maybe Aq Qoyunlu, Kara Koyunlu although they were early Turkish rivals of the Ottoman Empire). I'll leave it to someone else to verify my research & make the nominations. -- 06:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC) (previous comment made by user:Llywrch)
 * , the state the articles are currently in doesn't matter. Part of the purpose of the vitals list is to identify articles that are very important and should be developed. Taking this into consideration, I think Nok culture is probably vital. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 07:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Nok culture were probably the first Sub-Saharan African people to enter the Iron Age. I think the article is vital. Saka may or may not be redundant to Scythians. It will depend on how well Iranian/Central Asian history of the time is covered on the list and if there are better articles that can be added. Gizza (t)(c) 12:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. Which is why I left it to someone else to verify & make any needed nominations. My point was that all I know about the Nok culture -- & the Saka/Scythian people -- is what is in the article. And the article about the Nok had only one vague sentence about their importance. Now had the lead included the fact (which Gizza helpfully notes) that it was the first Sub-Saharan iron age culture (ignoring for the moment whether pre-Amharic/Tigrayan peoples in the Horn are Sub-Saharan), & that the Nok is considered to have been the direct ancestors to the hausa & other peoples, it'd be a no-brainer keep. As for the Saka people, I've been reading & editing articles on Wikipedia long enough to know there are times when real but unfamiliar archeological information is indistinguishable from the pet theories of a crank, & this is one case where I'd like either a known expert or a reliable veteran Wikipedian to offer her/his opinion on the matter. FWIW, having thought more about the matter, I'm tempted to nominate not only Aq Qoyunlu, Kara Koyunlu but Göktürks for removal & add Turkish peoples which covers those 3 topics & is not currently an Expanded Vital Article. -- llywrch (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove Java Sea
I find the geography section much too detailed for this level. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I agree that most of the internal waters of the Malay archipelago aren't vital. Things like the Visayas, the Sulu Archipelago, Mount Tambora or even the Wallace Line are probably more important topics. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support agree that there are articles about maritime Southeast Asia far better than these small seas. Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

For many of these seas, I think sea articles lack in things like culture, history, population, industry etc that is present in articles about regions, cities and islands. Some seas are important to an encyclopedia and do have a rich history and other information to be written about them, but I don't think these are examples of those though. To get the same coverage we could have more regions or cities or islands from the same areas, or other areas; or alternatively not add anything and just use as a way trim geography and whole list in general. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Arafura Sea
I find the geography section much too detailed for this level. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Celebes Sea
I find the geography section much too detailed for this level. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Remove Sulu Sea
I find the geography section much too detailed for this level. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  18:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per nom.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add film genre, music genre, and literary genre
If you only support one or two, please specify which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  20:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  14:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support p  b  p  14:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think these are unnecessary, many many disciplines could be duplicated with similar listy articles. The way we could have every nationality in addition to the countries or every religious member in addition the the religion, eg Muslim and Islam. Should we remove the few taxonomic articles we include? I remember seeing Religious denomination, and Architectural style, there may be more. These would be unnecessary too then; yes? <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  10:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Film, music and literature should provide extensive coverage of these topics. Similar taxonomic articles can be written about any aspect of human knowledge: see areas of mathematics or branches of physics for instance. They are all redundant to their main topic. Cobblet (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 02:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Architectural style seems very redundant to architecture if we see the above suggestion as redundant as well. Maplestrip (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would support removing them. Sect is also included right now. As expected, architectural style is just a list of 100 different architectural styles across the world. Religious denomination and sect are similar though not as bad. If there is enough sourced information available on how and why sects form and religions split, then they might have a case. Otherwise it's pointless to list include them. (I just checked and found an article on Development of new religions which existed until January 2014 but is now a redirect to History of religions). Gizza (t)(c) 10:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where should I suggest the removal of these three articles? Putting each suggestion in a different place could be needlessly confusing (I already have trouble keeping track of some of the suggestions here), as all three could be removed for the same reason. Maplestrip (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Religious denomination is a vital article. What contents could the article possibly have once it's stable and developed? Sounds like something that belongs into wiktionary to me. I'd support it's removal. Sect is currently a miserable article (no mention of Scientology which is seen as a sect in most countries, I believe, no mention of the dangers involved, no overview of incidents related to sects and so on), but its current state doesn't say anything about its vitality. I'd keep it on the list. Architectural style is no longer a list. I moved the list to List of architectural styles and gave Architectural style some basic content. I don't think it should be removed, it's not taxonomic; there is a lot to be said about it, similar to Style (visual arts) which might be worth adding, imho. I think the style and genre overview articles are vital, I believe that's the kind of article those people who have no idea about arts will look up if only to find the right vocabulary in an overarching article first. The style/genre articles are not taxonomic like some of the others mentioned., we put suggestions for removal usually in the sections where they are listed. I know it's hard to keep track. Tell me about it. I use the history and look at the edit summary or try to look at the table of contents or sometimes I start evaluating an voting at the bottom of the page, so I don't miss those proposals. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender  20:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is sect is either a synonym of religious denomination or of cult, both of which are listed. I definitely don't support getting rid of cult. But I'm not sure if we need religious denomination or sect. Note that schism and heresy are also listed. Gizza (t)(c) 00:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, sect and cult are more or less the same, we should remove sect.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 12:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support removing sect Maplestrip (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually sect and cult are very different things in the science of religion. Laymans usage just confuse them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Sonnet
The literature list is biased towards prose literature. I think we should have some of the major poetic forms. I have a hard time imagining an encyclopedia without this article. We may also want to include articles like rhyme, meter, couplet, blank verse etc. And probably also techniques such as metaphor.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jucchan (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support~ Maplestrip (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support and agree with most other suggestions except rhyme, we should add Iambic pentameter and the like first, I've been wanting to propose these articles for quite a while already --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * oppose


