Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15


Move proposals

Two move proposals are open that may be of interest to contributors to the Vital Articles project. They can be found at Talk:Enclosure and Talk:Forms of government. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

FAILED
Not added, 4-4 Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Attila the Hun

Looking over the list of political and military leaders, I think Attila is certainly on the same level of importance of many of the articles currently listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support at the moment there is a 700 year void between Augustus and Charlemagne. There were many important rulers from the 14 AD to 742 AD (a long period of time) of which Attila is probably the most well known. Keep in mind that we will need to remove something as we are at limit. Maybe a mathematician or filmmaker. Possibly even personal life. The same argument from the Level-2 discussion can apply here. It's not really about anything and it gets very low pageviews. Gizza (t)(c) 08:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  18:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Significant 5th-century ruler, a major opponent for both the Eastern and the Western Roman Empire, and he left a mark in European legends. He even appears as "Etzel" in the Nibelungenlied, composed at least 7 centuries following his death. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Meh. 20,000 Google scholar hits vs. 40,000 for Timur, if we are just looking at folks who terrified Western civilization. I'd also probably put Saladin far, far above Attila in terms of lasting influence and vital-ness. I don't think Attila is the most well known or vital ruler in that 700 year period: Constantine the Great, Ali, Emperor Gaozu of Tang (let's instead go with) Emperor Taizong of Tang, or Chandragupta II. The list is better with frankly any of these folks than Attila if we want to have a good leader from that period. Not a strong oppose, but there's better alternative leaders for any criteria justifying Attila. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Maybe not vital enough at this level. --Thi (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I just think there are too many Level 4 political leaders who are clearly more vital than Attila the Hun. I would add Justinian I and Umar (or possibly other early Caliphs) to the leaders mentioned by AbstractIllusions. Orser67 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Definitely not. Khirurg (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Also we still officially have the 25-person cap on political leaders. I am still supportive of a cap, but as mentioned in this archived discussion, I'm open to raising it to 30. If it's kept at 25, I think we could remove someone like Pericles. He is known for similar reasons to Joan of Arc (defending country against foreign domination) but is not quite as famous. Gizza (t)(c) 08:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be raised. Political/military leaders are probably the single most important biography category. I'd also support removal of personal life. It's a strange article topic and I don't think it's really needed at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research AbstractIllusions. Emperor Taizong is a good suggestion. I don't think Chandragupta II should be in before Ashoka who unfortunately is not within the 700 year period but in IMO the most influential ancient Indian ruler. Timur is another good suggestion although he probably has more historical sources than Attila because the Timurid Empire was literate unlike the Huns. Adding Ali is not a bad idea too though he would fit better in religious figures. I don't see the value in adding Constantine when there are already two Roman rulers. Having said that, my support of Attila is weaker than it was because there are many good alternatives. It ultimately depends on how many political leaders we want here (don't think we have consensus on that yet). Gizza (t)(c) 10:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Ashoka, was just limiting to that period. And like always, I'm up for the larger discussion about numbers within categories. (My gut says 15 is better than 30, but still mulling over the previous discussion and the points you and Rreagan raise above) AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I propose a third approach: with Personal Life and Mona Lisa likely to get cut from this level in the coming days, I propose we increase the cap on Political and Military Leaders from 25 to 27 and add both Attila the Hun and Constantine the Great. (If Joan of Arc were cut from this level—which I would have supported—we could make room for a third person as per Gizza's remarks above.) ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Gizza's observation about the "700 year void between Augustus and Charlemagne" made me think of the Migration Period, which coincidentally began with the invasions of the Huns. The Huns article goes on to state, "The Huns may have stimulated the Great Migration, a contributing factor in the collapse of the Western Roman Empire." (This point lends weight to promoting Attila to Level 3.) With so many internal and external changes happening throughout the world, not having a venerable figure to represent at Level 3 in those 700 years may reflect a multipolar (or arguably nonpolar) decline interlude in classical antiquity. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but outside of Europe, the early Islamic caliphates, the Tang and Gupta dynasties and Teotihuacan all did rather remarkable things in that time period. Why not include a figure or two from some of those civilizations, as AbstractIllusions has suggested? Cobblet (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Muhammad a political leader between Augustus and Charlemagne? (of course he's listed as a religious leader). power~enwiki (π, ν)

Indeed, you're correct. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Current distribution

  • Maybe this helps. A table on distribution of People within Level 3 and Level 4 currently. Rounded to nearest percentage and feel free to fix anything that's wrong. I'm certainly not suggesting we make Level 3 symmetrical with Level 4, but it does provide some idea of where we have biases at Level 3. And it may be useful for us to think about whether those biases are good or not. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Category Level 3 Level 4
Total People 132 (13% of total Level 3) 2000 (20% of total Level 4)
Artists 10 (8%) 113 (6%)
Writers (includes Journalists) 18 (14%) 271 (14%)
Composers and Musicians 10 (8%) 156 (8%)
Filmmakers 4 (3%) 58 (3%)
Business people 1 (1%) 31 (2%)
Explorers 8 (6%) 31 (2%)
Inventors and Scientists 20 (15%) 199 (12%)
Mathematicians 10 (8%) 42 (2%)
Philosophers and Social Sciences 16 (12%) 154 (7%)
Religious figures 9 (7%) 137 (7%)
Politicians and Leaders(inc. Military Leaders and Rebels) 26 (20%) 603 (30%)
Entertainers and Sports Figures 0 (0%) 205 (10%)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What historical era are things in?

Thinking about the placement and indentation of early history articles. I'm sure Stone age and Neolithic Revolution should be in prehistoric not ancient, ancient history is said to begin with the written record, the invention of writing, earliest of which was the Sumerian. Not sure if Mesopotamia is correctly placed as Stone Age or not? Assyria and Sumer are normally considered part of Mesopotamia, but are not indented to it here, (like Maya is to ) if that matters? Ancient history normally includes anything from the invention of writing to the fall of Rome, so would include the Bronze Age and most if not all of the Iron Age, but we have placed Ancient History as a stand alone article with nothing indented to it, and placed it before Stone Age, which is surely the wrong way round.

If you think the placement is wrong, just go ahead and boldly fix it. If anyone has a problem with it, they can just revert and we can discuss it here. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, 2–3. --Thi (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Greek mythology

"Greek mythology has had an extensive influence on the culture, arts, and literature of Western civilization and remains part of Western heritage and language."

Support
  1. Support As nom. --Thi (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Greek mythology has influenced Roman and Medieval European mythology, literature and artwork, and continues to inspire modern works. Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we already have Mythology (and we're at 1000 articles so we'd have to remove something to make room.) RJFJR 14:34, 12 October 2017‎
  2. Oppose Ancient Greece is listed and summarizes the impact of its culture on Western civilization. It is hardly clear to me that after having listed Ancient Greek philosophy as well, mythology should be the next aspect of the culture to be highlighted, ahead of Ancient Greek literature, Greek astronomy, Greek mathematics, Ancient Greek medicine, Ancient Greek technology, Ancient Greek art, Ancient Greek architecture and the like. Where does this end? Cobblet (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I see no good reason to include this over any of the other 12 mythologies on the Expanded list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Current total is 998/1000. Greek mythology or Greek pantheon is a common subject in children's history classes and books. Planets and many works of art are named after ancient Greek heroes, gods and goddesses. The most famous examples of Greek literature are the Iliad and the Odyssey. Sophocles and the Parthenon are also representatives of Greek art. Science, technology and medicine are now modern. Histories of art, science, technology and medicine are listed, history of literature is not. --Thi (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, 3–6. --Thi (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Homer

We don't know if Homer existed at all. The article is really about the Homeric studies and the Homeric question. It makes more sense to list the Iliad and the Odyssey. [1][2]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support The personality of Homer is nowhere near as important as the literary value of the works attributed to him. Cobblet (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I think the question, as posed by Thi, is quite interesting. Can a person be vital at 1000 level if they never existed? Even if we agree that Homer's work is important (which I'm not at all convinced by), it is certainly the work that should receive some recognition. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The homer article is to cover both the Iliad and the Odyssey without having to use two slots, and also to cover all related topics. (I seem to remember that we replaced Iliad and Odyssey with Homer for just this reason.) RJFJR (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Besides the Iliad and the Odyssey, we have the Homeric Hymns. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per RJFR. Khirurg (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per the above. Dr. K. 01:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Per above. Too important not to include. There are other historical figures like Abraham and Moses that we include in the list that many historians think were more mythological figures than actual historical people. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Homer is incredibly relevant even today many thousands of years on, all school children are taught about him (here anyway). Dysklyver 23:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

A similar argument applies to Euclid, who we know almost nothing about beyond his Elements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

At least Euclid had a handful of other significant works whose attribution to him is uncontroversial. IMO Pythagoras is a more egregious example of the this. Cobblet (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This proposal may have been successful if it was framed as a swap with either one of the epics (the Odyssey is the more famous of the two IMO) or Ancient Greek literature. It seems that consensus is against an outright removal. It's a shame there isn't an article called Homeric epics which would be a better article killing two birds with one stone than Homer himself, which dawdles on his historicity rather than discussing the vital literature he allegedly wrote. Gizza (t)(c) 22:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have now made a suggestion to add the Odyssey. --Thi (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, 3–3. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Odyssey

The most famous work attributed to Homer. "Odyssey is regarded as one of the most important foundational works of western literature. It is widely regarded by western literary critics as a timeless classic." We list James Joyce, whose main work Ulysses is a retelling of The Odyssey.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support A very important example of epic poetry. Dimadick (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support only as a swap with Homer. Having both will lead to unnecessary overlap. Gizza (t)(c) 12:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Covered by Homer which is more general and gives a better overview of the material. RJFJR (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Agree with the above. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We are currently in the process of removing all individual literary works, and I agree with that direction. As such, this shouldn't be added now. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, 2–1. --Thi (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add One Thousand and One Nights

"The influence of the versions of The Nights on world literature is immense."

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose With the exception of the religious texts, I am now for the removal of all individual literary works at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
Is the nominating reason a quote from someone? If so then who? RJFJR (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
From the article. [3] --Thi (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
However, also as per the article, this work supposedly did not have a great influence on Arabic literature, but rather on modern European literature — on which, was it truly more influential than canonical works in European languages? groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Mahabharata and Shahnameh

I don't think these individual literary works are vital enough to list at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Since the rest are going, these can go too. Cobblet (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Epic of Gilgamesh

Epic of Gilgamesh is more relevant from a historical perspective than an artistic one, and History of literature can cover the topic more fully is proposed for inclusion above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC) (amended power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC))

Support
  1. Support as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Now that Mona Lisa, which was once the only artwork mentioned in the list has been removed, individual literary works (except religious texts) should all be removed as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

There is already a proposal above to replace prose with history of literature. Since proposing a second swap involving the same article would be confusing I have changed this proposal to a straight removal. Cobblet (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Missed that. I've changed to straight removal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It may be better to first have a discussion on whether we need any works of literature at all before individual proposals. If all of the above proposals are successful, it would leave One Thousand and One Nights and Don Quixote as the only works of literature on the list. If adding One Thousand and One Nights fails, that just leaves Don Quixote. This would imply that Don Quixote is the most important work of non-religious literature in the world which doesn't seem right (just having like having a single painting before). Gizza (t)(c) 22:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
You forgot about Beowulf! Rreagan007 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah sorry. Well I definitely think Beowulf shouldn't be in if English literature makes it (one or the other is fine but both is excessive IMO). There is also Hamlet which although overlapping with Shakespeare is very influential. But on such a tight list I don't think we can have more than one. Gizza (t)(c) 23:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure all the proposals will end in removal/exclusion. If it looks like they will, someone should nominate Don Quixote for removal as well. I'm not sure it's possible to get a list of 5-10 works for this level, but don't think Gilgamesh should be one of them even if we do keep some entries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I kind of agree, and I proposed both nominations. I'm thinking about withdrawing the Beowulf nomination in favor of the English Lit nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added/Removed, 7–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replace Don Quixote with Miguel de Cervantes

Somewhat procedural; Don Quixote should be included somehow at this level, but individual works appear to be on their way out. Cervantes seems a better choice than Spanish literature.

