Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 51

Remove John Coltrane
For jazz being primarily a 20th century American art form, we sure have a lot of jazz musicians, and John Coltrane doesn't seem to be to be the most vital of these. We still will have Miles Davis. p b  p  15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jazz has way too many representatives already. (Glenn Miller i am looking at you!) GuzzyG (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support   Carl  wev   10:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - It doesn't get more vital than Coltrane for jazz. Breathtakingly bad idea.  Jus  da  fax   00:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"It doesn't get more vital than Coltrane for jazz." Are you saying he's more vital than any other jazz musician? More vital than Louis Armstrong, George Gershwin or Duke Ellington? p b  p  01:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Otis Redding
We have plenty of other R&B singers (8, to be exact). R&B is a niche genre that has existed only for about 60 years, mostly in the United States, and is not anywhere the predominant style here. p b  p  15:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  15:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The James Dean of R&B, hugely popular and had promise but died before any truly revolutionary vital influence was achieved, also like JFK. GuzzyG (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support   Carl  wev   10:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - A headliner at the seminal Monterey Pop Festival, and a legend of popular music.  Jus  da  fax   00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a alot of headliners at that festival and all cannot fit and there's a lot of music legends and all cannot fit. not anymore vital then Jackie Wilson or Muddy Waters who are not listed. GuzzyG (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Just how many U.S. leaders do we want, exactly?
With the recently-closed removal of Jimmy Carter, we now have 24 American leaders (6 from before ~1815, and 18 since 1815). The above comments suggest that some editors want significantly more than this, and others want significantly fewer. I personally want roughly the same number as now, but not the exact same people. Thoughts? p b  p  19:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 10-15


 * 15-20
 * 1) Keeping the six pre-1815 figures and trimming the eighteen post-1815 figures down to about eleven or twelve. Much more sensible option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) The United States only really became a global player in the 20th century and a superpower post-WW2. I think the number of pre-WW1 presidents overstates the significance of the US prior to the 20th century. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 20-30 (roughly the same number as we have now)
 * 1)  p  b  p  19:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 30-40


 * More than 40


 * Discuss

I'm not sure that "Just how many U.S. leaders do we want" is perhaps quite the right question here, p  b  p. Most of the debate thus far has revolved purely around the number of post-1815 figures, not those before that date. I would propose that the question be reformulated to more specifically refer to these more recent individuals, which I think will allow the debate to have greater precision and avoid confusion. For instance, I think that the number of pre-1815 figures is just fine, while the number of post-1815 figures is disproportionately lengthy; for this reason I want to see a reduction in the number of VAs, but only from the post-1815 section. At present, the nature of the question and the way that the voting categories has been structured does not really allow for any expression of this nuance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added subsections to deal with your specific question, but I would still suggest you calculate about how many total articles pre- AND post-1815 you'd prefer. FWIW, for post-1815, we have about one leader for every 10-12 years, but this varies, with only one (Sitting Bull) between 1865-1898, but eight since 1945 and ten since 1933.  If you start pre-1815 leaders with the start of the French and Indian War (by which time Franklin was a major figure at home and abroad), that comes to one every ten years.  p  b  p  14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that out of 18 listed presidents we have all of the top 15 presidents by aggregate rank at Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Additionally we include Barack Obama (#17), Richard Nixon (#33) and George W. Bush (#35). I'd look at cutting those last three. Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I could certainly get behind cutting Bush 43. I'd leave Obama because of the historicity as the first Black president.  I also have a lot of trouble with JFK being on there because he was a more symbolic figure than one heavily influential in policy.  p  b  p  18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would cut Obama; being the first black President does carry some significance, but in itself it is not enough to accord 'Vital' status. We do not, as a general rule, add the 'first woman' or 'first ethnic minority' leader of other countries so I do not think that we should give an exception to the U.S. I'd probably also support cutting Nixon, and possibly JFK. I agree with pbp that Kennedy's influence was more symbolic than actual, and he was President for little more than two years; indeed, he's probably better known for getting assassinated than anything else. I also have some reservations about John Marshall, James Polk, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Marshall was never President. Polk is often regarded as a 'successful' President but he was only in that position for four years. Eleanor Roosevelt appears to be in the list largely to ensure that at least one woman is represented. That's an admirable aim, but should good intentions be allowed to influence a more objective consideration of who is really 'vital'? I don't think so. It may be that she could be retained but moved to another section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also raise a note of caution about feeling that we have to stick closely to the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Those rankings tend to be based on how 'successful' or 'good at their job' they were. It does not measure influence, on either a national or international level. Someone like George W. Bush is not readily listed as one of the United States' greatest Presidents, but I would argue that he was considerably more influential than his father, Clinton, Obama, or (thus far) Trump through his spearheading of the War on Terror and the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that we should follow the historical rankings exactly. As far as I'm aware, that article has played no role in the development of the vital list, so I thought it was interesting that the vital list has apparently independently converged on a set of presidents that is pretty close to the ones with the highest historical rankings. Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When I look at a President who wasn't highly ranked but was influential, 'tis Nixon, not Bush I look to. Also, in regard to the "first ethnic minority" argument...most countries would never elect a leader of an ethnic minority, which is why we don't have very many.  p  b  p  23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I could get away with 18 American leaders, but would prefer 21: the 6 pre-1815 leaders, and the following 15 leaders in chronological order: (John) Marshall, Jackson, Clay, Polk, Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Eleanor, Truman, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and Obama. Drop JFK and George W Bush and move Sitting Bull to activists.  If I'm forced to settle for 18, the "first three out" are Obama, Eleanor and Polk.  p  b  p  19:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