 * discussion

Add Haiku
I think we should have some of the major poetic forms, this one seems too high profile to leave out.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  13:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, high profile are the right words. Vital for an encyclopedia~ Maplestrip (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jucchan (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Ghazal
Arabic poetry genre of similar importance in middle-eastern poetry as the Sonnet in Western poetry.


 * Support
 * 1) SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Maplestrip (talk) 06:15, 20 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  11:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose

This looks very good, but I've never heard of it before, making it really hard for me to judge how vital it is. It's low importance in Poetry and unknown importance in the Pakistan WikiProject. The short reference list isn't selling it for me either. However, looking at how widespread it is according to the article, comparing this to the sonnet... I am very undecided. Maplestrip (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * discussion
 * I would ascribe that to the general bad coverage of Middle East related topics. You can look at the corresponding article in the EB, or this article on the ghazal, to get a sense of the vitality: .User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Add installation 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) 20:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Maunus. Tezero (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose : Logical1004 (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I Opposed this article for lack of argumentation, but must admit that I am tempted to switch to support. Installation art in its many forms is the main artform to have emerged in the second half of the 20th century and is today arguably the main artform in the world wide sphere of "high culture".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Kabbalah
Should it be added? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:38, 27 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  11:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Top-importance to Wikiproject Religion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 12:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support : Logical1004 (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Support Nope.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Gizza. Malerisch (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * I have allowed myself to reassess the importance of the article for WP:RELIGION, since whoever assigned it top priority has clearly not read the importance scale. It could arguably be "high" but I have assigned it mid priority which I think is more appropriate - understanding Kabbalah is not vital to understanding religion in general.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , There are 1898 articles that are top-importance to Wikiproject Religion. The combined philosophy and religion quota is 425. Judaism is already the most overrepresented religion along with Christianity by a mile. You'll need a better reason than that. More open to a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Judaism is starting to get too high a quota, but the Kabbalah might be a good topic to include because it's significant beyond Judaism. The article currently doesn't reflect that. It's relevant to many esoteric activities like Wicca and Tarot and fortune telling and such. This is due to Philip Berg who tried to make the Kabbalah accessible to many people outside Judaism in the 1970s. Many Hollywood stars became interested even though they are Christian (Madonna, Britney Spears). I also agree it might not be vital to understanding religion itself, but it seems to have an important position in occultism. I'm leaning towards support.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 09:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2000s celebrity kabbalah fad surely does not adduce encyclopedic vitality? In that case gucci bags and chihuahuas would still be more vital than Kabbalah.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Western Wall
I've noticed that Islam subcategory contains Kaaba (Mecca). And Western Wall is very important in Judaism. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support One of the most important if not the most important holy site in Judaism. It is the source of the conflict over East Jerusalem between Jews and Muslims. It definitely should be added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