Support
  1. Support as nom, though I'm not committed to the proposal power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. We seem to be moving in the direction of removing all the individual literary works just as we recently removed the last individual artwork (I'm looking at you, Mona Lisa). And the article does say that Cervantes is "widely regarded as the greatest writer in the Spanish language, and the greatest novelist of all time". He probably deserves inclusion. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support While Don Quixote is his most famous work, Cervantes is also known for the theatrical play The Siege of Numantia, the pastoral romance La Galatea, the one-act play The Cave of Salamanca, the collection of novellas Novelas ejemplares, the poem Viaje del Parnaso, and the novel Los trabajos de Persiles y Sigismunda. He was quite a productive writer in his era. Not bad for a writer with only one functioning hand. (He lost use of his left hand while fighting in the Battle of Lepanto. He later boasted that he "had lost the movement of the left hand for the glory of the right". Dimadick (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support as a better article, but if Cervantes was nominated for deletion, I'd probably support that too. So.... AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 7–0; Removed, 6–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: remove Prose, add History of literature

Article about prose is not much more than the definition of term.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Short story and Novel are sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Prose is currently the shortest article on this list, per stats on my website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 7–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add English Literature

This is the vital articles list for the English Wikipedia and I think we should include the article on English Literature at his level. There are several very important English language writers that we simply don't list (i.e. Charles Dickens, Geoffrey Chaucer, Mark Twain, etc.) because of space limitations. Adding this article will help in that regard.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support This is the main article for English-language literature and covers everything from the Middle Ages onwards. Dimadick (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • Can we — shall we — get away with adding English literature, and no other national literature, simply because we're English Wikipedia??
To me the volume of new proposals suggests the need for more comprehensive discussion by category, rather than by line item. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There are Vital Article 1,000 lists for almost 200 different languages, and I would encourage each one of those lists to include the article on their language's own literature as being vital to that language's Wikipedia.. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Ironically, the last time I checked the meta:List_of_articles_every_Wikipedia_should_have in detail (which is meant to be for all languages and where this list emerged from), it had a stronger Western and English-speaking bias than this list, probably because there has been more discussion here to address the shortfalls of the enwiki list. Gizza (t)(c) 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
It's possible that French literature, Russian literature or Chinese literature might make the cut. But for the past 100-200 years, English literature has been predominant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 7-1 Rreagan007 (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Newspaper

We already include articles on Journalism, Mass media, News, and Publishing. I don't think we need to list "newspaper" separately at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support been eyeing this one for a while. The overlap is clear and 'Newspaper' probably wouldn't cut it even on its own at this level. AbstractIllusions (talk)
  3. Support per above. Cannot see it as more vital than other forms of news media even if it was one of the first. Gizza (t)(c) 20:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Printing is included in "Media and communication" under technology as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Currently the article News covers the history of newspapers. --Thi (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Newspapers were vital at Level 3 once, and maybe even through the 1990s, but no longer. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Prior to the popularization of radio broadcasting newspapers and magazines were people's only ways to know current events. I suggest that magazine be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 7–2; Removed 6–3 Rreagan007 (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove The Holocaust, Add Genocide

The more general article should be included at this level. I think the general article on genocide and on World War II are enough to cover this topic at this level. There were other mass killings that took place during World War II (i.e. Nazi Genocide of Soviet Slavs, Nazi Holocaust against ethnic Poles, the Romani Holocaust, and The Ethnic Cleansing of Germans) that we don't list. There have also been many other genocides and mass killings during other wars, some with death counts as high or higher, and we don't list any of them at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support as a swap. The Holocaust, being the most notable will be given WP:DUE weight in the genocide article but all of them matter. Gizza (t)(c) 20:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support as a swap. The Holocaust is just one of many genocides. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support -- use more general category. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Something that is still discussed everyday and people need to know about. RJFJR (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose because Holocaust denial. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose prefer both. Would support add, but not delete. According to a 1999 poll, the Holocaust was ranked by Americans as 4th biggest event of the 20th century. More than the civil rights movement, moon landing, or World War I. I don't think I'd rank it the same way; but I think that shows some clear vitalness. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
Is there an article that covers the holocaust and also the other mass killings of World War II that are mentioned in the proposal? Should we swap holocaust out for genocide? RJFJR (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@RJFJR: I have updated the proposal as a swap with Genocide. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I was going to oppose this as a stand-alone proposal, but the swap seems reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to address the comment by Jclemens concerning Holocaust denial. First, I don't think he meant to imply that I or anyone else who supports this removal nomination is denying the Holocaust, but I just want to state unambiguously that I do not deny the Holocaust. Over the past few days, I have spent a lot of time looking over this list, and as I was doing so, it stuck out to me that the Holocaust was the only subarticle we had listed under WWII. That is what got me to start thinking about whether it was necessary to include it. The same thing has happened with similar nominations I have made like removing "Infant" because "Child" covers it adequately, or nominating the addition of more broad articles on literature while nominating for removal specific literary works. And in regards to using the fact that some people deny the Holocaust as an argument for its inclusion in the list, I will note that there are other genocides that people also deny (such as the Armenian Genocide or the Holodomor) which we don't include in the list, so I don't think that's a very good argument for its inclusion. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, dear, my abject apologies Rreagan007, your AGF is correct. I do not have any reason to believe any Wikipedian participating in this project denies the holocaust, and to the extent that my terse comment could have been interpreted that way, I sincerely apologize. Rather, you are correct, that I believe the existence of holocaust denial in general supports the retention of the holocaust as a specific VA topic. I have worked with Armenian Genocide in a recent failed GA process, and find it terrible and heartbreaking as well, but even though preceding the holocaust, if I had to pick one to be vital, it would be the slaughter of Jews and other 'undesirable' minorities by the Third Reich. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6–1. --Thi (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove El Greco

I think he is not as widely known as for example Vermeer or Cézanne. Currently we do not list Impressionism, Expressionism or Cubism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support three Spanish painters (more than Italian, Dutch and French) is too many on a list of ten artists in the world. Nowhere close in importance to Picasso and Dali. Gizza (t)(c) 11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Perhaps the most significant painter of the Renaissance. Khirurg (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Khirurg, why do you feel that a 16th to 17th century painter of the Mannerism style outranks everyone else in the Renaissance? He is famous, but earlier painters such as Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and Michelangelo probably had longer- lasting legacies. And Caravaggio is credited as an influence on the Baroque style. Dimadick (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 7–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Postmodernism

Not vital at this level. There is much debate about the term, some say that the postmodernism is just a part of modernism. Postmodern architecture (1980s phenomenon) is presented in Architecture. (We can add the History of architecture, but currently the article about architecture is mainly about the history of subject).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support not that significant really. Gizza (t)(c) 11:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support We can find a more general article that covers this along with related art movements. RJFJR (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I agree this is not a good article to include at this level for the reasons stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Recentist. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, 2–7. --Thi (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Statue of Liberty

A well-known example of art and architecture, world's most recognized symbol of America. [4]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Probably the best known work of sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi, and one of the best known engineering works by Gustave Eiffel. "The entire statue was erected at the Eiffel works in Paris before being dismantled and shipped to the United States." I think we need more examples of French artwork, and the gift of the statue from the French people was a highlight of France–United States relations. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Many things are well known. Why do we specifically need a symbol of America on the list? Cobblet (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This was tough and I had to think about it a while. As much as I'd like to see this included, I just don't think it rises to that level. I agree that it is on a similar level to other types of modern sites like the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, Sydney Opera House, Golden Gate Bridge, etc. And we certainly can't list them all, so I don't think we should be listing any of them. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rreagan007. RJFJR (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - with removal of Mona Lisa there are no single artworks listed under visual arts. Liberty Enlightening the World is not the single most important artwork in the world. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose there isn't enough space. I'd support it on the vital 1500, but I must oppose here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Simply not vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Grand Canyon is on the list, that's almost a symbol of America. I think either this and Colosseum should both be in or both be out, but haven't decided which yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel the Statue of Liberty is at a similar level to the Sydney Opera House and for that matter, the Eiffel Tower (which hasn't been proposed). Maybe slightly ahead but not sure if it's enough. Gizza (t)(c) 21:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Medieval philosophy

One of the many eras presented in article about Western philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophy and the Contemporary philosophy are the most important of these eras.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't see why Western medieval philosophy was given priority over, say, Enlightenment philosophy. True, we list Age of Enlightenment but we also list the Middle Ages; both cover the intellectual developments of the period. Cobblet (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Covered by philosophy, also per Coblet. RJFJR (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 21:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Pragmatism

Not vital at this level, there are many other philosophical traditions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support quite a niche philosophical movement in the scheme of things. Gizza (t)(c) 12:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Cobblet (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per DaGizza. RJFJR (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, 1–7. --Thi (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Gambling

I think gambling is not necessarily vital at this level. There is also a gambling problem. [5].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think the existence of problem gambling makes gambling more vital, not less. It is a social issue like alcoholism and addiction. Gizza (t)(c) 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Gizza. Cobblet (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Games of chance have been around for a very long time and I think the topic is important enough to include at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I think it is a vital aspect of human civilisation, and has inspired many metaphors in ancient and modern languages. Alea iacta est (the dice is cast) is a reference to dice games, after all. Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    Grrr. The die is cast. "Dice" is plural. --Trovatore (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose -- said well above. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 6–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Humanitarianism

There is not as much to write about this than the difficult issue of social equality.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I've actually been thinking about nominating this for removal myself. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support the article doesn't have much potential. Perhaps whoever added it was thinking of philanthropy, charity (practice) or charitable organization, none of which are coincidentally even on Level 4. Gizza (t)(c) 21:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support<insert Gizza's points here> AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6–3 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Fairy tale

This article seems to me at least as vital as Comedy, Tragedy or Musical theatre.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support fairy tales seem to me to be more universal than the Greek comedy or tragedy. An essential part of every human culture. Gizza (t)(c) 21:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support A major genre of traditional narrative stories and folklore. Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support -- good idea. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm more of the view that comedy and tragedy aren't that vital and could be removed. Cobblet (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose What is the reasoning here? Seriously, aside from Gizza's universalization point there isn't a single argument but just a lot of people's feelings. "Fairy Tale" gets 200,000 Google Scholar hits. Pretty good, about the same as 'Hamlet' gets. But, that isn't really in the same class as Opera, Dance, or Theater which each have millions of hits. But really: Folklore (with 1 million hits) is the add if there is any need for something universal. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose AbstractIllusions makes a good suggestion. Folklore may be the better option. Gizza (t)(c) 00:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Added, 6–3 Rreagan007 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Comics

I don't see that comics are just a type of drawing. Comics are an independent medium or art form which has its own language and history. Both European, American and Japanese comic artists have created significant artistic works. The can't be listed in the article about drawing[6], it's a different culture.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support unique medium. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support independent medium. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support though if we end up over quota after all these changes I might support removing it later. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I oppose the choice of such a recent medium when there are far older media like textile arts, calligraphy, ceremonial objects like masks, or decorative arts such as jewellery that aren't listed. All of these have had far deeper cultural significance to many cultures around the world than comics have had in the last century. All of these are prized as works of art and intensively studied in anthropology. Even body art like tattoos is highly significant in many cultures and subcultures past and present. Cobblet (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose convinced by Cobblet that there are many equally notable art forms out there and comics don't necessarily stand out from the pack. Gizza (t)(c) 22:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose simply too recent a media form to be vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Tattoo and Jewellery are both interesting proposals for this level as well; I feel that none of the others Cobblet suggests are as important. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
When's the last time you went to an art museum that didn't only specialize in the European tradition? I have a longstanding concern that this list reinforces a generally Western view about what "high art" is. I sympathize with fans of comics that want to see it recognized as such, but that is far from the only art form that is neglected by the Western establishment. For example, calligraphy is classically considered the highest form of art in both East Asia and the Islamic world. Cobblet (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't have an article on ceremonial objects, so we can not include them in the vital articles. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not an argument to list comics instead. Cobblet (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

French speakers often refer to comics as the ninth art. [7] (1 architecture, 2 sculpture, 3 painting, 4 dance, 5 music, 6 poetry, 7 cinema, 8 television, 9 comic strips or theatre) Design covers many applied arts. --Thi (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this the French Wikipedia? Cobblet (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Music, translated poetry, film etc. can communicate ideas across language barriers. I would remove first the video games. They are first world products and public libraries have offered more comics and graphic novels than video games. --Thi (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow you – we're not talking about video games as art. (They could still be vital as a form of mass entertainment.) The paradigm you've quoted reflects the standard Western notion of "high art" that simply does not reflect the diversity of the world's artistic traditions. We should not be perpetuating the same biases here. If video games can be considered a first-world phenomenon, the same is just as true of comics. Cobblet (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
Not removed, 2-3 Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Infant