How many post-1815 leaders do we want?
Currently 18 following removal of Carter (and Trump not being added).
 * 10 or fewer
 * 11-15
 * 1) Support (although no more than 12). This would be a sensible number, one that reflects that the U.S. has been a major player on the world stage since at least the Second World War but does not give it a number of 'Vital Articles' out of all proportion with the world's other nations and regions. It would make the number of U.S. figures comparable to that of the other major superpower of the 20th century, Russia/USSR, which currently has 12 'Vital Articles' in the 'Modern' era section. It is perhaps also fair when compared to that of other major global players like India, China, and the United Kingdom, all of which have 7 'Vital Articles'. It would also be a fair number when compared with the number of Vital Articles for Latin America and the Caribbean (currently at 11 South American figures, and 8 Central American, Mexican, or Caribbean figures). Anything more than this and we end up pushing a blatantly U.S.-centric view of the world, which is already a serious enough problem here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per my comment below. GuzzyG (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 16-20
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) The US should still have more political leaders in the modern era than any other nation, including the USSR/Russia. There are parts of the biography list with way more bloat, like 43 modern writers from the UK/Ireland (more than double the number of presidents). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaGizza (talk • contribs)
 * 21-25
 * 25-30
 * 30 or more
 * Discussion
 * If you'd cut six, which six? Also, what would your balance be between, say, 1815-1900 and since 1900?  p  b  p  18:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made reference to the six in the above sub-section (Obama, Nixon, JFK, Polk, Marshall, and Eleanor Roosevelt would be my votes, although those aren't hard-and-fast and I'd be happy to discuss this further). I do not necessarily think that we have to get a completely equal balance between the two time periods (I think that it would make more sense to refer to the period 1815–1945 and then 1945-present), because the U.S. has only reached its apogee of international influence in the post-WW2 period. However, I think that it would make sense to try and trim equally, removing both some 19th and 20th century figures from the list. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say move Eleanor and Sitting Bull to Rebels, Revolutionaries and activists. Remove Nixon, Obama, Marshall and JFK. That should do the trick, now having that pass is a different story altogether and i hope that pop culture like film and music has a adequate look over too. GuzzyG (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're concerned about an American bias of this list, it's worth noting that the bias toward people from the U.S. is more egregious in other areas (entertainers, writers, sportspeople) than it is in politicians. The preponderance of writers, entertainers and sportspeople on this list are IMO less influential than any of the American politicians currently on the chopping block.  If you want to cull American figures, why not identify a dozen or so in those areas worthy of the axe?  p  b  p  14:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would love to, Ursula K. Le Guin, Helen Mirren, Anthony Hopkins, Cher, U2, Aerosmith, Jim Brown and heaps of others are clearly not vital at this level i think (and i used to be hugely tolerant on here and want more diversity in occupations/fields covered) but people are generally more nostalgic towards pop culture figures then politicians and it's not worth it if it leads to nowhere, i just tried to test the water with nominating Fausto Coppi and i'll see from there. I do not think we should have more American politicians then Roman emperors considering Rome was around longer and more historically notable for an encyclopedia. America could go away in 200 years and 500 years after that only 8-13 American leaders will be known and it will probably only be presidents, fate is fickle. Films, music, books and other arts tend to live longer then governments so a natural bias will persist towards that, past sporting figures will be largely forgotten and new ones will come along so i think other then Association Football we should have no more of 5 sportsman per sport for the major ones (Cricket, Baseball, Tennis, Boxing, Basketball) and 1-3 for the others, American Football should have 2 max as only one country plays it. Now that we have basically hit 2000 it's time to chop it down to essential vital people. Especially if we are missing the inventor of photography or pioneers in fields like aeronautics etc. GuzzyG (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove Eduard Bernstein
Germany, like the United States, currently has a list of 'Modern'-era Vital Articles that is disproportionately large in consideration of its importance in the world. 11 Vital Articles for 'Modern' Germany is ludicrous when compared with the 6 accorded to France or the 7 accorded to the United Kingdom (which, via the British Empire, was a far more significant international player than Germany throughout the first half of the modern period). A number of individuals should be trimmed here, and perhaps the most obvious is Eduard Bernstein, a politician who had some influence as a theorist but who was never leader of his country. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The fact that he founded social democracy, which has been the dominant ideology in Finland and Scandinavia means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) In that case might it be better if he were moved to "Social scientists, economists and political writers", along with other leftist thinkers like Karl Marx? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Social democracy has been highly influential, particularly in Europe. Neljack (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * 1) I'd support a move to "Social scientists, economists and political writers", he does not beling in politicians and thinkers are more important then politicians in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Remove John F. Kennedy
In the spirit of trimming down the excessively lengthy list of 'modern' U.S. figures (which has recently seen Jimmy Carter delisted), I would suggest that we remove JFK. He was President for only a little under three years and in terms of his international influence he pales in comparison with other 'Vital Article'-listed Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. He's just not in the same league. I appreciate that he has something of an iconic status, but much of that stems from his assassination and should not automatically accord 'vital' status to him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Didn't really DO anything. p  b  p  23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I am forced to agree. He is iconic in many ways but his presidency is not one of the more important ones in U.S. history. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. The Cuban Missile Crisis is listed on its own too. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 08:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support One term presidents and ones which are too recent (Barack) and continuation presidencies should be going too if Kennedy goes. GuzzyG (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Thi (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Since he continues to rank highly in historians' polls of U.S. presidents and with the general public, he is vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Read Cuban Missle Crisis and tell me he's not vital. Jus  da  fax   06:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This one, I'd keep. The Cuban Missile Crisis, Apollo program, assassination... really, I'd almost keep him over Reagan. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose we are discussing the removal of less vital musicians, which will give us room for someone like Kennedy to include in the list. Still one of the most significant figures in US history. Prevan (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Remove Barack Obama
In the spirit of trimming down the excessively lengthy list of 'modern' U.S. figures (which has recently seen Jimmy Carter delisted), I would suggest that we remove Obama. He was not a particularly significant figure on the global stage, nor did he bring about any substantial domestic reform (however much he may have tried to do so). He was certainly no more notable than fellow two-term Democrat Bill Clinton, whose nomination for inclusion has not gained much support; if we don't include Clinton, then we probably should not include Obama either. There will likely be those who argue that his status as the first black President means that he is 'Vital' but personally I find that argument a bit weak. Perhaps the comparison is a little shaky, but Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic President in a country with a long history of anti-Catholic sentiment but that hasn't saved him from looming removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not only recent but there is also no immediate historical indicator of his notability (unlike GWB) other them him being the first black president. Now i have to ask myself is being the first of your race, gender, sexuality and religion enough to make you vital enough in an encyclopedia of 2000 people 500 years from now, i just cannot come to think it can. We should wait and see where history takes us so we can better judge his legacy. GuzzyG (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I agree with the recentism argument against including this article as his presidency was not particularly notable. He continued a lot of the policies of his predecessors. I also disagree with the argument that he should be included because he is black, just like I dont' like the argument that we should include Eleanor Roosevelt because she is a woman. This isn't an affirmative action list. People on this list should be seen as vital not because of the color of their skin or their genitals, but because of what they actually did. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Pure recentism. Plantdrew (talk)
 * 5) Support --Thi (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Recentist. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support if GWB is removed p  b  p  00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Since he is the first African-American to become the president of US, and he was partially responsible for the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Using "recentism" as an excuse to not term this article vital is strained, in my view. Jus  da  fax   06:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose not as vital as GWB sure, but I think Obama's health care reforms just push him over the edge of vital. And yes being the first non-white leader of a country has some significance too. I agree that his initial inclusion was too early though (before he even finished his first term). That aside, in 500 years he will still be remembered as the first nonwhite president of the United States even if the country no longer exists then. As important as it is to guard against recentism, this is a list of vital articles in 2017, not 2517. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 22:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose if GWB is retained As noted below, should be retained if GWB is also retained.  p  b  p  00:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I think Obama had a greater impact than the supporters suggest - Obamacare, the stimulus, the auto bailout, action on climate change, immigration reform and more. It remains to see how much will survive Trump, but certainly he seems to me to have a larger legacy of reform than Clinton, so I don't accept that analogy. His status as the first black President adds to his historical significance, and I do not accept that the history of Catholics is in any way comparable to that of black people in the United States. Catholics weren't enslaved or segregated. That's why the first Catholic President was of lesser significance than the first black one. Neljack (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Prevan (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose He was the first non-white leader of the United States and led the most powerful country in the world for eight years. It's too soon to say what his policy legacy will be but he has the chance to be the most influential president since Reagan. Orser67 (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * The way things are trending now, Obama will be removed and George W. Bush will be retained. And I kinda find that problematic.  Both were fairly recent (in my adult lifetime).  But Obama was the first African-American President and the only African-American political figure listed; Bush was the second white guy from his family (and the first one is off the list and is trending toward not being added).  Also, Obama is consistently ranked higher in rankings of Presidents by historians.  I'd say either Obama should stay while Bush goes, or both should go.  p  b  p  16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Rankings of how good a president is don't measure vitality. Bad presidents can leave a longer lasting legacy than good ones which maintain the status quo. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 22:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * His health care reforms sadly probably won't last another decade, how is that vital? The only three main things he did are health care reform, Syria/Libya and being the first black president all three of which are non vital and if being a first black president is vital then so would being the first indigenous, asian, latino, lgbt or a woman would be vital too, when would we stop? George W. atleast had major effects on the world which are still ongoing today. I can't think of anything Obama did othern then Syria/Libya and Cuba that still has ongoing effect internationally, atleast Nixon opened China and signed the ABM treaty. You should be able to come up with a concrete list on why a president is vital other then one thing that has nothing to do with policy. JFK with the ongoing cold war and the Cuban Missile Crisis had more effect on the world then Obama and he is trending towards removal. GuzzyG (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If bad presidents sometimes have longer-lasting legacies, can I interest anyone in the inclusion of James Buchanan, Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover to this list? Though, to be fair, the disasters (Civil War, Great Depression, etc.) caused by those three men were caused by them doing nothing rather than them doing bad things like GWB did (I'm being partially facetious and partially not).  p  b  p  00:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "It remains to see [sic]" demonstrates conclusively that vitality has not yet been established. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "It's too soon to say what his policy legacy will be" this oppose vote is exactly why this should be revisited in 20 years. No evidence of being vital RIGHT NOW. I think it's a travesty that we have more American presidents then Roman emperors while Rome lasted double America's length and is more historically notable (for now, maybe). All these "first" votes better support the inclusion of the first Woman, Asian, LGBT, Indigenous, Hispanic etc presidents too. GuzzyG (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "first" votes are almost always recentist rather than actually taking a long view, I'm afraid. Kennedy was the first Catholic POTUS, so we should keep him, right? Reagan was the first divorced/remarried POTUS. All these things prove to be anything BUT vital in a few scant decades. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove George W. Bush
Donald Trump and Bill Clinton aren't on the list right now and Barack Obama and Richard Nixon are being considered for removal. It seems disingenuous that we've removed or are considering removal of those four men while giving W a free pass. He's consistently below Clinton, Obama and Nixon in presidential rankings, and also has the recency problem all but Nixon do. p b  p  17:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  17:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support George W. Bush is certainly less notable than Bill Clinton and probably even Trump at this point in his Presidency. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Pure recentism. Plantdrew (talk)
 * 4) Weak support - His place a the forefront of the War on Terror is significant, but realistically I do not think that he is quite at the FDR or Lincoln level. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Maybe we can revisit him in 15 years when his actions are not recent. GuzzyG (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak support --Thi (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I don't think ranking as a bad president is relevant. Vital does not equal great or competent. GWB's actions in the War on Terror make him the most influential president in the last 25 years. Everything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and others parts of the Middle East, the people that have died on both sides, ISIL, the European migrant crisis etc. can be traced back to his invasions soon after 9/11. Even Brexit and Trump. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Since he initiated the "War on Terror", greatly increasing the deficit of the US federal government, and he and Tony Blair initiated the Iraq War, which is responsible for the spread of Daesh, he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose If anyone is interested in my reasoning, in can be found in the archives/history. I discussed this the last time it was proposed, and my views have not changed. For reasons of which others may or may not be aware, I will make no further comment about this, nor will I respond to ANY questions, so please don't ask. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per DaGizza. Neljack (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - per DaGizza. Jus  da  fax   00:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose And Donald Trump should be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I'm sitting on the fence at the moment. I really believe that we need to cut the number of modern U.S. Presidents down, but Bush did launch the War on Terror with its invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These actions have had a considerable influence on the international scene. For this reason I do believe that he was more significant than his father, Clinton, Obama, or (thus far) Trump. But does this make him 'Vital' in the same league as Reagan, Lincoln, and FDR? I'm not sure. I'll think it over for a few days, and look forward to seeing what other editors have to say on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've given this delisting my weak support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Joe's comment from when he last discussed this was, Bias, liberal or conservative, doesn't belong in Wikipedia and that's what appears to be at play here. Any claim of bias against me as nominator can easily be refuted by my above support of the removal of Jimmy Carter and of JFK.  p  b  p  22:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I really do not see any evidence of bias at play here. Both Democratic and Republican Presidents have been nominated for removal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Add David Lloyd George
We have nobody British between Victoria and Churchill, even though Britain was one of the most dominant nations on the planet in the early 20th century. DLG shepherded the country through WWI and Versailles, created (along with Atlee after the war) the British welfare state. According to historical rankings, one of the most highly-ranked PMs on the list. p b  p  13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) I had been eager to add it before the nominator proposed to do the same.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that's a fair call. Was important both as a war leader and as a pioneer of social welfare (e.g. the People's Budget). Neljack (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add George III of the United Kingdom
King of England for sixty years, years that included the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. p b  p  13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support p  b  p  13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   16:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I was thinking just the other day as I was looking over the list that British monarchs seemed underrepresented. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  ( t )( c ) 23:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Magellan–Elcano circumnavigation
Goes without saying: it was the first circumnavigation of the world.


 * Support
 * 1) Support Cambalachero (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (as nominator)
 * 2) Support this could replace a war or two. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 01:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. GuzzyG (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I am wondering how we could handle things like this. Ferdinand Magellan is lev 3. Juan Sebastián Elcano is here at lev 4 (I think someone tried to remove him once though), do we want the expedition too? For example, here at level 4 we have Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay but we don't list 1953 British Mount Everest expedition which is the reason they are considered vital. Columbus is lev 3 but we don't list Voyages of Christopher Columbus (or Columbian Exchange). Roald Amundsen is lev 3 but we do not list Amundsen's South Pole expedition, he had several experditions, but this was the most important. (Nor do we list Robert Falcon Scott). Also Moon landing is level 3 and here in this case we do list both Neil Armstrong and the Apollo program (but not Apollo 11 or Buzz Aldrin). I'm not saying one way is right or wrong, but I'd like people to be aware of what is and isn't listed, and we can think about which of these we want or not, and whether we need to be consistent or not with these, they are similar cases, but every case is different. There might be more explorers with one major expedition too, with similar possibilities as what to list.  Carl wev   03:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I support adding the Columbian Exchange. It's quite different from the other Columbus articles, discussing how various foods previously confined to a continent or two were now available and grown throughout the world. It was a big moment in globalization and arguably more important than some cuisines articles we have since it transformed what people ate everywhere in the world. Have to think about your other points though, which are very valid. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 04:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have in mind that Magellan died during the expedition, and a good biography should be focused on him rather than the expedition itself, so it may not be a good alternative. His biography is right now in a very poor state, but if someday it is improved and taken to FAC, the sections "Return" and "Survivors" would likely have to go. Cambalachero (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Elcano was voted to be removed Here, do not know why he is still listed. In the case of exploration i would say keep both generally though. If we were to remove them for the expeditions this list would be instead full of pop culture figures. I'd also support adding Robert Falcon Scott and Charles Lindbergh, maybe Buzz Aldrin. GuzzyG (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Add Columbian Exchange

 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support p  b  p  13:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   14:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Obviously vital. Has had a huge impact on the entire world. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per discussion. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 23:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Thi (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Would only be partially covered by Columbus himself. Huge impact on the world, trading and dispersing of crops and foodstuffs effected agriculture land use and population levels for centuries, from the start to present day.  Carl wev   14:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Mid-Atlantic states
The Mid-Atlantic is the only unrepresented region of the US in this section. I see no region why it should not be included alongside New England, as both have distinct cultural heritages. If the Mid-Atlantic is not relevant enough to be included, perhaps the Northeastern United States should replace New England?


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom. Westroopnerd (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Since this region has been called "the typically American" one by Frederick Jackson Turner, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) New England should be removed instead. Prevan (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) We have New York (State) tho.  p  b  p  19:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --Thi (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Not significant enough region on its own. I think Northeastern United States should be added and New England removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Santos, São Paulo
53rd biggest city in Brazil with no historical significance. Only known for having a big port, mainly because Sao Paulo is the neighboring city. The fact it is only considered as "mid" importance by WikiProject Brazil is telling.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Prevan (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 08:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) I think that Canberra and Sacramento are more vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Even if we wanted to keep the number of Brazilian cities the same, looking at List of largest cities in Brazil there are several state capitals and non state capitals among Brazilian Cities with much greater population and significance, like Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Teresina and Goiânia. Santos seems to be known for the largest beach but that isn't enough to be vital.  Carl wev   18:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Relic
Venerated in antiquity in a number of world religions p  b  p  02:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  02:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 06:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   19:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Hide-and-seek
It is one of the most popular activities worldwide. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support Hide-and-seek has 58 entires in Wikidata, while Hopscotch (listed in this article) has 40. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Globally popular. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 10:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  p  b  p  22:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support  Carl  wev   19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Discuss

Add Tag (game)
It is one of the most popular activities worldwide like to Hide-and-seek Dawid2009 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Support I think that omnission of this games is fact that Play (activity) was just added 7 months ago. BTW I also think about include of Leisure and Playground to this list. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Probably the most basic children's game there is. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  p  b  p  22:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support because we're well under quota here. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 08:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support  Carl  wev   19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I think playground is a great suggestion and I'd prefer adding that instead of tag. Leisure is very similar to recreation though. Gizza ( t )( c ) 10:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Mahjong
It has the same number of entires such like Dominoes in Wikidata. In my opinion it is more significant concept than Chaturanga, Shogi and Xiangqi. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support I honestly thought Mahjong was listed. Close to a Poker or Chess level of popularity in China. Big omission. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 09:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  p  b  p  22:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Action figure
Action figure has 21 entires in Wikidata while Stuffed toy has 28 entires in Wikidata. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support --Thi (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose it was just added to the list six months ago. Prevan (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose and stuffed toy should probably be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not buying the analogy. Action figures and stuffed toys are two entirely different things.  p  b  p  22:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose  Carl  wev   19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Teddy bear
In my opinion including Teddy bear in this list is no sense in the case when this list not include Mascot and Stuffed toy.