, the Western Wall may be a standout article in Judaism but adding topics based on the inclusion of equivalent articles for other religions is fraught with risk. Should Buddhist monk, Magi and Guru be included considering that Rabbi and Imam are on the list? If synagogue and church are listed, should Hindu temple, Buddhist temple and Gurudwara be as well? And if Haredi Judaism passes, why not add Salafism, Isma'ilismm, Twelver Islam, Digambara or Svetambara? If Jehovah, Allah and 12 Greek deities, why not add Ahura Mazda?
 * Discussion

Some of these articles can probably be added but the point is that we have to prioritise. Even if the religion quota rises to 450, cuts will have to be made in order to make the list fairer and balanced. In its current form, a straight addition of Western Wall will just exacerbate the Judeo-Christian bias on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 02:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is any Jewish location to add, this it. The most sacred location in the entire Jewish faith seems vital enough to add to the list. I see what you are saying about the other article equivalents, but this one article seems important enough to add. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also nominated Dome of the Rock and Church of the Holy Sepulcher below in order to eliminate any bias. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Temple Mount be a better choice than the Western Wall to represent Judaism? Malerisch (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess, but it would also be better to have this than Dome of the Rock too. Would everyone prefer to have on article on the Temple Mount and then Church of the Holy Sepulcher since that site is not on the Temple Mount? That would save space on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Dome of the Rock
Counterpart to the Western Wall addition. Would work to balance out the Jewish bias if added. The Dome of the Rock is also one of the most important locations in Jerusalem and the holiest in Jerusalem to Muslims.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

If Kaaba covers Masjid al-Haram then the next Islamic holy site to be added is Al-Masjid al-Nabawi, not Dome of the Rock. This will just create a bias towards Jerusalem. Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Church of the Holy Sepulcher
This addition would round out the three major religions in Jerusalem. The Jewish part would be covered by the Western Wall, the Christian part by this addition, and the Muslim part by Dome of the Rock. The Church is said to be located where Jesus was crucified and was buried. This addition seems important enough to add.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Patrilineality
The kinship section is too focused on the institutions of Western kinship. We need to add more kinship forms from the anthropological literature. Patrilineal kinship is kinship that runs only through the fathers side - as in many Western and African and Asian societies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nome. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Have changed the proposal from "patrilineal kinship" to "patrilineality" since the first redirects to the second. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discussion