I don't think we need to list both child and infant at this level, since (according to the article) "a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty", so that should cover anything "infant" would cover. An infant is just a young child.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support As someone with an infant, I vote for anything that gets rid of them. But seriously, I agree with Gizza in general, but think the overlap here is clear and is reflected in the organization of medical journals more generally where, for example, adolescence has two dedicated journals, and infancy has one. I'd be in favor of more additions to stage of life, but think that Old Age and Adolescence are far more vital articles simply for how long they last. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I do. Cobblet (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose Child doesn't cover all aspects about newborn babies. --Thi (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per above. I think family and stage of life articles are underrated. Gizza (t)(c) 21:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I would support the addition of adolescence or puberty. The aging process kind of covers old age. Also we could have childbirth instead of infant. We have death of course but not having the moment when all of us was born is bit of a gap. Gizza (t)(c) 00:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed, 8–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove International Space Station and Hubble Space Telescope

I hate to nominate these articles for removal, but I don't think they belong here. They are too specific for a list of 1,000 articles. The ISS is the current and most impressive space station, but it wasn't the first (Mir, Spacelab) and probably won't be the last (Chinese Space Station, second ISS). As for Hubble, it has certainly taken amazing pictures and led to a lot of discoveries, but there are and will be other space telescopes that do even more than it ever could, like the James Webb Space Telescope. Both of these articles are just too specific and I think both are the product of having a recentism perspective. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support I also regret removal but agree with nom's arguments. RJFJR (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support regretfully as there are more historic things we could add. J947( c ) (m) 21:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support GuzzyG (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose first or last, the ISS is the longest to-date such project, and the Hubble and it have both expanded human knowledge beyond Earth sufficiently to be retained as vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I think there is even more overlap between space exploration and moon landing. Even though the former is placed in "History" and the latter in "Astronomy", moon landing is pretty much a subtopic of space exploration (and is going to the moon any more important than going to Mars or exploring space in general?) Gizza (t)(c) 23:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But if I have to pick one landmark achievement in human's quest to understand space up until now, I think the moon landing is the right choice – nothing else in history has had quite the same symbolic value. (It wasn't that long ago that Neil Armstrong was on the list.) And space exploration also includes the use of unmanned space probes – manned missions actually comprise a relatively small part of the topic. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The moon landing is sort of viewed as the pinnacle of human achievement, and for that reason should probably remain, at least for now. It's a common phrase to say "We can put a man on the moon but we can't X". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, 2–6. --GuzzyG (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Yuri Gagarin

First person in space. This is a massive achievement in human exploration and much more important then polar exploration for which we list Roald Amundsen. Some have made the argument before that if he didn't do it someone else would have but technically that could be said about anything, really and i don't find it convincing. If i was to list people valuable to our lives i would certainly include the first human in space, especially with how prominent space exploration is becoming.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support The most iconic of the cosmonauts so far. Dimadick (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Space exploration involves so much more than just piloting a vehicle. Amundsen should not be compared with Gagarin but Sergei Korolev, "guiding genius" (Britannica's words) behind the Soviet space program. I'd suggest adding him but he's not even on level 4. Cobblet (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It would be nice to have a space explorer on the list, and either Yuri Gagarin or Neil Armstrong would be the likeliest candidates. But I just don't think either of them quite fits in a list of people this small. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per arguments above. RJFJR (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. Technically you could say Columbus or Cook just sailed a ship, too. But i get your point. I still think space exploration is vital enough to have a representative, but we don't have one for medicine, architecture, acting, sports or technology which are just as much deserving.

We list several explorers, the topic space exploration and Age of Discovery, but we do not list exploration itself, I think I would support that, would other people? or is it thought to be redundant to the articles I mentioned?  Carlwev  04:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-6, not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Dignity

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." It seems reasonable to me that each of the concepts that lie at the core of this statement should be on the list. I've wikilinked the ones that are, and would like to nominate the ones that aren't. Foremost among these is dignity: Kant's "insistence that persons are ends in themselves with an absolute dignity who must always be respected has become a core ideal of modern humanism and political liberalism."[8]

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support This figures prominently in multiple pressing issues today. Cobblet provides the UDHR emphasis. The U.S. Supreme Court discussion of same sex marriage and death with dignity statutes reflects significantly on a 'right to dignity', it is the first Article of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (listed before justice, freedom, equality, etc.), it is in the second sentence of the preamble to the UN Charter (!), the key issue in a number of bioethics reflections is on dignity, etc. And see below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The list contains already human rights. --Thi (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Thi. RJFJR (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Just a sub-topic of human rights. Dimadick (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The article on human rights is enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The UN is an obsolete debating society. I don't care what they say. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as per above and this being in part a dictionary term only. J947( c ) (m) 04:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • The argument that Dignity is synonymous or a sub-topic of human rights is very unconvincing. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy states clearly that, for their discussion of the topic, while they are related "this connection is treated as focal without assuming that it is definitive of the concept" of human dignity. Xi Jinping's various invocations of 'dignity' without any about 'human rights', for obvious reasons, should tell us that treating them as synonyms is not capturing the global discussion very well. (Further, while human rights are individual-level objects, 'dignity' is not. See Liah Greenfeld's Advanced Introduction to Nationalism which reflects significantly on 'national dignity'). I know the Dignity article is narrowly written, and that might be a reason for not including. But, at worst dignity is the core value that human rights tries to achieve (in which case, it probably should be included first) or they are distinct concepts and Cobblet's argument needs to be dealt with on its merits without caring about overlap (which is what I believe to be the case). AbstractIllusions (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Conscience

Conscience shows up in Article 1 of the UDHR as a complement to reason, both of which guide moral behaviour; both ought to be on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too vague concept. The list contains liberty and social equality should be there too. --Thi (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We already have Ethics to cover this. RJFJR (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not needed at this level per above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose —J947( c ) (m) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

There are two other concepts in Article 1 that aren't on our list, equality and brotherhood. Both are disambiguation pages. Some things on the list deal with inequalities of various kinds (discrimination, social class, feminism, poverty) but neither at this level nor on level 4 are there any articles that deal with the positive concept of equality – if we want to change that it will have to happen at the lower level first. Meanwhile concepts related to brotherhood such as fraternity or unity are also disambiguation pages and fraternity (philosophy) is an unsourced three-sentence stub. At least we list community. We do not however list interpersonal relationship or friendship. Cobblet (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The reference to brotherhood is probably a result of French influence on the UDHR. The concept of fraternity hasn't gained traction in English-speaking countries and I doubt it has caught on in countries beyond the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. fr:Fraternité is in far better shape than the English article possibly ever will be. Gizza (t)(c) 11:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This seems true to me. Cobblet (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Conscience is also a Christian concept and the Christian philosophy influenced the Declaration on Human Rights.[[9] --Thi (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
No matter what a Professor of Christian Ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary might say, Christians do not have a monopoly on the concept of conscience.[10],[11] Cobblet (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4-9, not removed. --Thi (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Elvis Presley

Elvis was maybe more generational phenomenon than The Beatles. Not vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Chuck Berry is the one who should be here instead of Elvis or the Beatles. Cobblet (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support -- seems like an obvious cut from the list of 1000 most important topics on earth. On a list of 10 composers and musicians it's hard to justify including a performer who mostly didn't write his own songs. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support No offense intended against Elvis, but his notability is extraordinarily lacking considering that the list does not even include Sappho or Socrates. I fail to see how he could possibly be more noteworthy than them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The King of Rock and Roll? Surely you jest. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Highly influential music performer. Dimadick (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'd remove Louis Armstrong before I'd remove Elvis. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose If you are going to have anyone from "modern" popular music, he is definitely the one to have. -DJSasso (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Definite oppose. J947( c ) (m) 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose out of the ten musicians, Stravinsky looks like the weakest IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 02:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Even if he didn't compose his own music he represents the modern solo performer so sufficiently which is a dominant part of the music industry in the 20th and 21st century. Just like The Beatles represent the concept of the band. GuzzyG (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose As per above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I agree with Gizza that Stravinsky is the weakest on the list, but I'm happy with the 10 musicians currently listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-6, not removed. --Thi (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hildegard of Bingen

Not as widely known as some early Renaissance composers. We can list the more general article Medieval music.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If she's not more widely known then it's an indictment of modern musical tastes. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose More than a musician – a remarkable polymath. Cobblet (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The section is already ridiculously biased in favor of modern composers; four of the ten musicians on the list lived within the past 150 years and Hildegard of Bingen is the only one on the whole list who lived more than 300 years ago. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as per above. J947( c ) (m) 04:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Gizza (t)(c) 05:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Golden Rule

I prefer Altruism as the more general term. The article Golden Rule is more about historical examples.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree this is too specific for the list. I supported adding Morality in the nomination below. I think that's a better article to include than this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I'd support this as a swap with altruism. Gizza (t)(c) 00:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not removed. --Thi (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Talmud

I think it is a good idea to educate the public about what the Talmud is and what it is not, and certainly this work has inspired many generations of people. But I think that it is not as famous worldwide as the Bible or Quran and not as vital at this level. Currently there is a suggestion to remove the Holocaust, and I think that it is a more vital article (there are many holocaust memorials and museums and books about the subject), even though the genocice is covered by the article about World War II.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'm the one who proposed removing the Holocaust, and I think this article is much more vital to list. The Talmud is essentially the core of where modern Judaism comes from.
  2. Oppose. --Yair rand (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The Talmud is an extremely important religious text in Rabbinical Judaism. It deserves to be listed here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Is the Talmud more important than the Torah? Is the Torah covered by Bible? groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In modern Judaism, I would say that the Talmud is more important than the Torah, and yes there is some overlap between the Jewish Torah and the Christian Bible. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed. Also, most of the Torah's influence on Western society came through the Bible anyway. --Yair rand (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Impressionism

An important art movement with many famous painters associated with it: Manet, Pissarro, Monet, Renoir, Cézanne, Morisot, Degas etc. Impressionist music is also notable (Debussy and Ravel).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too specific. RJFJR (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per RJFJR. Cobblet (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose too specific for this level. A single page on "20th century art" might be appropriate if one exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • What does the comment on "20th century art" even mean here? Impressionism was primarily a 19th century movement against the art conventions of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. The main works of this style were produced from the 1860s to the 1880s, though a number of aging Impressionist painters would continue producing works in this style to their deaths in the interwar period. Dimadick (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The current article 20th-century art needs a lot of work. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Expressionism

One of the most important modernist movements.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose You cannot say that postmodernism is not vital because some people perceive it as a subset of modernism, and then now argue that we need to add other movements within modernist art. Cobblet (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose too specific for this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per power~enwiki. RJFJR (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I consider impressionism and expressionism something you can teach to children in art class in theory and practice. Postmodernism is more of a philosophical stance, ”everything is already done”. --Thi (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why a specific philosophical worldview should be less vital than a specific art movement. Cobblet (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
You can certainly teach Impressionism, I am not certain there is a concrete definition of Expressionism as a movement. The main idea was to present a distorted depiction of reality in order to explore certain ideas about subjective emotions. A rejection of the main ideas behind Realism and Naturalism. Despite its position as an avant-garde movement of the early 20th century, it is thought that certain painters, writers, and composers of the 19th century were already producing works towards this direction. For example, Edvard Munch was one of the key inspirations for expressionist painters, and Richard Wagner inspired expressionist composers. Dimadick (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Surrealism

I think that abstract, surreal, impressionistic etc. are in general important descriptive terms. They are commonly taught in art classes in schools.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose These are not "general descriptive terms" but specific 20th-century art movements. Many things are more commonly taught in schools than surrealism; we don't have room to list all of them. Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose too specific for this level. It's barely mentioned on History of art, which isn't a reason to include it here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Power~enwiki. RJFJR (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Space station

With the removal of the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope from the Space technology section, I think it would be a good idea to add the general space station article to the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support IFF the removal of the ISS passes. Jclemens (talk)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we already have satellite. RJFJR (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Every space station built so far has been a satellite, but a space station is not necessarily a satellite. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hip hop music