 * Support
 * 1) Dawid2009 (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support we need to cut on some topics, and teddy bear is an obvious candidate as it's significant for a child, but not really something that I consider top 10,000 vital in the historical sense. I might support a swap with stuffed toy. Prevan (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose removal. Though I would consider a swap with stuffed toy. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Rreagan007. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 08:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  Carl  wev   19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) But mascot and stuffed toy should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Debit card
A plastic payment card that can be used instead of cash when making purchases. It is similar to a credit card, but unlike a credit card, the money comes directly from the user's bank account when performing a transaction. Daylen (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * nom
 * 1) Support  Carl  wev   06:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I'd call it a vital article. Jus  da  fax   17:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  p  b  p  19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I don't think we need both credit card and debit card. Replacing them with payment card or bank card would be preferable. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * What about removing credit card and replacing it with Payment card? It would cover both the credit and debit cards. Cambalachero (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Automated teller machine
An electronic telecommunications device that enables the customers of a financial institution to perform financial transactions, particularly cash withdrawal, without the need for a human cashier, clerk or bank teller. Currently, about 3 million ATM's are installed worldwide. Daylen (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * nom
 * 1) Support  Carl  wev   06:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  p  b  p  19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose mostly a Western concept, and there are more vital articles that are missing. Prevan (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't think it's important enough to be included in the list. We don't list bank teller so I'm not sure why we would list ATM. Plus physical cash is becoming less and less important over time, so a machine that dispenses cash is only going to become less important over time. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose agree with Rreagan007 that it is no more vital than bank teller. Or other electronic forms of things like ebook, digital TV and esports. Hasn't had the same impact of say, email. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Biofuel

 * Support
 * 1) As nom. I didn't know that this article is not included in the list until Carlwev mentioned it above!--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   18:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support GuzzyG (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support clearly vital. It is more commonly used than solar as a source of energy and solar is listed on Level 3. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 10:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Thi (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Not a bad concept, but not *vital* enough, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I supported adding fuel, but I don't think biofuel is different enough from fuel to warrant inclusion in the list separately. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Add Jet Propulsion Laboratory
The engineering brains of America's space program, contributor to unmanned missions galore. At least as influential as several of the universities listed. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Suppport as proposer. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - per nom. Jus  da  fax   00:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose: if NASA is already listed, then I do not really see the need for JLP too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The JPL is part of NASA which is already listed. It has been noted before (I can try to find it in the archives) that space agencies are the only government agencies currently listed as vital. Obviously NASA and the Soviet Space Program have global importance but I'm not as convinced the JPL should be in before the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and other famous agencies from around the world. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Part of my impetus for suggesting it was the Kennedy Space Center being listed, as a launch site. I don't propose that it be eliminated, even though it also under the auspices of NASA, but rather believe JPL deserves its own, separate mention. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove Edith Evans
The article seems to me as typical choice for single-volume printed encyclopedia or biographical dictionary with 10,000 articles, but not necessarily vital to know. --Thi (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   01:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Retitle "Dancers" to "Dancers and choreographers"
Several of the dancers on there are there for their choreography as much as their dancing, and we don't have a place to put choreographers. p b  p  14:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support GuzzyG (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

About Michelangelo
I think that he should be moved to the sculptors section, since though he was a painter as well, he said that he was more interested in sculpture than painting.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Per nom. This seems to have been overlooked but in my mind makes sense. GuzzyG (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Seems reasonable. Neutralitytalk 07:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Lucian
Lucian was an influential satirist. 


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support GuzzyG (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support One of the earliest novelists in Western civilization.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neljack (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Remove Jelly Roll Morton
Scott Joplin is already an example of popular jazz (ragtime) pioneer. King Oliver is not on the list. If Count Basie, Coleman Hawkins, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Nat King Cole, Charles Mingus and Ornette Coleman (all not listed) are among 20–22 most famous and influential jazz musicians, Morton is in top 30.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support agree with nom.  Carl  wev   19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add François Duvalier
Notorious black-nationalist Caribbean autocrat. p b  p  22:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  22:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) I was thinking of suggesting Duvalier myself. Good call, pbp. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We need more political people from underrepresented regions (Especially when we have the likes of Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Cher or U2) GuzzyG (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Prevan (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Kenneth Kaunda
Since he was the founding president of Zambia, and he was a key person in the anti-apartheid movement, he is vital at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support; he governed Zambia for about three decades and left a significant imprint both on the country and southern Africa more widely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support He also played an important role in diplomacy regarding the Rhodesian and Angolan conflicts. A major figure internationally as well as domestically. Neljack (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add George VI
More of a stretch than the other two, I know. While Churchill obviously was the man during WWII, I think his leadership also merits inclusion. p b  p  13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I just don't see the argument that he was really 'Vital' here. George IV might be a better contender. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I find it hard to see how he was more important than a bunch of earlier English monarchs who actually had political power but aren't included on the list. Neljack (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Georges Clemenceau
The way he acted during the negotiations over the treaty of Versailles presaged WWII. We seemed to have decided above that we're OK with keeping ignominious Americans (Bush 43, Nixon). Let's be consistent and have an ignominious Frenchmen. p b  p  13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) I had been eager to add it before the nominator proposed to do the same.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Historically notable as negotiating over one of the key treaties of WWI which also directly led into WWII which is a much better claim then being the "first" of something. Directly impacted the world and definitely impacted the whole 20 century. GuzzyG (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Donald Trump

 * Support
 * 1) President of the United States.  Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are included. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose per recent discussion. See archives. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Add History of Syria
It is absurd not to include this article but history of Iraq in the list.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) We can only list 10,000 topics and some areas needs to be cut., you have been nominating dozens of articles, many of them dubious and opposing the removals of dozens more over the past year or so. Do you realize that only 10,000 topics could be listed and many areas simply needs to be ignored? Can you propose some removals instead so we can get below quota in those areas and add topics that really need to be added. Prevan (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) I know that the current number of articles in the history sub-page exceeded the quota, however there are still vital articles missing there, and history of Syria is one of them. The quota of some sub-pages should be lowered to a certain extent, but I'm still uncertain what is the extent.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I had nominated it for addition, however later it failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_47).--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Have to agree with Prevan. To be honest, the history of Syria is one of RekishiEJ's better proposals because this won't look completely out of place here. But your extreme inclusionist stance (over the years suggesting adding hundreds if not thousands of articles and only supported removing a handful in that time) is beyond ridiculous Rekishi. Pretty much half of every archive from the mid 30s to the present just contains your failed proposals (some of which you repeat after a few months and get the same result).


 * Two great long-term contributors have left the vital articles project because of it too. You really need to get your head around the fact that this list can't have everything that you like. The whole point of the list is to only keep the most important. That's where its value comes from, so we focus on improving these articles. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gizza, we are at the stage where a hard look at what is on here is needed and to get rid of the fluff and to oppose nearly all removals while nominating everything to add is demotivating. GuzzyG (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for causing two great long-term contributors to leave the VA project, but the reason why I nominated many articles for addition but only support a few proposals for removal of some particular articles was because the expanded list still contains less than 10,000 articles. some vital articles still not included in the list, and some proposals to remove some particular articles, in my opinion, should fail since they are all indeed vital at this level. I knew that if all of my proposals passed and the quotas of geography, philosophy and religion, everyday life, biology and health sciences and physical sciences sub-pages were met then the list may contain more than ten thousand articles, however this can be avoided if the quotas of some sub-pages gets lowered. You may wonder why I didn't propose to lower the quota was because I was still uncertain of the extent. Hope that they can return to the VA project.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Vikings
I wanted to bring this up here first. Viking Age is in the 1000 list and the 10,000 list, but nowhere do we have Vikings. Until reading here I wasn't familiar with categorizing the topic under "Viking Age". In my print Encyclopedias the main entry is always at Vikings not Viking Age. Vikings would be what I would personally look up to read about the topic. Vikings appears in 126 different language wikis, and Viking Age less than a third of that only in 41 language wikis, still substantial. |Vikings Page views too, in the last 90 days Vikings has just over 700,000 views and Viking Age less than a third of this with just under 200,000. Is there a reason I'm not aware of that we chose Viking Age over Vikings? Other vaguely similar comparisons, we have Celts but a Celtic Age is not even an article. Ancient Rome is lev 3 but Roman Empire only lev 4 (Roman Age redirects to Roman Empire at the moment), We have Aztec at lev 3 but Aztec Empire is not even lev 4, so in many other examples we have kind of done the opposite to what we have done with the Vikings. I think Vikings must at least be a lev 4 article. Having both here is probably OK, probably an important enough topic to have 2 entries about, they had a huge impact on Medieval Europe and surrounding areas; and "Vikings" does seem to be what most people are looking up. Maybe later a swap could be considered for the lev 3 list? and potentially for here too as well? But for now I just suggest to add Vikings here to start with. If we list some singers plus a song/album by them, or some authors and one or more books by them, I don't think two articles on this is excessive.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Support  Carl  wev   06:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Rhyme
Important and basic component of poetry, literature, songs, and other things. Used in majority of languages for centuries. Was included in the lev 3 1000 list a long long time ago, but was removed, I don't think it's been listed in, or considered for the 10,000 list before, but I think it would be a good addition.  Carl wev   18:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   18:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jclemens (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per nom Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Remove Happy Birthday to You
Yes it's supposedly the most sung song in the world. We don't list the highest selling song or movie, we just removed the singer of the highest selling song too, Elton John. The writers of this song are not really notable aside from this song. The song is lyrically and musically very simple and short, I cannot imagine anyone really studying it or it influencing any other musician or song really. More than half the article is about copyright and lawsuit about who if anyone may or may not own the copyright of it, not really vital information for here. It is not exceptionally recorded, physically sold, or played on radio etc, more just sung once at a birthday. The main reason I think it's irrelevant is we already list the article "Birthday" itself which should cover traditions like songs, cards, cake, parties and presents etc. Other "traditional" celebration things are missing like Christmas tree, Greetings card (or Christmas card) which are culturally more significant; other traditional music things are missing like, Christmas carol, Christmas music, Ballad, Nursery rhyme lullaby, some of those I think are more important than this song. I don't think Happy Birthday to You is vital. There are more important things from a music point of view, and from a culture/tradition point of view, redundant to birthday.  Carl wev   13:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.   Carl  wev   13:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Cambalachero (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support not vital to the development of music. GuzzyG (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support This song is a cult song but just in English-speaking world. Most propably there are some equivalents like to for example a polish song Sto lat Dawid2009 (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Support it's in because it is an example of globalization like Coca Cola than it is for the music although that's not relevant. I do think though, that Carlwev's rationale is convincing. There are other somewhat significant but ultimately trivial traditions as common around the world. So that can't be a justification for keeping it on the vital list.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose It is possibly the most sung song in the world. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose It is certainly the most widely sung song in the English-speaking world, and probably the entire world. I thnk that deserves inclusion. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) The song is quite popular both in and outside the Anglophone world.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone want Christmas carol? I can't believe we have Happy Birthday to You but not Christmas Carol, there are many of them, are older, probably more sung/performed/played altogether, and much more to write about them.  Carl wev   18:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

@Dawid2009 This is the vital articles list for the English Wikipedia, so the most widely sung song in the English language should be included here. I would expect the vital articles list for the Polish Wikipedia to include Sto lat instead. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Christmas carol
I believe this is more important and older tradition, centuries old, and more widely heard than Happy Birthday to You, and more important than some individual singers albums and songs we still list.  Carl wev   18:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   18:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  20:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Dawid2009 (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC) I prefer christmas music. This concept is difficult to unambiguous term. In Romania Colindă and Christmas Carol is the same or very similar term (it resulting in lack of Romanian equivalent in Wikidata). See also Carol (music), Kolyadka, Villancico. I think that Chrismas music is more basic and easy to term.
 * 2) Oppose. I would support the broader Christmas traditions instead. 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Add King Kong
The fact that it is one of the best-known movie icons and it appears in many texts means that it's vital.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Swap Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support a swap. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 21:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support a swap. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support a swap. GuzzyG (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support a swap. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support swap  Carl  wev   20:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