Add Matrilineality
The kinship section is too focused on the institutions of Western kinship. We need to add more kinship forms from the anthropological literature. Matrilineal kinship is kinship that runs only through the mothers side - as in many African and Native American societies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nome. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I think it's spelled gnome. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 20:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Have changed the proposal from "matrilineal kinship" to "matrilineality" since the first redirects to the second. Cobblet (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Asexuality
I don't have the statistics, but one of the biggest and best-known sexual orientations, probably right after bisexuality. Or something like that.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I would draw the line here. Adding asexuality means we will have heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality, which is enough IMO. Other sexual orientations like pansexuality and monosexuality start to overlap with these basic four types. Gizza (t)(c) 13:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Suppurt PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:20, 19 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  10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I was just about to add this. 1% of the population is asexual, and it's one of the four "main" orientations based on the binary gender system, the other three all being represented. Remember, asexuality is not covered by "LGBT" alone, although variations frequently include it. Tezero (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support crystalclear (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel offended, Gizza ;) Seriously, though, I agree that adding any other sexual orientation or gender identity would currently be putting too much weight on them. Adding something that is supposed to cover the entirety of the non-cishet spectrum might make sense, though, such as LGBT or Queer. I don't know what article would fit that definition, though, seeing as everyone is disagreeing about them and it might just not be worth it to try now we got the "main ones" out of the way. Maplestrip (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose per Maplestrip's argument below that we would do better to have an overview article of the non-cishet spectrum. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * 1) 4332 in traffic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * LGBT as a catch-all term is better yeah. Transgender is also on the list. I don't support adding gay and lesbian as they're redundant to homosexuality. They may have different identities but so do black men and black women for example, and something like black feminism is too specific to be vital. Gizza (t)(c) 03:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, adding gay and lesbian would be particularly redundant. I don't really like LGBT, though, because it by nature excludes people, but on the other hand, it seems to be the article that covers all initialisms that cover non-cishet genders and sexuality. Two snippets: "On the one hand, some intersex people who want to be included in LGBT groups suggest an extended initialism LGBTI" and "More recently, the catch-all term gender and sexual diversity (GSD) has been proposed." Oh, and even later "LGBTTQQIAAP" and "MOGII" (I've always liked that one). The article seems to cover everything that we haven't covered yet with homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and transgender, so that should work out.. I think... Oh, and it also covers the community of those people. Maplestrip (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Other things that might be worth considering, could be relationship/philosophy types like polyamory, promiscuity, Swinging (sexual practice). They don't seem perfect, but perhaps slightly better than some rarer sexual orientation articles being mentioned. Although things like swinging and promiscuity appear to be more common than transexuality and other things, they seem to be less of an identity, less important to the individual, so perhaps are less vital. Polyamory is interesting but appears to be fairly uncommon. I don't know anything though, only a first impression. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  10:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support LGBT. Newer terminology? Not so much. Recentism.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 13:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * DaGizza, was it you who called asexuality "one of the biggest and best-known sexual orientations"? If so, I think that's too big a declaration...for reasons noted in the Asexuality article. I would also be careful calling pansexuality and monosexuality sexual orientations. A sexuality is not necessarily the same thing as a sexual orientation, and it's still the case that when sexual orientations are listed by sexologists and other researchers, the ones on that list are usually heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual. And then the sexual identities for those sexual orientations might be mentioned, such as gay or lesbian. Acceptance of asexuality as a sexual orientation is not nearly as widespread as heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. And pansexuality is commonly considered a subset of bisexuality, while monosexuality is hardly ever termed a sexual orientation (unless one counts that it is usually in reference to a heterosexual or homosexual orientation). Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, I believe it was Maplestrip who said that. But thanks for your input. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 07:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that was a bit of POV shining through, though it would also be POV to say that asexuality isn't a sexual orientation. I don't think it really matters much for this conversation? Honestly, This issue might even be more reason to make the article vital. It does get really confusing when dealing with sexual orientation, sexualities, sexual identities and sexual behavior, so this article puts a different light on those topics than hetero-, homo- or bisexuality do. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for replying to me/explaining your thoughts on this matter. While Maplestrip made the "one of the biggest" comment, my above post obviously concerns anyone labeling whatever sexuality a sexual orientation. I've done a lot of work on the Asexuality article and commonly contribute to other sexual topics, so I am usually very familiar with the literature on these matters. I do what I can to base my thoughts on what the WP:Reliable sources state about them instead of my personal feelings about them, because that is what the WP:Neutral (POV) policy (including its WP:Due weight section) is about. But I understand that these topics can get confusing, even among researchers, and that they are never completely without POV. Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That's also why I prefer to stay away from them myself. I can't say I have much experience with the literature surrounding gender and sexuality topics, so I only speak of my limited personal experience here. ~Maplestrip (chat) 09:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Collecting
We have philately and numismatics, as well we should. But we should also have the general concept of collecting, which also applies to baseball cards, knickknacks, curiosities, and everything else.