A music genre that's not even 50. We don't list Country music, Rhythm and blues, Blues or Gospel music which have been around longer. I have respect for the genre but this level is highly exclusive and recent topics should be excluded.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support RJFJR (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I don't particularly like this music genre, but it has had an impact on Europe and Africa that exceeds country and blues. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Following my comments on whether music genres should be listed at all, I'll stay neutral on keeping hip hop but will comment on the comparisons made. Things aren't more vital just because they're older. Recentism doesn't stop us from listing Nelson Mandela or the Internet or video games or HIV. The legacy of the blues is represented on the list by jazz and rock and I don't consider it necessary to list pop music subgenres or music of specific religions. For me the emergence of rap has fundamentally changed what people consider to be "music" and that is why hip hop is exceptional and might deserve a spot on the list. Cobblet (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree on your recentism point and on derivatives but on that point Jazz is a derivative of the Blues. I forgot Electronic music too. Electronic music changed what people consider to be music too and it's not listed. I just don't think Hip-Hop has the historical importance yet of the "Big 5" of Classical, Rock, Pop, Jazz and Folk. Pop could probably go as it's more a general descriptive, but i think Classical, Rock, Jazz and Folk are vital for this level. GuzzyG (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
What will replace hip hop? I think our coverage of music in its entirety at this level in terms of number of articles (19 out of 998, about 2%) is fair. And if a removal has to be made, I think that at least a few of the music bios are weaker than all of the genres. Gizza (t)(c) 01:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure, we shouldn't keep something just because we might have a extra spot though. The thing that proves Hip-Hop is the odd man out here is comparing the representatives of the other genres on the level 4 list and seeing that Hip-Hop has 1 compared to Rock's 20 for instance. Country and Electronic music and even Funk have more level 4 people then Rap so it should follow that they have a higher claim then rap, yet they are not listed (And shouldn't, except maybe Eelectronic imo). GuzzyG (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I tended to see that anomaly in the opposite way. If hip hop music was listed here, there should clearly be more than one hip hop representative at the next level. Gizza (t)(c) 22:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree but a nomination probably wouldn't get through. Either way Blues should be before hip-hop on here as Blues has influenced world music alot more then hip-hop, no matter how popular hip-hop currently is and an encyclopedia would cover the former before the latter. GuzzyG (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Folklore

As an alternative to fairy tale (see above).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 00:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support A much better choice. Oral traditions should be represented on the list somehow and the concept of folklore is less "academic" than oral tradition itself while being less culturally specific than fairy tales. Cobblet (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Call it a bias because I often work on relevant categories, but this is a historically significant area of research. Dimadick (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Important subtopic of culture. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support replacing fairy tale with folklore. Probably not ideal (I think we could have something more general), but certainly an improvement over the current article. --Yair rand (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
5-5, not swapped Gizza (t)(c) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Global warming, Add Climate change

I think at this level we should be using the more general article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Climate does change; of that I'm sure. the other stuff probably isn't vital. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support -- use more general category. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Climate change seems to be the more commonly used term these days anyway. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It is specifically anthropogenic climate change (i.e. global warming) that is the vital topic and deserves particular coverage, not the general phenomenon, for which the overview at climate ought to suffice for this level. Cobblet (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Cobblet. Climate change in particular is redundant to climate while global warming is a different kettle of fish not covered by anything else. Gizza (t)(c) 22:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I think I'd agree with the rationale, but for the coverage in the actual articles. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose – The thing that is really making the news these days is the issue of global warming despite climate change being often used to describe that. Climate also covers climate change, as rightly pointed out above. J947( c ) (m) 04:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Note that climate change is mostly about how the earth's climate changes over large periods of time while the global warming article is about the environmental issue of anthropogenic climate change. Gizza (t)(c) 22:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 4–5. J947 (c · m) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Pythagoras

"There is little direct evidence as to the kind and amount of knowledge which Pythagoras acquired, or as to his definite philosophical views." Pythagorean theorem: "...there is no evidence that Pythagoras himself worked on or proved this theorem." History of mathematics is listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm all right with listing some quasi-legendary figures if they're ones that inspire religious devotion, but a list of vital scientists and philosophers ought to contain people whose existence and contributions to human thought are reliably certain. Cobblet (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One of the most significant philosophers of all time. Khirurg (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. He influenced Ancient Greek a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Strongly oppose Pythagoras should definitely not be removed from the list, but he should be categorized under "Philosophers and social scientists," not under "Mathematicians." He was primarily a religious teacher, political advisor, and mystical guru. It is disputed whether he ever actually made any major mathematical discoveries and his interest in mathematics was secondary to his interest in religious mysticism, but his philosophical teachings were extremely influential on Plato, Aristotle, and their successors and his political ideas were among the most prominent in southern Italy until the Roman conquest of the region. Of all the early Greek philosophers, Pythagoras was second only to Socrates himself in terms of his later influence. If you are debating his existence, we have three references to him from three different authors who lived within his lifetime: Xenophanes of Colophon, Alcmaeon of Croton, and Heraclitus of Ephesus, the former two of whom may have known Pythagoras personally. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    We've rejected adding Socrates to the list in the past. You're saying that Pythagoras was less important than Socrates. That's a good reason to remove him from the list. Cobblet (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    Pardon me; I automatically assumed that Socrates was already on the list. I think that Socrates should definitely be added to the list, also. He is credited as the founder of the whole western philosophical tradition. It would be absurd not to include him. He is certainly far more important than Nagarjuna, who I have honestly never even heard of. Another thing I notice is that this list seems to be extremely focused on recent historical figures. For instance, the "Composers and musicians" section has Igor Stravinsky, Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, and The Beatles (all of whom lived within the last 150 years), but not Sappho, whom the ancient Greeks regarded as the greatest of all lyric poets and whom one epigram attributed to Plato describes as "the tenth Muse." Surely if anyone belongs in that section, Sappho must qualify. The "Filmmakers" section is even more preposterous; it should not even exist. How on earth are Charlie Chaplin, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, and Walt Disney more significant than Socrates? It does not make any sense at all. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    It may be worth noting that on pages 33-37 of his A History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell argues that, due to his extensive impact on Plato and Aristotle, Pythagoras was the most influential philosopher of all time. He concludes on page 37: "I do not know of any other man who has been as influential as he was in the school of thought." I do not entirely agree with his conclusion, because I think is rather hyperbolic, but I think that this quote may perhaps support my previous assertions regarding Pythagoras's influence and importance. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Strongly oppose per Khirurg and Katolophyromai. Dr. K. 01:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose as per above; support an add of Socrates. J947( c ) (m) 04:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Possibly more appropriately classified as a philosopher or religious leader than as a mathematician; certainly more important than surrealism; mostly a legend but an important one. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 5–4. J947 (c · m) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Colosseum

I think that it is reasonable to present one architectural or artistic creation from each continent. Or maybe 2–3 monuments from Asia, 1–2 from Africa (maybe adding Great Zimbabwe), 1–2 from Europe and two from America (adding the Statue of Liberty) and one from Australia/Oceania (adding The Sydney Opera House). I suggest to add Lady Liberty and remove Colosseum. Parthenon represents the ancient Greek and Roman art. Stonehenge is an example of prehistoric art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support If Roman architecture is vital then that is what should be listed. Compared to buildings like the Pyramids or the Great Wall or Machu Picchu, I don't think the Colosseum has the same degree of exceptional symbolic value that would make it more vital than the article on Roman architecture in general. Personally, when I think about the greatness of Roman engineering I think of road and aqueduct networks first, not a solitary edifice. Cobblet (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm not convinced this is more notable than the Sistine Chapel. We have Ancient Rome (and both Julius Caesar and Augustus), another article might be called for but I can't support this one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  04:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think this is too important to remove, and I think it is more vital than Statue of Liberty. The engineering that was required to build this at the time it was built was incredible, and Romans were considered the best engineers of the ancient world. I think we need an example of Roman architecture on this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The most significant surviving example of Roman architecture and engineering. Khirurg (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The nomination statement, while clearly well-intentioned, seeks to impose artificial geographic proportionality on the topic of civil engineering. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, according to the 30-day rule, this can be closed as NO CONSENSUS because there has not been any new votes for more than 30 days.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Belief

Not as vital article at this level as Knowledge, Reason and Truth.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support -- convincing one-sentence nomination. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think this concept is important enough that it should remain listed. It has a connection with everything from religion to conspiracy theories. Our beliefs are what largely defines who we are as individuals and as members of groups. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the above. Of the three listed and this one, I'd remove either reason or truth as somewhat overlapping. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
1-2, according to the 30-day rule, this can be closed as NO CONSENSUS because there has not been any new votes for more than 30 days.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Metaphysics

Ontology is a modern term for the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Ontology is a subfield of metaphysics. Metaphysics remains a core area of philosophy. Some but certainly not all of the work and study in this field is in ontology, but I see no reason to prefer the narrower article. Neljack (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 04:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Free will

Too specific philosophical problem at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I think free will is an important enough of a concept that it should be kept at this level. It's relatively well known, at least superficially, by the general public. It's also an important concept in areas outside of philosophy, such as psychology, various religious traditions, and tangentially in law and criminology. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Advertising

Not vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It's pretty important, especially in our modern world. We often don't realize just how much of an impact advertising has on our behavior and economic choices. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I agree with Rreagan007 argument about the impact of advertising. Dimadick (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, friendship was added instead. --Thi (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Interpersonal relationship

An important aspect in human life and human behaviour. Maybe at least as important topic as some of the emotions listed (fear, anger).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Regarding "awkwardness", see texts such as the Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, the Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships, or Researching Interpersonal Relationships. As for specificity, is family or marriage or parenting too specific? They're certainly specific types of relationships. Cobblet (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We recently removed Personal life and I think this article is in the same sort of category. It's a very awkward subject matter for an article and I don't think a professional, high-quality article can be made of it. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too specific. RJFJR (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

My views are the opposite of RJFJR. This could be too broad if anything. If we add friendship, we would cover nearly all significant interpersonal relationships. We have family, marriage and parenting for genetic and familial relationships, employment and trade cover business relationships, while marriage and human sexuality cover sexual relationships though not fully. Sexual intercourse is another article to consider. I was thinking of kinship too but it's just as vague as interpersonal relationship and it gets less pageviews (but friendship gets more) Gizza (t)(c) 01:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

With our recent addition of Friendship I think we have this covered enough at this level now. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 05:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Human overpopulation

Very important social and ecological issue.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Human overpopulation is one of the reasons of the anthropogenic global warming.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support This is probably the biggest issue that faces humanity and planet Earth in the coming few centuries. How many humans can comfortably share the resources of this planet without damaging the ecosystem and endangering all the other living species on the planet and if/how we can achieve this target population number in a humane manner is vital at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not especially significant at this level. --Yair rand (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose tend to agree with Yair rand. Malthusian prophecies haven't eventuated. On the flip side, I'm open to adding something like Green Revolution though it's a bit recentist. Gizza (t)(c) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I assume this would fall under "Social issues", and it seems less important than what is already there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose this is only a problem in certain areas, and even then it is situational.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Schizophrenia

I've been looking over our coverage of medical diseases/disorders, and I think we are a little underrepresented in the mental disorder category (we currently only list the general article on mental disorder and major depressive disorder). I've given it some thought, and I think we should add Schizophrenia. When someone thinks of a stereotypical "crazy person" they are generally thinking of someone who suffers from Schizophrenia. According to the article, "0.3–0.7% of people are affected by schizophrenia during their lifetimes, and in 2013 there were an estimated 23.6 million cases globally." This is purely anecdotal, but I remember my psychology professor in college telling me that he had been all around the world studying mental illness, and the one thing that stuck out to him was that people suffering from severe Schizophrenia all seem to act in a very similar manner, no matter what culture they are from.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

This was dropped for major depression a while back. Cobblet (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We also list Dementia which effects the mind, not sure whether it's classed as a mental illness or not, or the cause of it perhaps. Compared to schizophrenia, dementia coincidentally effects close to exactly double the number of people world wide.  Carlwev  04:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 01:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Spanish Empire

Looking over the other empires we list in the history section (British Empire, Russian Empire, Aztec Empire, Inca Empire, Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire), I think that the Spanish Empire is on that same level in terms of its size and impact on the history of the regions that it conquered. The Spanish conquered or claimed almost half of North and South America (including 2 of the empires we currently list at this level) as well as the Philippines and small parts of Africa, and to this day the language, religion, and culture of much of that territory is still heavily influenced by the legacy of the Spanish Empire.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support In 1810, the Spanish Empire controlled 13.7 million km2. Much larger than the Ottoman Empire. Dimadick (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too much overlap with European colonization of the Americas. Plus Scramble for Africa and Philippines cover the history of the other Spanish colonies in just as much (if not more) detail as this article does. Cobblet (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. RJFJR (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I agree with Cobblet that European colonization of the Americas hits enough of this for this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I don't see why it's necessary to cover European colonization by country when we already cover it by region. European colonization of the Americas and Scramble for Africa are on the list and Western imperialism in Asia could be added to this level if it were added to level 4 first. Cobblet (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 10:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add magazine