We do list King Kong (1933 film), people may think only one is needed, perhaps a swap, but people may like it the way it is? For comparison... we list Godzilla the character but not the movie (although it used to be the other way). We list Count Dracula the character, but not the novel or author (The novel may perhaps be worthy, but count Dracula does cover it though). We list Frankenstein novel and author but not character.  Carl wev   18:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I would support the swap. King Kong is iconic and there is much more to it than just the original classic film. I have my doubts that the King Kong film—classic though it is—ranks among the 30 or so most important films ever made. Betty Logan (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Chinese philosophy

 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support despite no rationale from nom. Clearly a fundamental topic to an encyclopedia. The major schools of Chinese philosophy such as Confucianism, Legalism, etc. are listed on their own but this article talks about the entire tradition over the course of Chinese civilisation. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   15:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Superstition
Another basic type of belief that's been around for most of history in most cultures in most of the world in some way or another, many people in modern day continue to be superstitious. There are many known examples of superstitions, and numerous reasons people have them. I believe it to be more important than many listed articles.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   20:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support good find Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Playground
Per below discussion. Found throughout the world, playgrounds are more common and significant to childhood development than many of the leisure and recreation articles on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support GuzzyG (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Dawid2009 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Maze
Ubiquitous puzzle and activity with a very long history. The oldest labyrinths in Crete and Egypt stretch back to the Bronze Age and mazes are still popular today.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support GuzzyG (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Jigsaw puzzle
Toys and games seems to be on people's minds. Jigsaw puzzles go back over 250 years, becoming more popular in 1800s, considering we have things like Barbie, Crossword, and Rubik's Cube among other things, plus more toys/games about to pass, I think the Jigsaw deserves a place. They are very wide spread, made for children and adults and are made world wide by many companies with many many different images, millions must be made and sold every year and have been for decades.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.  Carl  wev   21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support fair enough. Probably more important than Rubik's Cube. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add cultural assimilation

 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Prevan (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as per last time. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss
 * 1) I had proposed to add this before, however later the proposal failed (cf. /Archive_46).--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Add École Normale Supérieure
It is more vital than Pierre and Marie Curie University in my opinion. The fact that there are 11 Fields Medalist among its alumni, more than any other university of the world, and 13 Nobel Prize laureates, makes it vital. It is also the spiritual birthplace of lots of philosophers and sociologists, including Jean Paul-Sartre, Henri Bergson, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, Emile Durkheim and Jacques Derrida.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Gazaret 21:00 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Can't agree with the nominator more!--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support only as a swap with Pierre and Marie Curie University (I think 42 education institutions as a whole is enough) Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)   Carl  wev   20:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) The Sorbonne (University of Paris) is essential. I'm not certain the second-most important university in France is. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazaret (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be neutral as to a swap with Pierre and Marie Curie University. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Germanic peoples
Arguably the most significant ethnic group of Europeans of the last several hundred years, certainly as important as Slavs, which is included in the list. Germanic peoples include Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Franks, Germans, Goths, Normans, Swedes, Vandals, and Vikings, as well as many others.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   06:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Clearly vital. Jus  da  fax   17:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I can't see how this is any more vital than Italic peoples/Latin peoples which includes the French, Italians, Romanians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Catalans, Venetians, and so on, or the Turkic peoples which include the Turks, Huns, Bulgars, Uzbeks, Tatars and many other historic and modern ethnicities. All of the ten examples given already have a vital article in the list either in history or for the modern Germanic groups, their nations. Germanic languages is already included. Celts is on the vital list but their subgroups like the Gauls, Picts, Bretons, Gaels, etc. are not so I think it is reasonable to have it. And to be frank, I'm not a fan of some of the pan-language ethnicities listed like Slavs and Austronesians. I think Arabs are an exception because the Arab countries have political links too and formed the Arab League. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: while I think that Germanic languages is clearly and rightfully a Vital Article, I am really not so convinced about "Germanic peoples" (the same goes for "Slavic peoples"). As Gizza notes, there is a sense of cultural and political unity among Arabs; the same really cannot be said for the speakers of Germanic languages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

After the Sioux were added, North America now has six ethnic groups listed while Africa with a much bigger population only has four. I think we're better off adding articles like pygmy peoples or another famous minority like Zulu people. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Zulu people
Own unique culture, history and language. They had a Kingdom until the British came. Have over 12 million people today. At the moment we have the war they had with the British, Anglo-Zulu War but not the people themselves. We don't list Zulu language or Zulu Kingdom either by the way, both of which would be at least reasonable suggestions, but the people article may be better as they are still a large group of people today as well as historically. Shaka is listed though.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.  Carl  wev   07:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Basques
A European people numbering over 3 million, (a claimed 12 million people with Basque ancestry world wide.) Been around since Ancient times to modern day known to the Romans, have their own culture, language, cuisine, music and have an autonomous region of over 2 million population. Genetic studies suggest they may be some of the oldest ethnic groups in Europe from over 7000 years ago. Compare with Sami people of Scandinavia which we list, with perhaps 5000 years history and about 140,000 population. (I'm not suggesting to remove them though)


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.  Carl  wev   07:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Something to keep in mind is that Basque Country (autonomous community) is also listed. I think it is still reasonable to have the people (in the case of the Sami people, we only include the people and not the region so they're not quite comparable). Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss


 * OK I never noticed we had Basque Country, Similar thought I had with Tatars. I was thinking about suggesting to add the Tatars too, with over 6 million people. But i noticed we list the modern Russian region Tatarstan. But Tatarstan only contains about half the Tatars and the official state has only existed since 1920, although the article talks about the area before this, and we also list the historical region Volga Bulgaria too. Both those seem like they might be less important than the people themselves but I might be wrong.  Carl  wev   16:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Add Diaspora
The concept of populations migrating, moving or spreading from their original location to one one or more other locations. It happened in prehistory, early history, modern history and still happening now. Millions and millions of people have moved for many reasons, better conditions, resources, economy, safety, colonialism sometimes people going themselves sometimes forced under slavery or war. Many specific examples are well known, like the Jews, Africans, multiple European examples and many more. Been documented and caused by the Romans, and many other civilizations/Empires. Is still happening today, many people are moving for economic reasons, or to flee war, especially in the Middle East. Not sure exactly were to place it. It's not one historical event or period, although some individual diaspora are. It's in the ethnic group categories so I chose that. There are entire populations created by diasporas, like the Caribbean and American populations of African and European decent. Polynesian Islands, Austalians...Technically everyone outside Africa would be from a prehistoric diaspora at some point if not a more modern one, but the article covers older and recent examples.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   08:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I want to nominate this article by myself!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Prevan (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - massively important. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

We have immigration and while the technical opposite of immigration is emigration, diaspora is the more developed article with four to five times the number of page views. Adding diaspora would therefore be the better choice. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Remove People (magazine)
Popular, but not groundbreaking. Not what I consider vital.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Prevan (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support a magazine about non-vital things... should go. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support the weakest magazine currently on the list. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 10:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support several of the US magazines listed could be removed. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support  Carl  wev   17:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Since it is currently the most popular magazine in the United States, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I think its large circulation makes it vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose A magazine does not have to be groundbreaking to be vital. The large circulation makes it vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Add Amazon.com
It was removed a few years ago, but since then it became the top grossing retailer in the world, and it making probably making the biggest significance on how people are shop in many decades. It significantly changed the retail scene in the Western world, as it's the catalyst for the major changes going on currently in brick and mortar stores, with many of them are either going out of business, or reestablishing themselves with a e-commerce approach. It is also the fourth biggest company worldwide, behind Google, Microsoft and Apple, all of whom are listed. Considering the impact they are making in retail, and how we shop in general, this should be considered vital.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Prevan (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Dawid2009 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Amazon.com has high position in In List of largest companies by revenue and is higher than a lot of known companies, for example Google.
 * 4)  p  b  p  13:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   14:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support we do need to reevaluate high level companies and add some more. GuzzyG (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

off topic but....I think we should reevaluate companies in general, the top one or two companies of several notable fields. I would rather list Nintendo and Sony rather than Miyamoto and the the guy that co founded Sony, I would rather list Marvel Comics than Jack Kirby (or Mad). We list around 150 ish people (depending how you count comedians) vital for mainly film, but only one company, I haven't studied acting itself drama but when I did media in college we actually did study film studios more than individual actors.  Carl wev   14:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I would support a removal of the sony co-founder but would probably oppose Kirby and Miyamoto as one of the only comics writers and the only person related to video games. We have both Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller if we take the approach of the company and not the businessperson then the business section would be gutted. A company and founder can both be vital (ex: you can remove bill gates for microsoft but on a list of 2000 people bill surely fits in, on the level 3 this approach is good but not for level 4 imo) GuzzyG (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We should probably be having this discussion in a more centralized place. I am quite sympathetic to the replacement of individuals known for one achievement or contribution with articles covering that contribution. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Add ring system
All 4 of the gas giants in our solar system have them, so they are probably relatively common in the universe. I think it deserves inclusion in the list. We are also currently under quota for this category.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support good suggestion. Anyone with even a slight interest in astronomy is usually fascinated by the rings around Saturn and the other gas giants to a lesser extent. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 21:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support   Carl  wev   18:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, and Rings of Saturn is probably a good candidate in its own right.  p  b  p  19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Impact event
Been mentioned before but never opened in an add thread. We have the article on impact crater but there are more to impacts than craters, as there are not always craters if the impact is on the ocean, or on a gas giant or star, or if bodies didn't survive the impact etc. And any way there is much more to an impact than an article on a geological crater article should be expected to cover. (I still do think the crater article is a vital type of land form though.)


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom.  Carl  wev   17:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose

Add Atmosphere
We have atmosphere of Earth (otherwise known as "air") in the level 3 and 4 lists, but not the article on "atmosphere" itself anywhere. It's not just Earth that has an atmosphere, many other planets, and stars, some moons have a substantial atmosphere, and many more bodies at least a thin one. Would only be covered by articles on gas or the planet articles themselves at the moment. This is an article I would guess just slipped the minds of the people who originally compiled the list rather than being left out deliberately. Considering what we list in astronomy like multiple articles on individual stars and constellations, ring system (almost) I think the overview concept of atmospheres in general not just the Earth's is surely vital. They are speculated over and studied by a variety of methods, to find out the density, layers and chemical composition, with probes and spectral analysis of light passing through them etc. Is of particular interest to but not limited to thinking about potential alien life, potential habitability and craft entry through atmosphere. A planet's atmosphere or lack of can have a huge impact on the planet, like that of Venus or Titan for example... Not exactly sure where to put it, planetary science seems the obvious choice, but stars, asteroids and other bodies have atmospheres too so..? The plasma, corona and flares of the sun and other stars is kind of an atmosphere, corona would be a decent suggestion by itself, but I'll probably try just atmosphere for now; probably.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   11:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Thi (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add Estuary
I'm proposing to add estuary to the 'Geomorphology - fluvial or coastal/oceanic landforms' sections given the tremendous importance estuaries play in primary productivity, human habitation, navigation, settlement location, biodiversity, ecology etc. The term estuary may also be more encompassing than other coastal or oceanic terms in the geomorphology section and no doubt play a pivotal role in human and non-human life.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nominee per above. I suggest placing the article in the fluvial section rather than the oceanic/coastal section for a few reasons. First, the oceanic/coastal section is already overrepresented. Second, it implies the general direction (flow) of estuaries starting in rivers and going towards the ocean. Third, in general, most large estuaries defined by large rivers are more freshwater in observed salinity than the adjacent marine environment given outward flow of river plumes out into the ocean --Curoi (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - tremendously important. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

It's already included here Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences under river features, it could go in river or sea features, but probably looks better in river like you said. Estuary's talk page is marked with the VA header too...Did you miss it because of the following?..It is odd, that "Fluvial landforms" are listed separately in a slightly different area and has 9 entries like meander, rapid, waterfall etc, perhaps we should merge the two lists together somehow; delta is in one place and Alluvial fan in another, they are similar enough to be together surely, why does there need to be two lists for this? we should discus this at least.  Carl wev   12:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I think the lists need to be changed around for a lot of things actually. Here's my take: some of the fluvial landforms under the 'Land' heading can stay as they are referring to actual landforms or sediment accumulation that may be created by water but don't require water to currently be there to define it such as 'alluvial fan' and 'canyon'. Others, however, like 'waterfall', 'rapid', and 'meander' require the presence of water, at least most of the time, to actually be those things so they should be shifted to 'Hydrology' under the 'Water' subheading. Still others are not entirely or at all fluvial such as 'cliff' and 'beach'. I think 'cliff' and 'beach' should be strictly under 'Earth'-'Landforms'. Some other ones to consider for further discussion are 'fjord' and 'oasis' being 'land' features (seems like they are more water features. Can you have a dry fjord? Would the current oasis vegetation exist without the presence of 'water'?). 'Bays' and 'Lagoons' are bodies of water, not land features and should be moved. --Curoi (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Add Subroutine
The fact that it is crucial in programming means that it is vital at this level.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Too technical and niche. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Gizza. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Definitely too niche. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * 1) It has been mentioned non-trivially by many programming textbooks.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Programming textbooks themselves are quite niche. Only a few languages are vital let alone subroutine. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Move Ida Lupino to Directors, producers and screenwriters
More vital for film making then acting.