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support the proposal to relist Pokemon shows that we need this article. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 08:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support There is scope in the article to discuss serious issues such as the illegal trade in antiquities. Gizza (t)(c) 22:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support crystalclear (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, a topic with a large variation of things to talk about, in particular the psychological aspects and the concept of a collectable. Too bad the article is in bad shape. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose : I will prefer Hobby as discussed below. Logical1004 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't this proposed recently or was that just hobby? Gizza (t)(c) 03:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * In April (Archive 28), we proposed swapping philately for collecting. The proposal hung 3-3, with the 3 opposes all stating that they'd like to see both Collecting and philately on the list.  p  b  p  04:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gizza, I think hobby will be more suitable than Collecting as it will include collecting within it. Logical1004 (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why didn't hobby make it in anyway? ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * here is the previous discussion on hobby. The Philately-Collecting Swap is also in the same archive which you can Ctrl-F. The thing is, have you ever read a book or article about the concept of hobby? Not actual hobbies or a list of hobbies but hobby itself. It's pretty hard to find reliable sources on the topic. From my quick research at the time I thought that it would be possible to create a skeleton of an article and so I supported it weakly. I'm going to have to rethink it this time around. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now, there is only one reference in the article which is about hobby not types of hobby (which makes it a list article and not suitable for VA), which says that many scientists have made crucial discoveries in the courses of their hobbies. The other point is anything that can generically be said about hobbies can also be said about recreation. So it doesn't appear to be specific enough like collecting or broad enough like recreation. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Add Sonic the Hedgehog (character) or Sonic the Hedgehog (series)
The mascot of Sega first shown in 1991 to compete with Nintendo's Mario. Possibly the second best-known character in gaming. If you support one of the two, please clarify which.


 * Support
 * 1) Weak support, but only with the condition that a few other well-known characters or franchises be added. Sonic is definitely up there, but we don't have Mario, for instance. Tezero (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Support if Mario is in. I'm well aware that Sonic's legacy has been less than positive for about the past decade, but I don't think that takes away from his importance (it only strengthens it). To clarify, I would prefer the series article as it's broader, though I would support either. I would also support the addition of Link/the Zelda series and Call of Duty. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose For one, there's a little elf who'd like to have a word with you. A pizza with a slice missing might not be too happy either.  The character seems a non-starter to me because of the recent removals we've had in the areas of fictional characters; it seems nonsensical to me that Sonic the Hedgehog is more vital than Lancelot or that we could have Link without having elves in general.  p  b  p  17:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose definitely not the second best-known character in gaming. Pikachu is mad at you. Jucchan (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Pikachu is much better known as an anime character. As an exaggerated analogy, it's like saying Jesus is a popular video game character because he's appeared in some Christian games. Tezero (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose crystalclear (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We do have Mario, that's the point, not that I think (or even want) Sonic will get in. Maplestrip (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * We do? I didn't see him. Well, that only strengthens my support. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Add History of video games
A general topic that would always remain as vital (if not even more vital over time). Possible overlap with the video game article, but in my opinion different enough. Describes the "generations of video games", origin of video games, etc.


 * Support
 * 1) '''Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) '''Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 15:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Nowhere near the next "History of" article to be added to the list not that I'm a big fan of them anyway (I would remove some of the ones that are currently listed). There's history of engineering, history of dance, history of meteorology, history of education, Environmental history, history of road transport, history of anthropology, History of rail transport, history of sport, history of theatre, history of television, history of clothing, history of poetry, diplomatic history, history of photography, history of mass media and even history of board games. Video games is right at the back of the queue, probably only ahead of history of the Internet. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Gizza. Also note that video games don't have a very long history, and would be better represented with a few examples. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Recentism and lack of wider cultural impact..User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose : Best explained by Gizza. crystalclear (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Minecraft
Rather new, so that is a big issue, but seen by many as changing the face of gaming and such hyperboles. Commercial video game that is being used in education. Highlights the growth of indie gaming.