Support
  1. As nom. I think that it is as vital as newspaper, radio and television at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Vital topic for the publishing industry. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose less significant than newspaper. Wouldn't make sense to add this now. Gizza (t)(c) 21:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as per Gizza. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose has less historical significance, and is West-centric. Also, if "newspaper" really has been removed, then adding "magazine" makes even less sense. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Note: Newspaper has been removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added/removed, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Robot, Add Robotics

Just like a number of other nominations that have passed relatively recently, I think the more general article is the one we should include at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support more general article. RJFJR (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support —J947( c ) (m) 04:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 22:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-5, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Fable

Now that fairy tale was recently added, fable should be added as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Wide-spread genre of folk literature. Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - to specific. RJFJR (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose there is already excessive overlap now that both fairy tale and folklore are on the list (I should've made the folklore proposal a swap, oh well). If you want another almost universal literary genre in slightly different territory, epic poetry is a better bet. Gizza (t)(c) 00:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose as too specific and major overlapping. J947 (c · m) 04:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm not really sure why we need both at this level. At first glance, they seem too similar to include both at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 10–1 Rreagan007 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Jewellery

Jewellery (or jewelry) has been made and worn by humans since the first caveman carved a piece of bone and strung it around his neck, and it has been worn by people of almost every culture throughout history and all around the world today.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  10:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support not quite universal as Thi says but close enough. If you add in the fact that mining booms in gold, diamonds, and other gemstones have led to people, kingdoms and nations making a fortune at times while it has also caused bloodshed for thousands of years, I believe it is vital. Also jewellery's significance is not confined to being ornamental. It was and still is used as form of savings and investment (poor people, particularly women in many third world countries who don't own land often store their wealth in jewellery). Gizza (t)(c) 12:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Oh, so comics (which have been somewhat prominent for about a century) are "considered to be the common heritage of all humankind", but jewelry (which has existed for only about 100,000 years) is about "fashion". Doublethink much? Cobblet (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support goes back to prehistory. RJFJR (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support A particularly old form of artwork, often serving as a status symbol and signifying membership to particular groups. Archaeologists often find jewellery used as grave goods in examined tombs and deduce the social background of the deceased from his/her jewels. A number of the victims of the Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 were found with their jewels, and we are still trying to determine their identities based on them. See for example the so-called "Ring Lady", who was found with emerald and ruby rings, gold bracelets, and gold earrings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruption_of_Mount_Vesuvius_in_79#/media/File:Ring_Lady.JPG Dimadick (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. If comics are important enough to be here Jewellery has no doubt.GuzzyG (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  8. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support as per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  10. The tenth support, basically per Cobblet. J947 (c · m) 04:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Nowadays some people don't wear jewellery at all. It is more comfortable and useful at work and they can surround themselves with other pieces of art and design and show their status other way. One gold ring leaves behind 20–30 tons of ore and waste rock. [12] [13] Great art and architecture is considered to be the common heritage of all humankind, jewellery is more about the fashion. --Thi (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I will support this, I added this to the 10'000 list a few years back before the whole voting process started. I was wondering if any types of jewellery would be worthy enough for the 10'000 list, like ring or necklace? possible not though. Also if we are thinking about things that are worn, shoe has been on my mind for a while for this level, whether distinct enough from clothing or not? a similar argument could be made for or against with shoe and/or jewellery. Clothing is vital 100 article, which could be said as an argument in favour for expanding on it here. This seems better to include than individual works of art, literature, or architecture, perhaps even better than some of the artists. Maybe.  Carlwev  10:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Going a bit offtrack but I've noticed cosmetics being listed at Level 4 though no types of cosmetics are. I've wondered whether some of the common ones should be listed. Gizza (t)(c) 12:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Friendship

People get support not only from their families but also from their friends. I suggest this as an alternative to Interpersonal relationship (I can support both).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Important aspect of human culture and sociology. Ethologists have also noted bonds of friendship in other social animals: "Research by McLennan measured the heart rates of cattle, and showed that the cows were more stressed when alone or with an unfamiliar cow than they were with friends, lending support to the idea that cows are social animals, capable of forming close bonds with each other." Dimadick (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per the discussion in the interpersonal relationship proposal. Gizza (t)(c) 20:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support A reasonable alternative, per Gizza. Cobblet (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Biodiversity

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support After so many concerns with the reduction of biodiversity with all the extinctions going on, the term has entered everyday language. Dimadick (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support there are suggestions to add more animals all the time but this should probably be in before any more animals or other forms of life. Gizza (t)(c) 20:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support —J947 (c · m) 04:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Island

We list land and sea in the vital 100, here in the 1000 list we have, river and 4 examples lake and 3 examples, mountain, 4 ranges and one mountain, desert and the Sahara, plus articles like Great Barrier Reef, and glacier. I think the article on island is vital at this level, it is a significant type of natural formation, it effects how life spreads and evolves, and also effects how human cultures have spread and change when isolated, they effect transportation, trade, tourism the ecosystem and many things, islands can be quite different to continents due to their smaller size and isolation. We have 92 articles in geography, and considering what we list there especially in physical geography I think Island deserves to be listed. At level 4 for example we list 75 individual islands, which is more than the number of deserts, mountains and lakes combined there. It's also more than the number of rivers we list there. The articles on land, and sea, where quite poor until relatively recently, when an effort was made to improve them, I think a decent article about islands, how they form, how they effect the weather, life, and humans could be written. I proposed to add it before, three and half years ago, and it just missed out getting a vote of 4-2 Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_7#Add_Island. Island also appears in about 166 different language wikis. It's page views are 1500 a day, slightly more than Glacier, and nearly triple that of Land. [14]

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  14:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree with the nominator, and I've actually been thinking about nominating this myself. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support —J947 (c · m) 04:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support blatantly vital topic.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Taxonomy (biology)

Carl Linnaeus is listed, but taxonomy (scientific classification) is not.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support especially since it is the model for many other classification systems (we talk of a taxonomy of XYZ.) RJFJR (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support For sure. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-1, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Epic poetry

Not just poetry, a distinct genre. Specific works such as Gilgamesh or Odyssey have been removed from the list so it makes sense to add a general article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support the most significant genre in nearly every ancient civilization. Gizza (t)(c) 21:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak support as per above. J947 (c · m) 04:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Important historical genre of literature. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too specific. RJFJR (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn, human migration was added instead. --Thi (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Immigration

An important social, economical and political topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

#Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We don't need both Human migration and Immigration listed at this level, as there is too much overlap. The broader topic should be listed, and that is Human migration.
Discuss
  • Would Human migration be better? AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Good suggestion. Emigration is an important, overlooked side to migration. Human migration should discuss both immigration and emigration. Gizza (t)(c) 22:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure that we need to include both Human migration and Immigration at this level. Human migration is probably the broader term and so I'll probably support adding that, but I'll have to give it a little more thought. I will also note that we already include Early human migration a this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Human migration

I tend to agree with the comments above that both immigration and emigration are important.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Gizza (t)(c) 01:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support over immigration as the broader topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support this is the broader topic.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not removed, 1-1 Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Existence

Too specific philosophical problem at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Just wondering: what is the difference between difference and being and is it fair to say that ontology is the study of existence -- or of being? If so might existence and/or being be more fundamental concepts than ontology? groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED/FAILED
6-3 Tragedy removed; 5–3 Comedy not removed Rreagan007 (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Comedy and Tragedy

Not necesessarily vital at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support World literature has outgrown these ancient Greek paradigms. Cobblet (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support tragedy, not sure on comedy yet, someone could convince me  Carlwev  16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Very important classifications of literature and drama. RJFJR (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Sufficiently vital at this level. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I think tragedy is less important, we don't list horror, or romance here. Comedy I'm not sure about, the article covers modern humourous performances, works and people, not just ancient Greek literature. I think the concept of making works and performances for the purpose of humour is fairly important, compared to comics or animation. But I got humour itself added a while back, which may be enough, I can't decide.  Carlwev  16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added on level 4, fails procedurally here Cobblet (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Social security

Quite important issue.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose procedurally. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I think there are better articles to list, and as pointed out below it isn't yet listed at level 4, though it is currently proposed to be added. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Would Welfare state be a better option? I don't think Social security is on the 10000 list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless social security is about to added to that list or this proposal is changed, I will close it. Cobblet (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added, 1-2 Rreagan007 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Morality

Morality is philosophically, sociologically and psychologically important concept.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too much overlap with ethics. (But an argument could be made to swap out ethics for morality.) RJFJR (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose There probably is too much overlap to include both. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

My concern with adding this is the overlap with ethics. Cobblet (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Second this concern. It would seem from the two pages that ethics is what Western philosophers think you should do whereas morality is what everyone else thinks you should do. There is currently some overlap between the two articles; some of the divergence seems random. According to the article Morality, "Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy which addresses questions of morality" — which if true might suggest that morality is the more fundamental concept. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 02:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Renaissance art

Very important era in Western art. Masaccio, Brunelleschi, Donatello, Uccello, Titian, Botticelli, Van Eyck, Bosch, Dürer...

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose too specific a time period. RJFJR (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Why is Western art getting all the attention here? Cobblet (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose redundant to the Renaissance IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 02:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Home

Now that Home is listed on Level 4, shall we promote it to Level 3? Home categorically refers to the place (not necessarily a structure per se) where people reside. One's home plays a central role in all stages of life as a place of shelter and security, among other things.

Support
  1. Support as nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Covers the same topic as Dwelling in some language versions. --Thi (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support adding Home and removing House at Level 3 and Level 2. Home is the broader topic and that's what we should include at this level (and level 2). Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support but keep House as we're under quota. J947( c ) (m) 21:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose Who is looking for an encyclopedic article about "home"? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, willing to swap Home for House but not convinced to have both of them at this time. RJFJR (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Chris troutman. It's just a little too much to ask since this is such a common subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

House is listed under Technology → Mechanical and structural engineering. I'm advocating we ultimately swap House with Home at Level 2; to that end, I'm first suggesting we elevate Home to this level before I propose the swap in a separate vote action. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you just go ahead and make this nomination to add Home and remove House at both Level 3 and Level 2. The Level 2 talk page doesn't get much activity, so doing it all here makes more sense to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The article home is rated as 'start-class' by one wikiproject and unrated by another. It also has several sections marked as need expansion and is rather short. While the article quality doesn't impact whether the topic is vital or not, the article does need work. RJFJR (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the goals of the list is to improve the articles listed on it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not ready to support both House and Home on this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with power~enwiki about not both house and home. RJFJR (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED/FAILED
5-1 History of music added; 3–2 History of film not added Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add History of music and History of film

Music, literature, and film are the 3 main art forms listed under level 2. We've recently added History of literature at level 3, and I think it would be appropriate to add the other 2 art forms "history of" articles to level 3 whose main articles are listed under Level 2.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Key topics in cultural history. Dimadick (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support history of music. No opinion on history of film. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support history of music. Cobblet (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose History of film. Too recent to have much of a history. It would like listing history of aviation. Among Level 2 art forms, the performing arts and architecture have more history than film. Gizza (t)(c) 11:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per DaGizza. RJFJR (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I have a split ballot: Support History of literature, Oppose History of music. The literature one makes sense, but the history of music is way too oral for every Wikipedia to have an article on it. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Oral? I don't get what you mean. We have historical records on compositions, composers, and individual performers going back several centuries. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-5, not added Rreagan007 (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Marilyn Monroe

Sounds silly but a hugely important figure that still after 50 years of death is still a major figure in pop culture, one of the most recognizable people to the average joe on the street, which makes her one of the most well known women of the 20th century. [15] roughly over 1.6k books have been written about her per worldcat, for an entertainer that is HUGE. Vital for an encyclopedia to understand 20th culture. More important then Frida Kahlo (Who has only had major interest since the 70s/80s).