 * Support


 * 1) As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss
 * I'd just cut her outright. p  b  p  14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * agree  Carl  wev   13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree too but either way she's on the list and in the wrong spot. GuzzyG (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Move Mel Brooks to Directors, producers and screenwriters
He is known as a filmmaker who does comedy films, yes he is highly notable in comedy but he is vital for his filmmaking.


 * Support


 * 1) As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support but maybe just remove him.  Carl  wev   13:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss
 * I'd just cut him outright. p  b  p  14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, but with people's nostalgia that'd be an admirable task. GuzzyG (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Move Mary Shelley
I think she should be moved to UK and Ireland, with her husband : she's currently in the Western Europe section, and I don't really understand why.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Gazaret (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   07:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: absolutely p  b  p  21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support there is an unwritten rule that moves within the vital list don't really require discussion, especially when it is obvious like here. Just be bold next time :) Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I would just move her now, she was born and died in London. Frankenstein was published several times, but first time in London. Probably just an oversight when she was added not that long ago. She travelled over Europe and some of her novels were set there, but that shouldn't matter, she was English like her husband and also Lord Byron, who are both under Britain.  Carl wev   07:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Alexandre Dumas, fils

 * Support
 * 1) As nom. He was as vital as his father Alexandre Dumas.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose not the first novelist I would add. Near quota. La Dame aux Camélias should be listed instead. Prevan (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose His father is easily more famous and important. Neljack (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

About Nikolay Karamzin

 * Support
 * 1) As nom. I think that he should be moved to the Historians section. --Thi (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support GuzzyG (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Though he was a translator, travel writer and linguist as well, the best known work is a multi-volume series on Russia's history, meaning nowadays he is best known as a historian, thus he should be moved to the Historians section.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Philip Larkin
Second-tier British poet. We have plenty of other British writers and he seems an easy drop. p b  p  21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   18:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support not as well known as Catullus. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Since Larkin was chosen in a 2003 Poetry Book Society survey, almost two decades after his death, as Britain's best-loved poet of the previous 50 years, and in 2008 The Times named him Britain's greatest post-war writer (taken from the lede of the Larkin article), he is no doubt vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Carlos Fuentes
Highly-decorated and very prominent Mexican author, historian and public intellectual. We're relatively weak in Latin American writers, with just one from Mexico. p b  p  21:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  21:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support One of the most important Latin American authors and a major figure in the Latin American Boom. Neljack (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 04:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Black Sabbath
Didn't crack the top 75 of Rolling Stones greatest. p b  p  15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support   Carl  wev   10:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The first heavy metal band of all time. Cambalachero (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose: As pioneers of heavy metal, I think Sabbath probably have greater importance than the abovementioned AC/DC and Aerosmith. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Since this band helped to define the heavy metal music genre, and this genre is vital, this band is vital as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Buddy Holly
A "flash in the pan" compared to people like Elvis. Not even the most important American rocker of the 1950s p  b  p  15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not anymore vital then Bill Haley IMO. Suffers from the JFK syndrome of tragic early death equals excessive commemoration too. the James Dean of rock (who is not on our list). GuzzyG (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support   Carl  wev   10:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  I'd much rather have people famous for their music than their death. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - Highly influential influence in rock. The Beatles went for the pun in their name because of Holly's band name, as a tribute.  Jus  da  fax   00:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I agree with Jusdafax Prevan (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Since it is he that defined the traditional rock-and-roll lineup of two guitars, bass, and drums, and he influenced later popular music artists, e.g. The Beatles, Elton John, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't the opposes prove that Buddy Holly is not vital? His band The Crickets maybe but why him? Is influencing a name vital? We normally have the bands and not the frontperson. (as we should) GuzzyG (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Ella Fitzgerald
At least as vital as the best-selling singer Barbra Streisand. --Thi (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Prevan (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I'd like to see fewer entertainers overall, actually, and the space reallocated to non-individuals. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I'd like to see this paired with several cuts. We're already bloated in jazz, blues and popular song.  p  b  p  15:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Add David Lynch
For example, Mulholland Drive is regarded as one of the greatest films of the 21st century. The Elephant Man, Twin Peaks and The Straight Story have also gained critical appreciation. --Thi (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support


 * 1) As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support he's had a 40 year career and is regarded as one of the best directors of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. More vital then Ang Lee. GuzzyG (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Probably the best known 'alternative' film director active in the Western world since the mid-20th century. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Quentin Tarantino
Tarantino is one of the most well-known contemporary filmmakers and his films have a unique aesthetic.


 * Support


 * 1) As nom. --Thi (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per "In 2013, a survey of 17 academics was carried out to discover which filmmakers had been referenced the most in essays and dissertations on film that had been marked in the previous five years. It revealed that Tarantino was the most-studied director in the UK, ahead of Christopher Nolan, Alfred Hitchcock, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg." in the Influences and style of filmmaking in his article. GuzzyG (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   16:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Move Bob Fosse to Dancers
Won eight Tonies for choreography but only one Oscar for direction. Note above that I've suggested retitling dancers to "dancers and choreographers". p b  p  14:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  14:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Was about to do this myself. GuzzyG (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Leland Stanford
We're light on railroad robber barons. We don't have any of the Big Four Railroaders or any other figures associated with the Transcontinental Railroad. Also a figure in the CA Gold Rush and an endower of a major university.


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support GuzzyG (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Power~enwiki (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Jeff Bezos

 * Support
 * 1) Support founder of Amazon.com Power~enwiki (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support On the basis of both Amazon and ownership of the Washington Post. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The model of online retailing he has developed through Amazon has been quite revolutionary. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A very influential businessman who redefined the world of e-commerce. Jack Ma should also be on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose don't see how Bezos could be vital when neither Jack Ma nor Alibaba Group are currently on the list. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  Carl  wev   19:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) We already have Amazon.com listed, and Bezos is not Sam Watson. Prevan (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Amazon.com is listed. --Thi (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose as per all other opposes Eddie891 (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I would support a nomination of Jack Ma, but don't want to make one myself. In my opinion, "business" people are incredibly under-represented compared to people in academics, sports, and the entertainment industry. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Sam Walton

 * Support
 * 1) Support founder of Walmart Power~enwiki (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The model of retailing he popularized through Walmart was quite revolutionary. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per his extraordinary, global changing business concepts. One of the most influential businessmen of the 20th century. He isn't just known as the founder of Wal-Mart, but has much more significance than that. Prevan (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose we swapped him out for the company which is much more notable than him.  Carl  wev   09:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Remove Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours

 * Support
 * 1) This article isn't about the founder of DuPont, but rather his father, a nobleman of no particular importance at this level. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   17:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neljack (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Eddie891 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose

I'd support a swap of E.I. DuPont for Pierre. p b  p  00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I feel like if we can't keep the DuPonts straight, none of them belong on this list. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Frantz Fanon
One of the most significant anti-colonial and left-wing thinkers of the 20th century. I was really surprised to not see him already listed here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support.
 * 1) As nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) He influenced post-colonial studies a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Clearly influential in multiple disciplines and on multiple continents. GuzzyG (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Fanon had a big impact, both intellectually and politically. Neljack (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above Eddie891 (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