 * Support
 * 1) '''Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 15:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support 100 million registered users, 14.3 million sales on PC as of February 2014. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose per "hyperboles". Cobblet (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I can understand Tetris which has 30 years of history now but 5 years of Minecraft is recentism. 21st-century articles should be kept to an absolute minimum, particularly in pop culture. It needs to at least survive a second generation. Gizza (t)(c) 02:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) '''Oppose. RECENTISM.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose maybe in a couple decades. Jucchan (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak oppose; it's likely that it will become this important in the future, but it probably isn't quite there yet. Tezero (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is whole category of video games that are, like Minecraft, in the Museum of Modern Art in New York: Category:Video games of the Museum of Modern Art. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 15:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Comment: I'd have thought that if we were adding another game after Pong, Mario and the forthcoming Tetris, it would be Pac-Man. I'm also wondering if we should add D&D before Minecraft.  And finally, I'm still wondering if need any more video/computer games other than Pong, Mario and Tetris.  p  b  p  17:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: the category has been converted to a list: List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Add video game genres; Platform game, Role-playing video game, Shooter game?
I'm not sure about these, but worth discussing. Perhaps adding only genres and no specific games would be a good thing. If you support one or more to be added, please specify which.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support only the overarching article: video game genres --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 16:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for First-person shooter, role-playing video game, platform game, and possibly puzzle video game. All of these have been culturally dominant at one time or another. Video games are a well-established art and entertainment medium by now, easily rivalling music in industrialized nations, and it seems rather elitist to include so many music articles and so few on video games. Tezero (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

My view...Video game genre is a very fleshed out list, although not really just a list. We don't have film genre nor music genre, literary genre, genre itself, Style (visual arts), but we do have Architectural style....Platform game seems fairly reasonable, the archetype video game and one of the most well known, perhaps anyway, the other 2 very slightly reasonable but may just seem to be slightly beneath the list. For genres in general, it looks to me I like them more than others in general, for example Horror fiction is almost definitely gonna be booted soon, with 5 votes supporting removal against my lone oppose, if we can't have several book genres with ones as basic as horror, I can't see many video game genres coming aboard. I would like to see a few more genre/style articles across the arts but maybe not everyone does. <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  17:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC) <font style="color:yellowgreen;background:darkgreen;font-family:georgia;"> Carl <font style="color:darkgreen;background:yellowgreen;font-family:georgia;">wev  17:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not vital, redundant with main article on video games.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Same reason for opposing the other genres below. Gizza (t)(c) 12:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose We should add more specific games instead. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I guess we have to decide how important genres are in general before getting more specific. How important are genres compared to specific works and creators? Maplestrip (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should have all the genre articles mentioned: film genre, music genre, and literary genre. I didn't realize they were not on the list and they seem vital to me, except for the generic article, genre.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 19:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Add_film_genre.2C_music_genre.2C_and_literary_genre I'm not sure if I support it yet myself, though. I suggest we keep this one on hold until genres in general has been decided. Maplestrip (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Add public relations
To me it is not less crucial than propaganda, which is currently on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 07:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, much less vital than propaganda, but still vital for this list. ~Maplestrip (chat) 08:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Maplestrip. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Ranks 4420 in terms of page views - higher than most sex and rock star articles!--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 06:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add Pluralism (political philosophy)
The acknowledgement of differences, convictions, and lifestyles in a society.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Pluralism itself is a disambiguation page. Despite being used in many contexts, pluralism has a fairly consistent meaning which is being tolerant and accepting a diverse range of beliefs, systems and ideas. I can't see why political pluralism should be added if religious pluralism, legal pluralism and so on are not. Having an article on pluralism is a general sense is reasonable but adding all of them seems unnecessary. Gizza (t)(c) 12:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * Most people would consider Legal pluralism a marginal issue, I believe. It's true that canon law is parallel to the legal system of Europe, though. But I don't think this can be compared to the profound meaning and importance political pluralism has. There would be no legal or religious pluralism if it weren't for political pluralism. I was looking for basic topics in politics, not in law or religion. Multiculturalism, the equivalent in culture, is a vital article, by the way. I think pluralism is a basic concept for people to talk or think about and analyze politics. Pluralism is also a basic prerequisite for democracy, which is a very successful political system that we don't dedicate enough articles to. Free speech, elections , pluralism, discussion (is a redirect to conversation), decision-making, freedom of information are some of the essential topics that are worth considering in that area.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 12:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Landscaping
Important land-use topic. Transcends topics, but ag is as good a place as any. p b  p  23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Too close to landscape architecture, IMO. Cobblet (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Cobblet. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems too similar to gardening. I can possibly support it as a swap. Gizza (t)(c) 01:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add programming style
It is a crucial topic when talking about programming.