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Relatively short career in film (1947-1962, 15 years in all), but a lot has been written about her unknown paternity (she was the bastard child of a twice divorced woman and an unknown father), her relationship with her schizophrenic mother, her upbringing in foster care and orphanages, the sexual abuse she experienced as a child, her three marriages and many sexual affairs, her various physical and mental health problems, and her eventual suicide. Dimadick (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak support highly recognizable, deep connotations with glamour. I just wish we picked a more diverse candidate.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not significant enough for this list. RJFJR (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not vital enough to be listed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Not at all noteworthy compared to Pythagoras (who has been nominated for removal), Socrates, or Sappho (who are not even on the list). --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose We have no actors/actresses. While Monroe is iconic, she's not so iconic as to be the only one on this list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Monroe was ranked sixth on the female AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars list. Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Audrey Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman and Greta Garbo are all above her (it's just one source of course but it's the most well known). Monroe seems to be in Mona Lisa territory. Very familiar and recognisable but may not be enough. Gizza (t)(c) 04:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

    • Two issues with the list. It concerns only "American film history", and it dates to 1999 (when several of the individuals included were still alive). Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah that list is not globally representative and somewhat recentist but the fact that Monroe was only ranked sixth on a list not as overarching as this one made me think that she just won't make it here. If it included the film industries of all major countries and the stars of the last two decades Monroe would be ranked even lower. Then again, if she is vital it won't be because of her acting abilities but her pop culture and celebrity status. Gizza (t)(c) 23:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

No she's not as "noteworthy" as them, but we specifically limited old Greeks so the list was not filled with them. The fact of the matter is that Marilyn is the most vital and known American woman (of which we have none). Politicians is limited to 26 so Eleanor Roosevelt is useless if you suggest her, her husbands not here either. FIlm is not limited and thus Marilyn is the prime pick. Too bad, the result. GuzzyG (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-7, Not added Rreagan007 (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Steve Jobs

Had the most dominance in computing technology other then Bill Gates, but then you add him completely changing the music industry with iTunes, single handily changing the phone industry with the iPhone as well as the animation industry being with Pixar and apart of 3D animation makes him one of the most vital figures of the late 20th/21st century. An encyclopedia made today without him would be odd.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Co-founder of Apple Inc., majority shareholder of Pixar, member of the board of directors of The Walt Disney Company, and sole founder of NeXT. Impressive business background. Also a big supporter of alternative medicine, who thought that "a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies" could heal his cancer. His death is considered a cautionary tale against quack medicine. Dimadick (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose even if another American businessman were to be added, Jobs is behind the likes of J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller who led the way in transforming the United State into a corporate capitalist economy (followed by the rest of the world). And Apply isn't any more influential on the modern world than Google really. Recentism. Gizza (t)(c) 04:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose not significant enough for this list. RJFJR (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I do love my iPhone, but no. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose If this were a list pertaining only to the United States, or to modern history, then I would support this proposal, but, since this is a list that is supposed to cover all the people in the entire span of human history, I do not think that Steve Jobs comes even close to qualifying. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose not quite there. Would probably make a list of 2000. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Weak oppose Simply too soon.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Honestly flabbergasted, i am as close to a Luddite as a Wikipedia editor could be but even i have to concede that either Jobs or Gates are going down in history. Rockefeller and Morgan may have influenced one countries economy but i guarantee the technology that these guys revolutionized will be around alot longer then the United States or automobiles (Henry Ford) for that matter. Recentism? It's a matter of when, not if regarding one of these two getting on the list whether it's now or in 100 years. Even maybe Tim Berners-Lee it's just a matter of time with these inventors, recentism is more suited and relevent with the likes of Walt Disney, Alfred Hitchcock, Edgar Allan Poe, Elvis Presley Louis Armstrong (already going) and The Beatles all of which will go before technology pioneers. The person who invents the cure for cancer should be on here immediately as well, some things are just clear. GuzzyG (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4-5, Not added Rreagan007 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Pelé

Seen as a folk idol by a whole continent, would be the only Brazilian on our list and the fact that over 800 books [16] have been written about him and that he's only a sports player proves his vitality as a major cultural figure of an underrepresented region, he's more important than any Brazilian in history and that says something about an athlete.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support considering that we have other pop culture figures (two post-WWII musicians, four filmmakers), I think is reasonable to have the most significant sports star on the list. More important than Hitchcock, Walt Disney and Kurosawa probably. Gizza (t)(c) 21:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support But Pelé is not just a sports player. He served as a Minister of Sport for a few years (1995-2001), passed new legislation to combat corruption in professional sports, has served as an activist against corruption in international football and accused high-ranking individuals of corrupt practices, he has played roles in a few films and television series (most notably co-starring in Escape to Victory), and published a number of books. There is also much speculation about his political beliefs. Despite the Brazilian military government (1964-1985) suspecting him as a communist sympathizer, he has been in recent years accused of being a conservative right-winger due to his public statements against a wave of public protests. Dimadick (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Weak support per Dimadick, who makes a compelling case for his inclusion. However, one of the big reasons for my support is because of a strange dearth of Brazilians on the list; thus if a more important Brazilian is found, I'm open to replacement.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not significant enough for this list. RJFJR (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I highly doubt any athlete is significant enough to be included in this list. But if I were going to pick an athlete for the list, this would not be my first choice. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  21:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose There are no sports-people currently listed. I'm not sure how we can get down to 5 sports names; and there's also no room for more than 5 sports names. So, keep the sports people off this list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    Also, this would be the only BLP on the list. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Not nearly significant enough. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

This seems a bit too much to me. We only list 3 articles under sport, Football, Olympics and athletics. Pele as the forth sport article (I know he would go in people but still), seems odd. Is he more important as a stand alone article before cricket, tennis, basketball, golf, baseball, chess, rugby, swimming, cycling, boxing, martial arts, and probably several more? The article on association football strangely does not mention him that I can see, it does not seem to mention any individual players, not sure if this was deliberate through discussion, but it would not be out of the question to include a section on the most prominent footballers there....The other most iconic sportspeople might be Michael Jordon, Tiger Woods, Muhammad Ali, Bruce Lee, Babe Ruth, but they don't even have their sport mentioned let alone one of them themselves....Also off topic sport is not even a lev.2 vital 100 article at the moment, although I would support it for being there. Not sure if he's more important than Disney, Kurosawa perhaps, but I would think about removing him then rather than adding. Lastly, I might be wrong, but with the exception of two of the Beatles, I think every other person listed here is deceased; to list Pelé, would in a way, suggest he is the most important or notable living person on the planet, kind of. Seems a slight stretch.  Carlwev  11:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Pele would've been the only Brazilian on the list and another rep for South America. He is also the most notable living person from South America historically in my opinion. But i get your point. GuzzyG (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The only other athlete that comes close is Ali and he is not a religion in his own country like Pele is for the continent, Ali's primarily notable at this level for civil rights activism for which we do not list Martin Luther King Jr. so he's not ahead of Pele IMO. GuzzyG (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 00:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Imhotep

Hugely influential polymath, king of architects.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support First known architect and physician in the historical record, posthumously deified and worshiped for 2200 years, credited with designing the Pyramid of Djoser (the first Egyptian pyramid and one of the few relatively undamaged buildings to remain 48 centuries after construction). Dimadick (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Imhotep is to architecture what Hippocrates is to medicine. The poor state of the article is more a reflection of the interests of Wikipedians than Imhotep himself. There are better articles explaining his influence if you do a quick Google/Google Scholar search. Gizza (t)(c) 22:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose judging by the length of the article not as important as implied, much of legend about him is not historical. Not convinced he had a lasting impact. RJFJR (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It looks like we're about to remove Pythagoras from the list, and he seems just as vital (if not moreso) as Imhotep. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

I should have mentioned he is regarded as Ancient Egypts most reputed intellectual, we have alot of Greek guys but comparably no Ancient Egyptians.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, Not added Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Handicraft

More general article than jewellery or calligraphy. Handicraft is good for mental health [17] and can be part of formal school curriculum. "Handicraft is very important because represents our culture and tradition. It promotes the heritage of a country through the use of indigenous materials and it preserves traditional knowledge and talents." [18]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose To quote the OED, a handicraft is "A manual art, trade, or occupation; a craft involving making things (now typically domestic or decorative objects) by hand." IMO it isn't an artistic medium ("any raw material or mode of expression used in an artistic or creative activity") like the others we list, some of which can also be considered handicrafts if they're handmade (pottery, furniture, sculpture). Cobblet (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. RJFJR (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose too generic per Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 06:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

For me this concept is not as vital in the artistic context as it is in the context of unindustrialized economies. Cobblet (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  • "through the use of indigenous materials" You can actually use imported materials for your handicraft, and over the centuries trade transported raw materials and completed works across countries and continents. Take for example Minoan pottery. Created in Crete and surrounding islands, traders transported the goods to the islands of the Aegean Sea, to the rest of Greece, to Cyprus, to Anatolia, to Canaan, to Syria, and to Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Handicrafts definitely sounds like an umbrella term and is very listy right now even though it may develop into prose. Taking Dimadick's example, the vital topic is pottery which would discuss Minoan pottery and other pottery. It is a very varied and broad category and I don't think you need an article on it at this level. FWIW, the even more general version of handicrafts is Decorative arts. Gizza (t)(c) 06:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived discussion. --Thi (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Level 5

Are people aware that there is a new movement this month to create a Level 5 VA. I recall a former Level 5 of 100,000 articles and then this seemed to have been deleted. Do we want a level 5? What was the rationale behind the deletion of the former level 5?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If there was one it must have been deleted at a pretty early stage – I don't recall one but I wasn't here right at the beginning. Obviously a level 5 would not have been created if nobody wanted it, but my experience tells me that we lack the expertise to create a meaningful one and the desire to solicit feedback from those who might.
It would have make sense to have built some consensus for some guiding principles on what we consider "vital" in a general sense, and more concretely, where level 5 should and should not diverge from level 4 in terms of coverage and balance, before beginning work on the list. Instead, we've decided we need more baseball players than explorers during the Age of Discovery. Plus ça change... Cobblet (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
We've got to start somewhere. The Level 5 list will evolve over time just as the other lists have. Let's just give it some time and see where it goes. Maybe it will turn out to be a failure, but if people want to try to build a Level 5 list, I see no reason to try to stop them. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually on my sandbox, i have more age of discovery explorers then baseball players, since i am working on the people list, i should explain my method. I add mostly historical people and current culture figures, i try to get a couple from each continent and i try to add a couple of women when possible and i try to diversify the fields, like what i have done with the sports list or multiple industries within business etc. It's just if sports is 800 people there's gonna be more prominent baseballers to add then explorers with a limit of 300 shared with businesspeople. Also, for what it's worth, i have never seen a full match from one of the top 4 American sports, so there's no bias or anything. GuzzyG (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Who decided there should be 800 sportspeople vs. 300 explorers + businesspeople? Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
There's been no discussion but it can always change, it's only a starter, does not have to be set in stone. GuzzyG (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
On the level 4 list, few discussions have been more heated than the one of how many athletes and especially baseball players we should have. One would think that if the level 5 list is five times bigger than the level 4 list and the latter has seven baseball players (after exhaustive debate, by our standards anyway), it would make sense that we put 35 players on the level 5 list. Factoring in a desire to include types of people not represented on level 4, it might actually make sense to include fewer than 35. Instead we have... 56. Cobblet (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah i do think baseball is bloated, but it takes me about a hour to add 100 people and i have been busy with that, i do not have a problem with any changes to the list, i would prefer though if we have to cut some of the smaller sports from being represented then to just cut the total from sports. Instead of tacking on hundreds of soccer players we need more numbers in entertainers, when you add in Noh, Kabuki theatre, Peking opera and other fields the 800 number does not hold up that we currently have. I am finding it hard though with this kind of representation, i only speak English and the English articles on these fields biographies are non existent to horrible, which turns into a guessing game of who is notable from them. GuzzyG (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It's no secret Wikipedia has its deficiencies. If you limit your research to Wikipedia you'll only end up reflecting them. Cobblet (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
There's no point starting the inevitable discussions on over/under-coverage until we get past 20k articles. I expect a few of the universities/TV shows I added will be removed at some point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Really? There's no point in asking how things should be done before we do them? Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
There's no way to know if we will end up with 200 or 500 or 1000 universities on the final list now. Best to pick a number when necessarily and change it later if it doesn't seem to be correct. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why you added 94 US universities vs. 23 from other countries, or why the extra 58 TV shows you added represent only four countries and three languages. And again, it's not like we never discussed these issues when working on the level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing is stopping you from adding more universities or TV shows to the list that you think deserve to be there. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Plenty's stopping me. Lack of discussion, let alone consensus, on how level 5 should be built and what it should look like, for instance. Seeing others already so blatantly ignoring existing consensus decided in the context of level 4 is another. Cobblet (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
For goodness sake. I added US TV shows and universities because I'm based in the US, and the US does have a disproportionate number of these. I completely ignored Europe because I know other editors will be better at filling out that section; and other contributors from other countries can add topics from other countries. If you don't want to be part of a process that adds articles without the excessive bureaucracy of having 40000 individual discussions, I suggest you stop bothering everyone else and leave the Level 5 list alone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
And what do you plan to do when the next editor, who more likely than not will also be based in the US, comes along and adds more US shows and schools? Or when contributors from other countries don't participate? After literally a decade of work, bias issues persist to this day on the level 4 list. If you don't like to see others talk about your work, I suggest moving the list to your own user space as people before you have done. Cobblet (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There was consensus to build a Level 5 list of 50,000 articles. Level 4 is a mature list and follows certain formalities when adding to that list. Level 5 is just getting off the ground and so anyone can just add articles to that list that they think belong there. This is exactly how the Level 4 list was built in the beginning. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
And the decade of ensuing discussion has not been enough to address all sorts of glaring issues. Not exactly a shining example to follow. Cobblet (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You're going to have to be more specific. But if you have a problem with the Level 4 or Level 5 lists, I suggest you take it up on those talk pages. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I've written plenty on the subject over the years and I don't feel like repeating myself. I suspect that if I had never joined the discussion that list would still be stuck at well over 10,000 articles today. Cobblet (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is level 5 being set up to be the only level that is not 10 times the size of the prior level in this iteration of a level 5?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It's a massive time spender to do the lists so 50k was just judged as more realistic then 100k. GuzzyG (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I raised both of these concerns (that it doesn't increase tenfold and we already lack expertise for a list of 10,000 let alone anything bigger) but my views were against consensus. I also feel that the bigger the list is, the more redundant it becomes to the WikiProject importance tags on talk pages. And not enough has been done on the second stage of the project, that is monitoring and improving the articles on each of the lists, rather than making a new one. If I had the time, I would make a table similar to the one at the top here for each of the Level 4 subpages (showing how many are FA, stubs, etc.) and then improving some of those articles. By updating the table every year or so we would see if the quality of traditionally weaker areas within Wikipedia are being improved and therefore, whether progress is being made. Gizza (t)(c) 21:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Some people thought the Level 5 should be smaller (~30k) and some thought it should be bigger (~100k). 30k seems like too small of an incremental increase from Level 4, while 100k seems like just too large of a number. 50k is basically a middle ground that seems significantly larger than Level 4, yet still a manageable size. If we actually manage to get to 50k articles and it seems like there are a significant number of articles that should still be added, it can always be raised to 100k later. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia level-4 vital articles by class says there are 1913 "Start-class" and 9 "Stub-class" articles. Some of these desperately need improvement, others articles are probably C-class quality already but haven't been evaluated in years. Most of the 3244 C-class articles and every B-class article I've looked at are largely complete, but do need some reference/style improvements. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-5, Not added Rreagan007 (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Juice