The political theorist space is already skewed towards the left. There are more notable and influential writers missing like Friedrich Hayek. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Two wrongs don't make a right, i would support him too. GuzzyG (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As would I. Hayek definitely belongs on the list and I would support any suggestion that we add him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Jonathan Edwards (theologian)
If we can find room for dozens of not-particularly significant athletes, we can find room for the leader of the First Great Awakening p  b  p  01:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Add John C. Calhoun
If we can find room for dozens of not-particularly significant athletes, we can find room for the man who provided the philosophical underpinnings for American secession. We've established that it's OK for somebody deplorable, but influential, to be on the list. p b  p  01:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  01:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support a more important figure historically than half the US Presidents we have listed. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 08:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Prevan (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add George S. Patton
I think Patton is an important enough military leader to add to the list. After the recent failed add/remove, I'd like to see how a clean add fares. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support an nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support Clearly more important than Cher. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose His fame is greater than his influence, since he never held a top-level command (cf Eisenhower and MacArthur). Plus we already have quite enough US WWII generals. Neljack (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I would put him in a list of 100 military leaders, but there's only room for 50. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose A relatively insignificant American general. I think Americans are overrepresented, and I would like to see more British and Soviets included. Even among Americans, I would think Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Henry H. Arnold, Joseph Stilwell, and Walter Krueger made more meaningful contributions to World War II. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * A lot of the removals we're discussing in political leaders above are of people at least as significant as Patton. And with Ike, George and Doug already on the list, we have fairly good representation of American WWII figures.  p  b  p  22:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Patton is a vital figure for many Americans. However, I think that Rreagan007 nominated it too early since the proposal to replace Zhukov with Patton failed less than three months ago. We'd better add a new rule prohibiting proposing to add, remove or replace articles when the same proposal failed three or less than three months ago.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus one rule: a successful proposal can not be reversed in three months, i.e. after one proposal to add, remove or replace articles succeeds in three months no one can make a proposal to reverse it (removing deleted articles or articles which become redirect pages are exceptions).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Add Cristiano Ronaldo
One of two greatest football players of our times, unrivalled (some could say both with Messi) of last decade. Since Lionel Messi is here, Portugese also should be on the list. -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) The fact that he is the best Portuguese soccer player ever means that he is crucial at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Over the last few years he's well and truly escaped from Messi's shadow. He's won three of the last four Ballons d'Or, and four in total. Neljack (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are the two most relevant international football players of their generation; I think it makes more sense to have both than neither for now. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Has broken every record and trophy collection known to man together with Messi. If Messi is in there so should CR. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Way too many sports figures already. We should have no more than 10-12 soccer players, and no more than 50 total athletes.  p  b  p  14:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So what do you think for example about remove some football players? Italian Roberto Baggio isn't include in this list while othere Italian Paulo Maldini there is. Similary British football player George Best also isn't include in this list while Bobby Charlton there is. However a lot of other players aren't include in this list: Ronaldinho, Garrincha, Marco Van Basten etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to make it sound arbitrary. All the names deserve to be there. Baggio was an inconsistent injury prone wreck who got traded around like an expensive commodity whereas Maldini was a one-club man for over 20 years who won every trophy known to man and is widely regarded as one of the best defenders of all time, if not the best. George Best was a womaniser showboat who played football sometimes whereas Bobby built two Man U dynasty which won everything and led England to the world cup as well breaking every record for a goalscoring midfielder. Ronaldinho, see Baggio. He ain't no Messi that's for sure. Garrincha was a one time wonder who fucked goats. Van Basten could have been included but had his career cut short at his peak. Original Ronaldo makes the list purely because his early life record was way better and he actually came back from injury to win trophies and break more records. Does this all help your (wilful) ignorance? 88.98.211.79 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose way too soon, let's look back in 10 or 20 years. GuzzyG (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Already considered one of the best of all time together with Messi in the Pele/Maradona category and he's still playing and breaking records still in an almost comical fashion. Opposition on that reason does not hold true on the facts. One of the two most recognised names in the whole world of sport. 90.215.121.192 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose We have way too many Association Football players as it is. If we are planning on reducing athletes, we shouldn't be adding more association football players. I'd be willing to consider a swap. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a swap shop. What are the merits or not of CR, one of the best players of all time of the most liked sport in the world with the most name recognition together with Messi? I don't see any meaningful opposition based on facts. 90.215.121.192 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose for reasons above. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Above" 90.215.121.192 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No reason given. 90.215.121.192 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No reason given. 90.215.121.192 (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a 'Ronaldo' on the list, but the link goes to a disambiguation page for the name. There are two footballers of international reknown who go by that name, the aforementioned Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, and Ronaldo da Lima of Brazil who was widely seen as the world's best player between around 1997 and 2003. Both would have a good case for inclusion on this list although C.Ronaldo is still playing and winning trophies and awards so more immediately relevant and notable than older Ronaldo who has retired. Both persons have 'B-Class' articles as the ambiguous link suggests, so it's unclear which one is being referenced. Could this be looked at? Crowsus (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I'm pretty sure when it says Ronaldo, it refers to the Brazilian. Portugese is called Cristiano, or Cristiano Ronaldo, rather than only Ronaldo. -Pumpernikiel90 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I would be perfectly OK with the number of football players reduced to ~10-12. p  b  p  22:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes let's have more rounders, netball or eggchaser players no one cares about. Like it or not, Football is watched and loved by billions every day and is the actual or de facto national sport of a cumulative number of, ooh I don't know, the whole world apart from Yanks. And cricket too falls in the billions category. Both sports are the most represented in the world and deserve way more names than the others, probably combined. That is if you want to educate people on the actual state of the world and not some propaganda fantasy. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove Lou Gehrig
There should probably only be 3-4 baseball players on the list and only 2-3 of them should be American. He's not Jackie Robinson or Babe Ruth. p b  p  22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Qwfp (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose There should be more, rather than fewer baseball players on the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Baseball is a very important sport in America, which is the largest English speaking country, and this is the vital list for the English Wikipedia. As such, Baseball is a much more important topic for this list than for the other language Wikipedia vital article lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The USA does not have an official language as per its constitution. Also India is the most populous officially and de facto English-speaking country in the world. Wiki should not allow propanganda like above. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "propanganda" you're talking about. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution (which is written in English BTW) precludes English as being an official language, and many U.S. states do designate English as their official language. Regardless, I said nothing about English being an official language in the U.S., only that the U.S. is the largest English-speaking country. Your point about India is interesting, and India does have around 125 million English speakers (according to Wikipedia), but very few of those are native English speakers. And that is still fewer English speakers than the U.S. has with about 225 million native English speakers and another 25 million second-language speakers according to Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still say you shouldn't invoke the "very important" moniker for both football and baseball. How many other countries have 8 athletes from any combination of sports, let alone their two most important?  We have more American athletes than politicians at this point and that's way out of proportion.  The logic that retains people like Gehrig and Unitas should also merit the addition of probably 20-30 more American political figures than we currently have.  p  b  p  01:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * On the whole I agree, football and cricket are the most played, most known, most national sports in the world. The football numbers are OK by me but Cristiano Ronaldo needs to be added. He is considered one of the best of all time and he's still playing the damn sport. Him and Messi have broken every record in the book to an almost comical extent. Cricket also needs to have more names. I would say a full team of 12 (inc a sub) and football gets 18 (inc subs on bench) on to reflect their popularity. I'm not holding my breath though as there seem to be a lot of yank propagandists wanting their sports and their sports only and opposing "per above" with no reason on every name given or ready to be replaced. Talk about tyranny by a few people. Rounders as most of the world calls it has a silly amount of names for one. 90.215.121.192 (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose per above. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Weakly. I rather swap with Roberto Clemente, who had a way bigger significance on the modern sport than Gehrig. Prevan (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I agree there are way too many rounders players for a sport the world doesn't care about but in this case Lou has done way more than just that in raising awareness and educating the world about nervous system illnesses so much so that even I know this rounders player. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Gehrig's association with ALS and his consecutive-games streak make him more essential than Willie Mays. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss


 * From my point of view football and baseball are fine, but basketball has too many Americans. Larry Bird is probably the weakest case to keep of them. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support it if you proposed it. p  b  p  13:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove Johnny Unitas
Probably not even the game's greatest quarterback. And his "game" was American football, which is played almost entirely in a single country. It should probably only have one representative, and that representative should be Jim Brown (well, one-and-a-half, since Jim Thorpe played football in addition to being a decathlete) p  b  p  22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Qwfp (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Per above. Would rather reallocate entry to someone like James Naismith (founder of basketball). Neutralitytalk 01:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support and replace Find a more important historical figure. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose on the basis that I disagree with the rationale. American football is the most popular sport in the most populous English speaking country, and this is the vital list for the English Wikipedia. As such, American football is a much more important topic for this list than for the other language Wikipedia vital article lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The USA does not have an official language as per its constitution. Also India is the most populous officially and de facto English-speaking country in the world. Wiki should not allow propanganda like above. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "propanganda" you're talking about. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution (which is written in English BTW) precludes English as being an official language, and many U.S. states do designate English as their official language. Regardless, I said nothing about English being an official language in the U.S., only that the U.S. is the largest English-speaking country. Your point about India is interesting, and India does have around 125 million English speakers (according to Wikipedia), but very few of those are native English speakers. And that is still fewer English speakers than the U.S. has with about 225 million native English speakers and another 25 million second-language speakers according to Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will say this: if you play the "most popular in the U.S." card for football, you can't also play it for baseball and basketball. p  b  p  00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said basketball and baseball were the most popular sports in the U.S., but certainly football, basketball, and baseball are the 3 most popular sports in the U.S. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Football is an important sport. I see no reason to start cutting players. One player on the list only is ridiculous. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Prevan (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I don't even follow the sport, but I don't see how 6-7 articles on American football out of 10,000 articles is excessive.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I would consider a swap, but I'm strongly against the opinion that fewer NFL players should be on this list. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * To and  In the past few weeks, we removed Jimmy Carter, and failed to add Bill Clinton.  If Johnny Unitas and Jerry Rice are retained, that means they're more important to vital world knowledge than Carter and Clinton are.  Is that what we really want to be saying?  I believe there is a reason to limit athletes, particularly as the list is very recent (almost everybody on it was active after 1900), poorly globalized, and in general not as impactful on world events in comparison to other topics.  Football may be an important sport here in the U.S. of A., but a) it's not in the other 95% of the world, b) has only been important for the last 90 or so years of human history, and c) is still a sport (see previous sentence on why I'm OK with limiting sports).  p  b  p  04:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. What you are describing is two different categories, athletes to world leaders. World leaders in general are more important than pretty much any athlete. The comparison is not a fair one for that reason. Overall, limiting American football players more than we already have does not make sense, given a 300 million person country watches football every season. 3 articles as it is is too few. Going down to one makes no sense. I'd rather add a few than keep subtracting. Just because the sport is primarily American doesn't mean it should have only 1 article, especially given this is an English Wikipedia. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are subtracting athletes from all sports, then all sports should take the brunt of the decrease. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Above, you had suggested cuts in other sports. Are you still intent on proposing them?  p  b  p  12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the plan (for me was to cut most athletes, maybe add some sport admins or coaches (as they influence the development and how to play the game) and represent some Olympic sports who do not have a rep. I still believe 3 American Football players is excessive when we do not have any Australian Rules Football, Hurling or Rugby League or any other one country sport. Sadly no American Football player is known worldwide (except O. J. ...). English Wikipedia yes but America is not the only English speaking country. If 3 stay then the UK and it's former colonies deserve a rep of their own. Really the only global and vital athletes are from Soccer, the Olympics and maybe Tennis. The rest are there to be there really. GuzzyG (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Football is the most popular sport in a country of more than 300 million people. One athlete does not do the sport justice. Worldwide recognition is not that important; what is important is if an encyclopedia must have those 3 articles. I would say it should. I object to the idea that only association football, Olympians, and tennis players are vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By that argument i would assume you'd support 3-4 athletes for Badminton and Table tennis then? You know some of the most popular sports in a country of 1.5 billion? they're also both in the Olympics (unlike american football).... Hey atleast table tennis has some real historicity too Ping-pong diplomacy.  these stats are abysmal for a vital figure and compare that too  badminton's top guy, beats him in everywhere but Spain.  GuzzyG (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly comfortable saying an encyclopedia, in particular one that's only 10,000 articles long, must have very many sports figures at all. I'm particularly uncomfortable saying that for American football.  Though football is a commonly-watched sport in the United States (and please note that if you evoke most-watched for football, you can't also do so for baseball), American football players haven't had societal impact the way Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth or Muhammed Ali have.  (There's a reason why there are no football players in the Atlantic Monthly 100 Vital Articles list)
 * And on this whole "do justice" thing: it's not like American football with one article would be the only "injustice" of this list. There are plenty of other topics with three or fewer biographies that are probably being done injustice.  There are as many American football players on this list as there are post-WWII leaders of Britain (QE2, Atlee and Maggie).  There are as many as there are American religious leaders.  Heck, there are as many American football players as there are DISCIPLES!  We're worrying about doing "justice" to Jerry Rice when we don't even have the POTUSes during half of his football career.  We're worrying about Johhny Unitas when we don't have Johnny Calhoun (who offered many of the political and philosophical underpinnings of the most important conflict in a country of 300 million people that is the most-populous English-speaking country.).  p  b  p  15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The current list has one HB, one QB, and one WR. That is all we need. Only having a halfback (Jim Brown) would not do justice to the game, especially since the most important position in American Football is the Quarterback. I would also prefer to have Vince Lombardi, one of the greatest NFL coaches of all time (if not the best, coming from a Giants fan), but I will leave that for future discussion.
 * With regards to athletes in general, of course athletes do not have as much of an effect on world history as world leaders. Nobody is disputing that. That does not mean that they are any less vital, however. Comparing athletes to world leaders is like comparing apples to oranges. There is a reason why they are in separate categories. If they weren't, the athletes would all be removed as less important than world leaders. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We sorta HAVE TO compare articles from different categories, tho, else we couldn't maintain this as a finite list. Even though quarterback is the most important position in the game, that doesn't mean that the greatest NFL player is a quarterback.  (Likewise, center and pitcher are the most important positions in basketball and baseball, yet the greatest in those sports are generally acknowledged to be Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan).  The greatest NFL player is Jim Brown, a running back.  Quarterback being vital need not be explained by having a quarterback on this list, it could just as easily be explained by quarterback the article, or by the American football article itself.  And Unitas in particular is a bad example because few continue to acknowledge him as the game's greatest QB, he being supplanted by Dan Marino, Joe Montana, John Elway, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.  Finally, if you've divorced vitality from world impact, what is your measure of vitality, exactly?  p  b  p  13:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove Jerry Rice
See rationale for Unitas above


 * Support
 * 1)  p  b  p  22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Qwfp (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   07:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support important within the NFL but not vital. Neutralitytalk 02:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Support and replace Choose a better and more important name. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for the same reasons as Unitas above. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Jerry Rice was an important receiver in NFL History. There is no reason to limit NFL players more than we already have. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for now. I rather swap Rice with Pete Rozelle or Vince Lombardi however. Prevan (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I think the list currently has the right number of NFL players, but might support a swap. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * Why is it such an imperative that we have three NFL figures? Is the NFL that important to the history of the world?  Are athletes period that important to the history of the world.  p  b  p
 * From an absolute point of view, most everyone except Pele, Babe Ruth, and Roger Bannister could be removed. There's room allotted for 110 articles here, and having 3 NFL articles out of 110 feels right, especially if Rugby Union also has three entries.  The NFL is the most important sporting league in the United States. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah OK 3 seems OK but surely there are 3 better names to include? I mean, come on, I don't even follow egg chasing and I know there are more important historical names than these. Vince Lombardi for one just to start the conversation. 88.98.211.79 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove New York
New York is really relevant enough to be vital at this level because of New York City. Take NYC and its metro area away and you're left with upstate NY, which is no more relevant than unrepresented states like Pennsylvania. However, if New York's inclusion therefore hinges on NYC, what's the point of having New York if NYC is represented under cities? If you argue that New York is important because of New York City, then the article is redundant. If you argue that New York is relevant for other reasons, then what are those reasons? Other states like Florida are regions in their own right. New York as an entity just isn't vital enough. I would be prone to supporting a swap with Mid-Atlantic or Northeastern US, but at the very least, New York is either redundant or irrelevant.