The article doesn't reflect what programming style really is. I'm not sure why so many people are opposing this, only is giving a reason, which is basically mentioning indentation which is really the least important factor in programming style, and indentation is automatically taken care of by the Integrated development environment (which is basically the editor programmers use) anyway. Programming style is a very basic article, describing the need to document what you're doing (comments and documentation), and the way you are dealing with the fact that you are working in cooperation with a team. Maybe not that important in school but can you imagine being in a company and getting just an interface and having to write something from there. How do you make sure everything is safe? Are you acting in a more defensive style and checking everything? You have many options when you write a part of a computer program - how you solve the problem is your programming style. Some of the considerations are listed in this article: The Elements of Programming Style.--<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 08:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose, in a way, it is the least important aspect of programming, though I understand why you brought ths up. I'm sudying computer sciences and have barely ever talked about indentation and such practices, nor is it in any important for non-programmers. It's good practice and worth explaining, but doesn't seem vital Maplestrip (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Jucchan (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) oppose Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Logical1004 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * That topic sounds better, and the practices described in the list of The Elements of Programming Style are much more important than what the article seems to be about (though I don't know if it's vital). The thing is that the article is only really about indentation, alignment, spaces and tabs, and that topic is definitely not vital. Maplestrip (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Add Character encoding
Someone brought up ASCII, Unicode and Universal Character Set before, and it failed. These standards on their own weren't vital, but perhaps their overarching article should make it. It covers the history of character encoding in general (from the Morse code to ASCII to where we are now, so to speak). Article is high-importance in Computing, Typography and Writing Systems.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Maplestrip (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely crucial.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 08:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support : I agree, the article is more important and cover all the individual articles ASCII, Unicode and Universal Character Set. So it can be included. Logical1004 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jucchan (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add implicit function
In mathematics, an implicit equation is a relation of the form R(x1,..., xn) = 0, where R is a function of several variables (often a polynomial).

An implicit function is a function that is defined implicitly by an implicit equation, by associating one of the variables (the value) with the others (the arguments).


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. This article is not included in this expanded list, despite the fact that the concept is crucial as all calculus textbooks mention it. Also the concept has applications in economics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support rated high-importance by the math project. Also: implicit differentiation (chain-rule!) redirects there + we could cover an important economics concept with this because the article also includes the marginal rate of substitution (for calculating how much a consumer is willing to give up of one good for another while staying at the same level of satisfaction). --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 18:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak support; fairly niche, but useful and extremely pervasive throughout both analytic and discrete mathematics. Tezero (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support : Logical1004 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support : CrystalClear (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) '''Oppose' No rationale.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Add infinitesimal
Though the math Wikiproject only rates it mid-importance, it is not less crucial than infinity, and all high school math textbooks mention it!

Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose really, the "reciprocal" of infinity is covered by infinity. Btw, there are more than 300 things mentioned by mathematics textbooks. Gizza (t)(c) 12:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Maplestrip (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Reason as mentioned by Gizza. Logical1004 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Euclid's theorem
A crucial article in number theory which does not belong to the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support this is a more fundamental theorem than four color theorem, Cantor's theorem and Atiyah–Singer index theorem. These articles should be on the chopping block before Euclid's theorem if removals have to be made. But I'm unlikely to support many more theorems. Gizza (t)(c) 05:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportLogical1004 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support : CrystalClear (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --<font style="border:2px solid #C0C0C0;padding:1px;background:ivory;">Melody Lavender 11:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discussion