We currently list Drinking water, Milk, Coffee, Tea, Beer, and Wine under drinks. I think Juice is in the same league with those others and should be added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Too many! RJFJR (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose not vital enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I could change my mind if you provide a source that says juice is more commonly consumed worldwide than the current drinks. Otherwise I think the number we have is good. Also overlaps with fruit and vegetable. Definitely seems less vital than egg (food), which was removed. Gizza (t)(c) 09:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I feel like this is too slanted towards high-income nations.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. I consume eggs much more often than juice, and as DaGizza pointed out, egg was removed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Etiquette

3-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 04:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manners are important aspect of human behaviour and culture.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Seems like a core element of culture, along with morality. (Are there others of equal importance?) groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would support Aidan's alternative proposal of Norm (social). Cobblet (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose would prefer social norm too. Gizza (t)(c) 02:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, per above. --Yair rand (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Comparing to social norms, customs, and mores, social norms seems like a compelling alternative, especially if the sociology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology perspectives are included from Etiquette. (Although this line from the Mores article lead is a real gem: "In short, mores 'distinguish the difference between right and wrong, while folkways draw a line between right and rude' " [emphasis added]. Seems like etiquette aligns with folkways when put in those terms.) ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Social equality

Both liberty and equality seems notable subjects.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Clear support. Equality gets more hits on gscholar than liberty, freedom, rights, human rights, democracy. Sure, some of those are false hits, but still it obviously is important. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support probably a better article to have than the specific types of discrimination such as racism and sexism (not suggesting to remove them but there are many types of discrimination and many forms and perspectives of equality not given their due). Gizza (t)(c) 23:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support mainly per above. It is included in L4 now. J947 (c), at 20:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Cobblet (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would rather include Rights at this level first. And as Cobblet points out, it's not yet listed at level 4, though it is currently nominated to be added there. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan007. RJFJR (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

@Rreagan007: Why do we need both rights and human rights? Cobblet (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I would probably support a swap of human rights for rights, as the more general article should be on this list. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Abstract art

I think we need to know something about the history and philosophy of abstract art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support as a major division of art. RJFJR (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support The realism vs. abstraction continuum has been relevant across different cultures and time periods. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support as a major division of visual art is vital enough in my book. J947 (c), at 22:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital enough to include at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  • In general I think there's not enough room for this and most of the other proposed subsets of art. groupuscule (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 5-0 Rreagan007 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Realism (arts)

An important era and concept in history of painting and literature.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support The realism vs. abstraction continuum has been relevant across different cultures and time periods. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree with Cobblet doubly here. J947 (c), at 22:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak support Well, if we're going to include abstract art, then I guess this belongs here too. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose I think both Realism and Abstract art are too specialized to include at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

How are these more specialized than Gothic art which is just one specific style of European medieval art? Cobblet (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED/FAILED
Adolescence added 5-1, Infant not removed Cobblet (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Infant, Add Adolescence

We currently list adult, child, and infant. I don't think we need to list both child and infant at this level, since (according to the article) "a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty", so that should cover anything "infant" would cover. An infant is just a young child. But we do have a hole between puberty and adulthood, so adding adolescence to the list makes sense.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support the add. --Thi (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support the addition. Gizza (t)(c) 21:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Remove infant. I think adolescence or old age are both fine and am good with either being added. So support the swap. (Would be fine with Puberty, as well) AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support only the addition I disagree with your definition, but still both subjects are vital in my opinion. I'm open to replacing "adolescence" with "Puberty" per DaGizza's proposal under "Discuss". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support adding Adolescence. Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose adding Adolescence. Western-centric, recentism, not a particularly vital topic in general. --Yair rand (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Considering how adolescence is defined in the article (it ends at the age of majority and therefore is connected to the laws of a country rather than science), puberty may be the better choice. Gizza (t)(c) 05:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The age of majority marks the legal beginning of adulthood, so by that same logic we should remove adult as well and replace it with Sexual maturity. Adulthood, adolescence, and childhood are all stages of life, puberty is about the process of becoming sexually mature. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
+1. Adolescence is a culture-specific concept, rather than a universal biological process. --Yair rand (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


FAILED
2-5 Rreagan007 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Euclid, Add Hippocrates

Swap Euclid for a more important Greek known as the father of Medicine, his life had and will always have had an effect on everyone elses life.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. The addition. Hippocrates founded medical ethics, which is a subject every medical student must take.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. The removal, since he has been called the founder or father of geometry.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Euclid was a Hellenistic-era mathematician and the writer of Euclid's Elements. His book was the most influential work on the field until the 19th century, and is credited with influencing logic and modern science. Hippocrates was the son of an earlier physician called Heraclides, was supposedly trained in medicine by the famous physician Herodicus, and belonged to an entire dynasty of Asclepiads (a group of doctors and priests claiming descent from mythological physician Asclepius). He belonged to an entire tradition of Greek medicine. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Euclid's elements were influential for 2000 years. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I'd prefer a swap with Pythagoras instead since Euclid at least has a stronger claim to historicity and made more fundamental contributions to mathematics than Pythagoras. Gizza (t)(c) 03:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Gizza. I don't mind adding Hippocrates so much as I object to removing Euclid. RJFJR (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I am happy with the straight add, i just thought others, would not be. GuzzyG (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd support a swap with Pythagoras. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3 for India and Middle East and not removed, no consensus for East Asia Gizza (t)(c) 01:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove history of East Asia, history of India & history of the Middle East

Actually, the meta version currently does not contain any "history of X" articles at all, there are at least articles which should be added (analytical chemistry, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and David Hilbert), and the list can contain only 1,000 articles, thus these three articles should be removed (the most absurd one is history of East Asia, since the list contains this article but not its parent one, East Asia).

Support
  1. Support as nom. Though I'm a Taiwanese, history of East Asia is, in my opinion, actually less vital than analytical chemistry, Leibniz and Hilbert.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC) added ", in my opinion," 13:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose History of India and History of the Middle East. Neutral on History of East Asia. pbp 18:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose all three. See also the discussion from February on removing Hilbert, the discussion from 2013 on adding History of East Asia and History of Asia, and the discussion on removing Histories of East Asia and the Middle East. --Yair rand (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Yair rand and the archives. But as stated in the archives, swapping out History of Asia with History of Southeast Asia and History of Central Asia could be considered to take away the overlap and redundancy. Gizza (t)(c) 02:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

10 mathematicians is plenty on a list of 1,000 topics and right now 132 people. Gizza (t)(c) 02:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Removed 7-1 Cobblet (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Gothic art

If even Renaissance art doesn't pass muster a subgenre of European medieval art is surely too specific for the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 04:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. J947 (c), at 22:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  • Oppose Influential art style for about 400 years (12th to 16th century). Dimadick (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Perhaps we need a more general discussion on how many, if any, artistic styles and genres are vital at this level. The other three art movements listed at the moment are Baroque, Modernism and Romanticism. Gizza (t)(c) 23:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to discuss. RJFJR (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps they should all just be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2018

Can you change the section of Transportation (6 articles) to Transport (6 articles) because the Wikipedia articles have transport in their name? None of them have transportation in their name. Thank you. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: "Transport" is already included as a level 2 under "Transportation". It would be redundant to make it include itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand you. Why would it be redundant? Heaps of sections here include themselves. And plus edit requests are not the way things work here. This deserves a discussion. And more I'm guessing you don't know the way things work at VA and have never contributed here. Why should you decide it? J947 (c), at 08:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done for now: Because any "experienced editor" is allowed to respond to any edit request and if this change is too big to be done in an edit request, as you say, then rejecting the edit request in favor of a discussion is the proper course of action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
NO CONSENSUS
3-2, no consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add University

Universities are nowadays generally seen both scientifically and economically important institutions.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Khirurg (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose covered by education. RJFJR (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I like Aidan's suggestion of higher education more. Gizza (t)(c) 10:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

How would this compare to higher education? ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This overlaps with school too, which in some countries can refer to colleges and universities. Gizza (t)(c) 09:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Not added 4-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Research

Science is more general article (definition and history of science and its importance in society).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Strong support as being a major topic and to stop this being closed as NC. J947 (c · m) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Strong support Absolutely. I think this is a very vital article. I don't think it is too much to ask either.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't think this is a good article to include at this level. It's hard to articulate exactly why, but it just doesn't seem like this is one of the 1,000 most vital articles on Wikipedia, and I think Science and Scientific method cover enough of it at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

What, if anything, ties together research methods in different fields that wouldn't be covered in an epistemological article like knowledge, reason or truth? Scientific research is specifically covered by scientific method. Research in other fields should generally be covered by the parent articles of those fields. Cobblet (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cobblet: I think that's the point; most of those other articles are epistemological. There is significant coverage of research that isn't epistemological, and thus more valuable. There are many kinds of research and many overlap, but every Wikipedia should have at least an article on research generally. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 3-3 Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Paleontology

This is a pretty important scientific branch that isn't currently listed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support The science which has taught as a lot about the past of this planet. Dimadick (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support broad subject, global scope.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we have Dinosaur, which may be enough here. I'd rather add fossil. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 01:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Not a huge fan of study or -ology articles. Something like evolutionary history of life or fossil would discuss what paleontologists study which is probably the key part. Gizza (t)(c) 08:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 3-4 Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Cleopatra