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nom. Westroopnerd (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose I understand the argument, but the fact is that NYC is a part of New York state and therefore makes it one of the 4 most important (and largest) states, along with CA, TX, and FL. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Revolutionary war history, Lake George, Niagara Falls, the Great Lakes, Albany, and Buffalo. Don't discount upstate New York. It is one of the 4 largest states by population. In sum, it is vital. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Adding to the items pointed out by PointsofNoReturn above, consider Cornell University; the Hudson Valley; the Hudson River School of painting; the burned-over district (a cradle of many influential religious movements, including Mormons, Adventists, Shakers, Oneida Society, etc.); and the Seneca Falls Convention (landmark in women's rights in the U.S.). Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * Are people interested in either Thirteen Colonies or East Coast of the United States as US regions at this level? (I would suggest Appalachia, but Appalachian Mountains is already included). Utah is also unique enough to be possibly notable, but I am not proposing it at this time. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Add La Dame aux Camélias
The most famous work of Alexandre Dumas, fils. --Thi (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support one of the most influential plays of all time. Prevan (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Strong Oppose I've never heard of the work, and after reading the entry I'm not sure why I should. The nominator's argument is insufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * La traviata is already listed under opera. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Ballad

 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   18:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Neutralitytalk 07:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support a music genre you would expect to see in a 10,000 article encyclopedia. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Neljack (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Add X-Men
A very important superhero team from Marvel Comics, and one of the core franchises during the Modern Age of Comic Books (specially during the 1990s). Their popularity expanded way beyond the comic book niche, and have several animated series, live-action TV series, videogames, and of course the whole X-Men film series. In fact, I suspect that for modern audiences they are way more popular than Wonder Woman, who is already listed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support As nominator Cambalachero (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per my comments below. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A diverse team of male and female superheroes (and the occasional super-villain recruit) with 54 years years of publication history. They are among the most prominent teams featured in comics, with only the Justice Society of America (introduced in 1940), the Justice League (introduced in 1960), and the Fantastic Four (introduced in 1961) outranking them in terms of publication history. The X-Men include an ever-increasing number of members, allies, supporting characters, and recurring villains that have impact of their own. Dimadick (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Not in the same league as the 27 figures already listed. Neutralitytalk 17:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Eddie891 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * I could see replacing Wonder Woman with these guys. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Off topic but......I've thought about this area before. I do think the X-Men are more notable than Wonder Woman and Conan the Barbarian. I have also wondered if Stan Lee, or Marvel Comics would be worth thinking about. One may think Marvel Comics would look out of place, but on the other hand we include a list of newspapers and magazines (see here) including things like, Punch (magazine), Playboy, Scientific American, Le Monde, and Mad (magazine). The magazine Mad even started as a comic, and even though it's officially a magazine, it's still semi comic book style. Some of the magazines are way older, but some are roughly the same age as Marvel. Also although the magazines are not "fiction" but comic books are, they are listed in Mass Media, which includes TV shows, most of which are fiction. I think Marvel and DC are more notable than Mad and maybe some other mags, and worth considering as swapping. And maybe better than more Marvel characters. I don't know. Also I think we have 3 DC characters, and one Marvel at present, if anyone thinks that's relevant?  Carl wev   11:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Marvel and DC Comics may be listed at Mass media, in a new "Comics" section, and Stan Lee would be at "Cartoonists, comics artists, and illustrators" (which already has Jack Kirby), but those would be other nominations, which should be handled independently. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "These GUYS"...that's one of the problems I have with removing Wonder Woman. p  b  p  18:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not ask for a swap, Wonder Woman should stay as well (this page is not a popularity contest). PBP, have in mind that despite the "Men" in the name, the X-Men is a group with several women as well (Phoenix, Storm, Kitty Pryde, Emma Frost, Psyloche, Rogue, etc.) Cambalachero (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to get more females into the biographies is one aim; but is trying to get more females into fictional characters meet a similar aim in this case? Although clearly a female, is Wonder Woman a character that males or females are interested in reading/watching, being an action character from a superhero comic wearing revealing clothing? Very extreme example but, would one argue that Playboy is a magazine that represents women because it has lots of pictures of women?  Carl  wev   19:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PBP, I am from the Western U.S. where 'guys' is a gender-neutral plural. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This proposal is about the X-Men, NOT about Wonder Woman. Carl, please stop derailing the discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Add African philosophy

 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose as with most other "Africa XYZ" articles, there is no coherent underlying theme here. It is just a list of different philosophies not tied in to one another. Africa is too big and diverse for these articles to have any value. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose not a vital branch of philosophy. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose too vaguely defined Power~enwiki (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Continental philosophy

 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Thi (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose not important enough as a general term. "History of philosophy" is already at 10 articles, all more important than this one. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Yiguandao
Although this religion originated in China, it is now spreading overseas due to emigration.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Just one of many such Chinese salvationist religions - this particular religion actually appears to be a subset of Xiantiandao. I might support a broader article topic instead. Neutralitytalk 07:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose not nearly notable enough for this list. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Eddie891 Talk Work 01:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * 1) This religion is vital for Han Chinese, since it is a good syncretism of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, and a lot of people are adherents of it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove Cathedral
We already include Church (building) and a Cathedral is just a church associated with a Bishop. I really don't think we need to include both articles in the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The same argument was brought up when this was first added, but it still passed 5-1, although it's technically what you said, a church with bishop, they are very widespread across the globe and history, and a particular grand style is expected from them. A church itself is no more than a building that has been consecrated but of which a particular architectural style and status is usually associated with it. I have seen old churches which have been deconsecrated and become houses, schools or barns, and have seen other buildings like old manors and old cinema halls consecrated and become new churches, but churches are none the less usually a type of building with a particular style status and use which is worth reading about, like cathedral too, I would prefer to keep them both, we list individual cathedrals too.  Carl wev   18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Wait, what? There's a whole helluvalot more to cathedrals being churches with bishops.  When taken as a whole, they represent some of the most significant architecture in a period comprising almost a millennium, perhaps more.  p  b  p  15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, a cathedral is still just a church associated with a bishop. All cathedrals are churches, and the church article has a section on cathedrals (which could be expanded). Rreagan007 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose  Carl  wev   18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Distinct architectural feature, and includes some of the most remarkable examples of Christian architecture. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Eddie891 Talk Work 11:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Youth Olympic Games
Relatively new (first youth games was in 2010) but it is held by the International Olympic Committee every 4 years. I think it is at least as important as the Paralympic Games, which we currently list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose still too new Prevan (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose recentism. Also this isn't confined to the Olympics. Most sports have a youth sports format which may be the better choice. Then again, we wouldn't add women's sports and similar articles so I don't think anything related to youth sports is vital. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 12:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - too new, but potential for later. A broader topic such as youth sports may work better. Neutralitytalk 07:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Riddle
We have joke, and also quiz; riddle spoken and written have been recorded in the literature of Babylonian, Roman Greek Egyptian, and more modern in English like in works of Carrol and Tolkien and others. Older tradition than many toys games and puzzles we have.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   09:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Greeting card

 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support old and wide tradition, billions are sent.  Carl  wev   19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose not close to vital at all. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - significant but no more vital than many other written forms of communication. I do support the related greeting. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Power~enwiki (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Not that they're actually related, but we don't even have greeting. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I've proposed to add greeting.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Light fixture
Seems essential.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Another option is to add Electric light (which is where light bulb and electric lamp redirect to). But I agree that something more is needed. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 21:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I would support adding electric light. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Add electric light
As an alternative to light fixture.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support p  b  p  13:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Incandescent light bulb is included under technology. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * If this nomination passes, I will probably propose the removal of incandescent light bulb. I don't think we really need both, but I do think electric light is better to include in the list as it is the broader topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: In the above passed nomination to add electric light, I stated that I would nominate incandescent light bulb for removal if the nomination passed. However, I did not realize that incandescent bulb was listed at Level 3. I have instead proposed to swap Incandescent light bulb for Electric light at Level 3 here. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Add Incest; Remove Incest taboo
I think listing the general article on incest would be much better than listing the article specifically on the taboo of incest, as the general incest article also discusses the taboo of incest. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   21:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support swap Prevan (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as per last time. The arguments for having the taboo article instead weren't convincing (mainly from an anthropological perspective, but there are other perspectives like biology and genetics). Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Taboo is the parent article of taboo incest.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

When this was first suggested to add, the taboo one won the vote, myself and a few other users wanted the main article, but it wasn't enough. see here and here I agree now as I did then that the main article is better. There is more information in the main incest article that would not be specifically anything to do with the taboo, like the science and genetics of what happens, or could happen, it happening with numerous animal species, cutures where it was not a taboo but ignored or in fact encouraged, like ancient Egypt. As already pointed out, the main article does have an overview of the taboo anyway; and we already list taboo itself.
 * Discuss

Also, the main incest article is at least twice as long, and has nearly 3 times as many citations. Plus the incest article appears in 77 different language wikis 11 times as many compared to just 7 for incest taboo. Lastly the incest article gets 3500 average daily views, seven times higher than incest taboo, which gets 484 average daily views. |Incest_taboo/ see here

So for many reasons, this swap makes sense.  Carl wev   21:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Greeting

 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Neutralitytalk 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support the article is in a half-list state, but it has the potential to be more. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Power~enwiki (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Thi (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove Rosh Hashanah
This entire section is over-full right now. Rosh Hashanah and Nowruz are both New Years holidays, the "New Year's Day" article describes them both. They are clearly the two least essential holidays on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Power~enwiki (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Not essential. We already list two other Jewish holidays (Passover and Yom Kippur) so I don't think we need to list this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Rreagan007.  Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Prevan (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Rosh Hashannah is one of the high holy days in Judaism, and is important religiously beyond being a new year holiday. I don't think that 3 articles about Jewish holidays is too much. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think 3 Jewish holidays is a bit too much when we only list 4 Christian holidays and 1 Muslim holiday, considering there are around 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, but only about 17 million Jews.Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Judaism remains vital in far greater proportion to its number of current adherents on the basis that well over 1/2 the planet adhere to a Judaism-derived or -influenced religion. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do we only have 1 Muslim holiday? I would say there should be a few more, not less. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion

Remove Nowruz
This entire section is over-full right now. Rosh Hashanah and Nowruz are both New Years holidays, the "New Year's Day" article describes them both. They are clearly the two least essential holidays on the list.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is simply not an important enough holiday to list on the English Wikipedia list. Very few English speakers have ever even heard of this holiday, let alone celebrate it. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose wasn't added that long ago, been observed for over 3000 years, 300 million people observe today in about 17 countries, many listed things or people are not hugely known or followed much in the English speaking world but are more important elsewhere.  Carl  wev   20:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Carlwev. The English-speaking world is bigger than many realise. Here is a map of where English Wikipedia is most popular, and it includes many countries where Nowruz is a major holiday. Not that this is a decisive factor. It is important for everyone, whatever language they speak to learn about the world beyond their own and not just look into a mirror. Nobody speaks English on Pluto but it is vital, just like Nowruz is. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. I also don't see why new years holidays are such a big deal to remove in general, given they are important culturally. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I note that Equinox is listed under Astronomy. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem. The existing New Year's Day article shouldn't be included either, ideally Year would discuss it.  Chinese New Year is notable enough as an independent holiday, I don't see a case for any others. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Congo pygmies
The ethnology section lacks a group from Central Africa when nearly all of the rest of the world is well covered. The pygmies of Congo due to their short stature and traditional forest dwelling lifestyle have fascinated people the world over. Genetically, they are one of the most divergent and oldest groups of people in Africa and the world. They have unfortunately faced significant discrimination from taller Bantu Africans and formerly European colonial powers too.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 03:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutralitytalk 19:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Remove The Twilight Zone
The most unnecessary TV show on a list that is too long.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 00:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  Carl  wev   17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Skr15081997 (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) SupportAditshah00 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) This American television drama is both extremely excellent and influential.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Among the first anthology shows--it essentially was the first and sometime only vehicle the science fiction short story--a powerful social commentary genre in its own right--made it to screen. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Science Fiction/fantasy is represented better than other genres. Also this show only appears in 4 other language wikis, which is low, suggesting it hasn't had much world wide impact.  Carl wev   17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Sovereignty
Core concept, global/historical significance - applications to multiple disciplines (philosophy, law, politics, international relations).


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neutralitytalk 21:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support an important concept that should definitely be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support We list sovereign state, but I would list this too.  Carl  wev   16:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per above. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Replace Phobia with Anxiety disorder
Phobias are just one type of anxiety disorder; I would go with the broader set as being vital. Neutralitytalk 07:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neutralitytalk 07:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support adding anxiety disorder per nom. Unsure about phobia. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support adding anxiety disorder  Carl  wev   18:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support addition. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support addition and removal Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose the removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose removing phobia  Carl  wev   18:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. We also have anxiety separately listed. Perhaps we can have all three on the list despite the mild overlap as phobia is one of the most notables types of anxiety disorders. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 09:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

We have several cases of listing umbrella terms and specific conditions covered by them in other areas of medicine, I think phobia and anxiety disorder are both important enough to be listed, I don't think the overlap is too much. Phobia article says different studies suggest anywhere between 8% and 21% of the population have a phobia, which is pretty significant, enough for the 10,000 long list I should say. I imagine it to be of interest to both experts and general readers; the topic is well known to the general populace.  Carl wev   18:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with adding anxiety disorder without removing the others. Neutralitytalk 21:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove Battalion and Division (military); add Military education and training
Already covered by military organization, which is already listed (note that military unit redirects to military organization). I would free up these two spaces for other concepts, and would propose Military education and training.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Neutralitytalk 05:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as per nom. Eddie891 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support good choice. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) The removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Epigenetics
Looking over our coverage of genetics-related articles, it seems very incomplete to me considering how important of a scientific topic it is. There are probably several other genetics-related articles that should be added to the list (i.e. genotype, phenotype, genomics, eugenics, population genetics, horizontal gene transfer, DNA repair, DNA sequencing, recombinant DNA) but I think this is probably the most important one that is currently absent. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   12:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Personality disorder
Looking over the Mental disorder section, I was surprised that we don't list the article on personality disorder. I think it should be included.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  Carl  wev   19:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Neutralitytalk 17:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per nom. Good find. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Chlamydia infection
Article states it's one of the commonest STDs in the world, about 141 million people effected by it, almost double that of Gonorrhea which we list which effects 88 million people for example.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   07:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss
 * Reviewing our current list, we're doing a pretty good job. If anything had to go to make room for this, I'd recommend West Nile. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Add Infertility
Group of many different conditions rendering people (as well as other organisms) not able to have offspring unaided or at all. Large amounts of research, treatments and money is involved with it, article states it affects well over 100 million people world wide


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom.  Carl  wev   19:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Power~enwiki (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support --Thi (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

The articles on IVF and/or Assisted reproductive technology were also on my mind and I am interested in peoples opinions on those, but I think Infertility is kind of a starting point and a parent article to the topics, well kind of....Also not to do with fertility but on the wider topic of medicine, Artificial cardiac pacemaker is also on my mind.  Carl wev   19:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add interplanetary medium
It's the only major part of our solar system that isn't currently included in the list. We include interstellar medium in the list, so I think we should also include interplanetary medium. We are also currently under quota for this category. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Kusnir (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Note that the proposal, currently passing, towards the bottom of the page would strip allocation from this area. Having said that, I think we could certainly lose a few more constellations or planetoids there and add this regardless. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * A lot of the constellation articles currently listed should definitely be on the chopping block, considering that constellations are really just figments of peoples' imaginations. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove 16 Constellations
Removing: Andromeda, Aquila, Auriga, Boötes, Carina, Cepheus, Cetus, Cygnus, Draco, Eridanus, Hercules, Hydra, Ophiuchus, Pegasus, Perseus, Puppis, Serpens, Vela


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom: Power~enwiki (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support all the removals Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support all the removals Rreagan007 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support all the removals --Thi (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support all the removals Plantdrew (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

The seven non-zodiac constellations kept are:
 * Canis Major (notable due to Sirius)
 * Cassiopeia (notable "W" shape)
 * Centaurus (notable due to Alpha Centauri)
 * Crux (notable "Cross" shape)
 * Orion (notable for its belt)
 * Ursa Major (notable as the "big dipper")
 * Ursa Minor (notable for Polaris) Power~enwiki (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

For some of these (e.g. Andromeda), they are mostly notable due to an object listed (the Andromeda nebula). Power~enwiki (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Argo Navis
The encyclopedic value of constellations is mostly historical, not astronomical. This was the largest and is the only historical constellation from the Greek system not associated with a modern-day one.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Any additions. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC) (moved from Power~enwiki original proposal)
 * 2) Oppose Not vital. --Thi (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It says it was discovered by Jason, if I were to add something else from ancient Greek mythology/culture it would be something like Jason or better something like Medusa or Minotaur. Ancient Greek topics are represented well compared to other areas. This doesn't seem the most vital from an astronomy POV or a cultural POV to me.  Carl wev   17:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * This obviously isn't going to pass. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Meteor shower
Meteorite is already listed.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Carl  wev   04:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I think I would prefer meteor shower. Gizza <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * OK, I've updated this proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Add escape velocity
This determines the overall dynamics of any given system, and whether or not it will be stable or unstable. Vital in my opinion. 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

This article is already listed under Technology: Space
 * Discuss

Add night
How on Earth was this not on the list?? 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support 129.138.147.5 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support big omission. Well spotted. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 11:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Thi (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose

I can't remember where this is, but I'm certain it's already included, it has the template on its talk page.  Carl wev   16:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * Yes, it's listed under Biology and health sciences: Ecology. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Chemical elements
We currently include every chemical element in the list up to element 105 and then just stop. It seems like a fairly arbitrary stopping point. Scientists have currently discovered/synthesized elements up to 118. Should we include more elements in the list? Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't remember exactly what was agreed or changed but it's been bought up before, usually to reduce them I think.
 * 1) Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_21
 * 2) Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_18
 * 3) Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_43
 * 4) Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_48

I found this in the archives, We removed the 13 transactinide elements and added the article on transactinide element itself. By the comments in those archives, it seems that man made only elements and/or exceptionally unstable rare and short lived elements with little or no use may not be considered the most vital physics articles. We can always discus it again though of course.  Carl wev   17:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why the list should go past plutonium at this level. None of the elements past that have any stable isotopes or particular use. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove Rutherfordium and Dubnium
After refreshing my memory in the archives, it looks like all of the transactinide elements except for these 2 were removed back in 2015 and the Transactinide element article was added. I really don't see a good reason why these 2 should have been kept. Their half-lives are a little longer than the other transactinide elements, but still not long enough to be useful elements in any practical sense. Their short half-lives also mean that very little can be produced to be experimented on, and most of their properties listed in the articles are theoretically predicted rather than actually observed.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Power~enwiki (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Eddie891 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add concentration

 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Too niche. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Really? It's a vital topic in chemistry.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Solution is the vital topic, and is already included. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Add Figure of the Earth
Though in most computations in physics the figure of the Earth can be approximated as a sphere, for the military accurate understanding of it is absolutely necessary in order to provide geographical and gravitational data for the inertial guidance systems of ballistic missiles.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom. No doubt a crucial and interesting topic in earth science.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose.  This is a niche topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Really? The exact measure of the figure of the Earth is vital for the military.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss
 * 1) The fact that studying the figure of the Earth is vital for both the military and geodesists means that it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I could support a swap with geodesy, which is the study of shape of the Earth and other planets. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Archipelago
We have two archipelagos listed on Geography, but not the general term. The article could be improved.


 * Support
 * 1) As nom Power~enwiki (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) A term vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support  Carl  wev   12:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose

We list mountain range, a formation of mountains, so we should probably list a formation of islands, it would be interesting to have information on the different processes that form them, the effects they have on migrating life, and the evolution of lifeforms on the separate islands. Also how it effects humans their transport, settlement and diaspora and different paths history and culture can take when spread out across numerous islands instead of one continuous landmass, probably.  Carl wev   12:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss

Add Uber (company)
A well known transportation network company with 40 million monthly active users.
 * Support
 * Support see above Daylen (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A company that is changing the world, causing a lot of taxi drivers upset.--RekishiEJ (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Oppose no indication that Uber will matter in 5 years. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not on a par with the companies we have listed. p  b  p  13:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notable for an article in wikipedia, but that's it. 40 million users seem a huge number if said alone, but compare it with Facebook, which has 1.94 billion users. Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above Eddie891 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose there are many unicorn companies out there. None of these companies (Airbnb, Snapchat, Spotify, SpaceX, Xiaomi, Quora, Dropbox, Pinterest, etc.) are vital yet IMO. It is easy for startups to rise and fall and then be forgotten. Facebook survived but for example, MySpace didn't. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 01:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * , please cast your support vote here, since it is you that nominated Uber for addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Daylen (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Carsharing

 * Support
 * Support Daylen (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose  Carl  wev   16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I'd prefer adding methods of transport that are common in various parts of the world but not listed like auto rickshaw (tuktuk) or tram. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per Carlwev. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above Eddie891 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I simply don't think these two are important enough, Carsharing article says 1.7 million people use the service which is not that high really, it's not a new technology just using an existing tech in a different way. Things crossing my mind for transport at the moment are Electric car, and Maglev actual new techs, possibly traffic and Coach (bus) maybe. Other things we don't have are carpool (overview of real-time ridesharing) and car rental but I don't think they're important enough, (we don't even list renting itself, millions if not billions of people rent).  Carl wev   16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I would support Renting if we don't have a synonym. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Real-time ridesharing
Similar to taxicab (currently on the list)
 * Support
 * Support Daylen (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose  Carl  wev   16:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per Carlwev. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss

Replace Four-color theorem with Formal language
Surprising to see the four-color theorem on the vital list, as while interesting, it is definitely not "vital". It has not unlocked proofs to many other mathematical problems nor gave much new insight, when compared to other important conjectures and theorems, such as the P versus NP problem (which has huge ramifications to computational complexity theory if proven). There are also little practical applications of the theorem. Formal language theory, on the other hand, was not only vital in setting the foundations of mathematics and formalizing logic, but remains an important theory in theoretical computer science, computational proofs (which cracked the then-conjecture now known as the four color theorem in the first place), among other things. Esquivalience (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Thi (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support   Carl  wev   10:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Support As for removal: I would consider PageRank to be at least as important as the four-color theorem as far as applications of graph theory.  Neither are relevant at this level. Inclusion as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose the removal, since the theorem was the first major one to be proven using a computer, it is vital in the history of mathematics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would close this as passed enough support for a full swap and open for over 100 days, but I don't know where to put formal language, would be grateful if someone who knows more than me could help.  Carl wev   20:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss
 * I recommend "Theoretical computer science". Power~enwiki (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Add Subset
Subset is linked-to from 43 different articles on the mathematics list. It's second to Continuous function as the most-linked page not on this list already. I don't feel Union (set theory) or Intersection (set theory) are sufficient here.


 * Support
 * 1) Support as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 02:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add Right angle
Pythagorean theorem is currently listed, perpendicular is not currently listed.


 * Support
 * 1) as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support good find. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 23:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Thi (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss

Add estimation

 * Support
 * 1) As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - with the caveat from discussion Power~enwiki (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Discuss
 * This should be included in the basic math category, not Probability and Statistics. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another option would be under Physical Sciences / Measurement (we should be able to move a few Astronomy articles there to make room). Power~enwiki (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Support p  b  p  01:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) support Eddie891 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Discuss