Currently on level 4, but I'm shocked this isn't here on level 3 already. Lots of artistic and scholarly energy has been put into understanding her. The subject is a household name in quite a few places in the world, yet there are many pharaohs that are less notable that are included here and she's not. In fact, she may be the most famous woman politician in human history. Thus, Cleopatra is an obvious choice for this list.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support
  1. Strong support as nominator. Again, it's honestly jaw-dropping that Cleopatra is absent from this list. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support The Ptolemaic dynasty in general was among the longest-lasting and best attested dynasties of the ancient world, and Cleopatra VII is probably their best known representative. Dimadick (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Fine, i'll be the one, exactly what Yair rand said and also we don't list Martin Luther King Jr. or Marilyn Monroe who are equally famous - this list is purely for impact, she's supremely famous, mostly for being connected to Caesar, we do not list Anthony, in fact she led to the capture of her nation. Plus on this list i think it was decided not to clutter politicians in eras and to spread them out. (Which is why we do not have Franklin D. Roosevelt. What historical impact (or even contemporary) does she have on society other then massive fame? GuzzyG (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per GuzzyG and Yair rand. Cleopatra is the Monroe of her time. She's known for her beauty, not what she did. Nefertiti is known for both, ruling over Egypt when it was at its economic peak. (not that I suggest adding her but she has a stronger case). Gizza (t)(c) 01:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. --Thi (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • Cleopatra was removed from the list in 2009, following discussion. Quoting User:Father Goose, "That hegemony was initiated by Alexander the Great, who is already on the list, and ended by Augustus, who is also on the list. She certainly captured the popular imagination by virtue of her romantic and strategic alliance with Julius and Antony, but what historical changes did she set into motion?" --Yair rand (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm neutral, despite wanting to support. Is she known by almost every Western adult? Definitely. Did she have heaps of influence on Mediterranean history? Maybe. The second one is the most important in my opinion. J947 (c), at 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed/Added, 5–0 Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove House, add Home at Level 2 & 3

We don't need both articles included in this list, but the broader subject matter article should be the one listed here and at Level 2.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support as I have already supported the proposal at L2. J947 (contribs · mail) 01:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Not added 4-4 Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add History of Central Asia and History of Southeast Asia

These have been suggested several times to complement the currently listed histories of three Asian regions. Let's put it to a vote.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom and previous discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 07:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support certainly for SE Asia, ideally both. Thrif (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. These regions are covered in the History of Asia article that is listed. I don't think these history subregion articles are anymore vital to list at this level than History of Scandinavia, History of the Caribbean, History of North Africa, or History of the Mediterranean. And we don't have room for them all, so we shouldn't be adding these. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rreagan007. RJFJR (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose not vital enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Scandinavia and the Caribbean are tiny and incomparable to Southeast Asia in particular. There are countries like the Ukraine, Tanzania and Colombia not listed with populations much larger than these regions as a whole. North Africa is not a bad idea but is partially covered by History the Middle East. The Mediterranean hasn't been a culturally connected region since the fall of the Roman Empire. From the medieval age onwards, the Mediterranean has represented a wall or barrier between two very different worlds (not withstanding the Ottomans and few European colonial powers that had territory on both sides for a short period of time). To be fair, my support of Southeast Asia is much stronger than Central Asia and I may go back on my support of Central. Gizza (t)(c) 23:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

These regions had a characteristic style, maintained decent global influence, and are complex enough to justify distinction. Attempting to compare them to any of the regions listed here as examples is unfair because SE asia and C Asia are simply in another league of classification. As an aside, I see the current article count of 998 as a vaccancy and invitation, though I appreciate this is not necessarily the case. Thrif (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Size comparisons:
  • Scandinavia covers an area of 928,057 km2
  • the Caribbean an area of 2,754,000 km2
  • Central Asia an area of 4,003,451 km2
  • Southeast Asia an area of 4,493,944 km2
  • North Africa covers an area of 6,017,190 km2 (when excluding the Canary Islands and Madeira Islands)
  • the Middle East covers an area of 7,207,575 km2 (of the 18 Middle Eastern states, only Egypt is grouped as both part of the Middle East and of North Africa. It is transcontinental after all).
  • The Mediterranean Sea countries are connected by trade and military relations for the entirety of their history. Currently 60 different countries are within the drainage basin of the Mediterranean. The basin covers an area of 8,500,000 km2. Dimadick (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


PASSED
Swapped 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Pythagoras for Hippocrates

As suggested by my previous swap for Euclid.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per previous discussion. Gizza (t)(c) 11:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support The list needs a physician more than it needs another philosopher. Cobblet (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support In any case, Pythagoreanism as a philosophical movement is historically important, Pythagoras himself much less so. Influence on the works of Plato, Aristotle, the Neopythagoreanism of the Roman Empire, and the Neoplatonism of Late Antiquity. Dimadick (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I am not against adding Hippocrates but think that while indeed Pythagoreanism may be more important than Pythagoras himself, that would argue for swapping the movement with the mathematician, not removing the topic altogether. Arnoutf (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Swapped 7-0 Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Virginia Woolf for Jane Austen

Jane is the more well known and influential English author of the two and she represents a less represented time on this list then Virginia. She has more language articles on wikidata (106) compared with Virginia's (94) but slightly less pageviews (4,916,680) compared with Virginia's (5,012,319). Not to mention a bit of overlap with Joyce and Kafka for Virginia and no such overlap with Jane. I am certain that this was brought up sometime in the archives but was never nominated so i thought i would start it.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support agree Gizza (t)(c) 11:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Austen is definitely more vital. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support —J947 (c), at 04:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Woolff is significant as a major figure in literary modernism, but much of her style as a novelist derives from a group of Russian writers that she admired: Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Anton Chekhov, Leo Tolstoy, and Ivan Turgenev. Our article on her explains in detail what lesson she took from each of them. Jane Austen belongs to an earlier generation, and has had more of an impact. Her satirical views on social relations and her mockery of the sentimental novel influenced the literary realism movement of the 19th century. She is the first English-speaking novelist to use free indirect speech in her novels. The narrative style was later imitated by several English-speaking writers, such as James Joyce, James Kelman, Virginia Woolf, and D. H. Lawrence. (In Germany, the same narrative style had been pioneered by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and in France by Gustave Flaubert.) Dimadick (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


the Culture article is the wrong article

The fifth of our top ten vital articles is Culture. I suppose "culture" belongs on the list, but our article is almost entirely about the study of culture, not about culture itself. This became evident when I read it after reading the first four vital articles, each of which appears to focus on its subject area and not on the associated discipline, even though each of these areas has one or more scholarly disciplines (with articles) associated with it. When reading the "culture" article, you get bogged down in the minutiae of the competing theories and lose track of the subject. I think the article can be split, but I'm not an expert and I'm not sure it can. However, If there is no way to create a consensus article on the subject, it's possible that it should not be one of the top ten vital articles at all. -Arch dude (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What article do you suggest is the correct article on cultures? RJFJR (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
No suggested article. Our article is about "culture", not "cultures", and that's one of the problems: there are multiple defnitions of "culture", some only vaguely related, all crammed into this article. If its supposed to be "top ten", then which definition drives this? The only remedy I can think of is to split the article, at least to de-emphasize allthe "study of culture" material, which can go ionto a seoarate article. But if this article title is supposed to be "top ten" to address "cultures" as opposed to other meanings, then we need a different approach. -Arch dude (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
In the past I have suggested replacing culture with society, since the material and expressive aspects of culture are already covered by technology and the arts, while the article on society can cover the interactive aspects of culture. Cobblet (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
PASSED
Removed 5-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Baroque

Too specific art movement for this level. Other old European art movements are currently not listed, such as classicism. Other movements listed are Abstract art, Modernism, Realism and Romanticism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. RJFJR (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support See comments below. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 21:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support this list shouldn't have any art movements, probably, now that i think about it. GuzzyG (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Rather important for its political context. The Baroque style in architecture, art, and music emerged from the Papal States, and is thought to reflect the Counter-Reformation efforts of the Catholic Church. It was supposed to be extravagant and impressive, and to contrast with the "simplicity and austerity" favoured by the Protestants of the era. Through imitation the style managed to spread to non-Catholic areas, such as the Kingdom of Prussia (Protestant, with a Calvinist ruling family) and the Russian Empire (Orthodox). By the mid-18th century Baroque was in decline, largely replaced by either Rococo (a variation of Baroque, with more emphasis on the joys of secular life) or Neoclassicism (a movement based on Greco-Roman art, but with its proponents often having limited understanding of the actual styles of antiquity). Baroque probably represents the last time that the Catholic Church managed to have a major impact on the art world. Dimadick (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

After a series of recent removals (Gothic art), additions (Abstract art, Realism (arts)), and rejected additions (Renaissance art, Impressionism, Expressionism, Surrealism), this is perhaps a good point for us to discuss how we want to cover art history. My personal preference is to replace most or all of the specific architectural works currently listed with the art and architectural traditions they represent. So for example, if we got rid of the seven works of architecture other than Great Pyramid of Giza (I'm not insisting we keep it, but if we keep one at all it ought to be this), we'd have room to add African art, Chinese art, Art of Europe (I know this isn't on the level 4 list but we can fix that), Indian art, Islamic art, Visual arts by indigenous peoples of the Americas, and Prehistoric art. If we removed the Pyramids or the remaining periods of European art history (Baroque, Romanticism) we'd have room for architectural genres like sacred architecture, landscape architecture or domestic architecture (which redirects to house which is what I think we should re-add – I would argue that there is room on the list for both the abstract/psychological/legal concept of a home and its physical manifestation which can also be thought of as a type of architecture).

I think there is more value in listing topics that are either cross-cultural or represent broad cultural traditions than in listing specific artworks or localized art movements. This list should strike a balance between listing the specific vs. the general, and even without the specific works of architecture, we still list plenty of individual artists, particularly European artists. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking the works of architecture look weak for ages, in addition to the Pyramid the Great Wall of China I think is stronger than the others. I have been comparing music to the other art forms, we have been removing styles/genres of visual art, architecture we list several examples of works but no styles, but music we have a few styles/genres and no works, I could never imagine removing rock music and adding a rock song or another musician, but we seem to not like styles of visual art or architecture as too specific, but we are happy to list several painters/artists and works of architecture, which are more specific. I don't have an answer, I'm just pointing it out and sharing my opinion.  Carlwev  21:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The Great Wall would be my second choice if we had to keep two works of architecture. The two are a good way to represent the oldest branches of engineering, civil and military. Cobblet (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Theism

Theism, including deism and pantheism, is defined in the article of God. The article covers also the question of the existence of God. The definition of theism is not absolutely necessary at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Seems somewhat redundant. Agnosticism, Deism, Pantheism, and Polytheism were all removed in 2013. Agnosticism was added back about a year later. I'd probably also support the removal of Agnosticism, as the distinction between Agnosticism and Atheism isn't particularly strong. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per Rreagan007. RJFJR (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support not a super vital topic. GuzzyG (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Colombia

Colombia has a population of almost 50 million people and a booming economy, including tourism industry. Currently Colombia is Latin America's fourth largest economy. The country is known for its ethnical and natural diversity and being one of the happiest nations in the world.[19]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support I think this country fits with the ones we list. GuzzyG (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I think 95 geography articles is a reasonable target, which allows this and one other country (probably either Kenya or Tanzania) to be added. The only swap I'd consider is Israel (we have Jerusalem which may be enough). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per Power mostly. And as per List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population, New Zealand isn't a significant English-speaking country too. Gizza (t)(c) 20:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We currently list 32 countries at this level. I think 32 countries is enough for the Level 3 list. I'd consider a swap with one of the other county articles, but if I were going to add a country article to the English language vital list, I'd probably add New Zealand, as it is an English-speaking country and thus is more vital to the English-language Wikipedia list. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

I think most countries are more important than most people. We currently list 32 nations and 132 people. Although within geography, articles about nations aren't "only" about geography, they don't just talk about mountains and rivers, they cover culture, religion, cuisine, art, music, history, language, literature, politics, government, military and more of the people within the nation past and present. I don't think we should list every nation and no people, but I don't think 32 vs 132 is not the correct ratio, I don't think Louis Armstrong or Frida Kahlo or Kurosawa are more vital than the 165'ish nations we are not listing. I could happily list several more nations, and I believe Colombia is one of the most important missing nations. We currently have 2 nations and one city in South America.  Carlwev  19:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  • If we're really just going by population as to what country articles are vital on the English Wikipedia vital articles list, then Israel should probably be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not just population; I wouldn't support adding Myanmar. But it is the most important factor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 6-1 Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Russian Empire

This feels like the least-important historical article on the list. It's just the history of Russia in the 18th-19th century, the Russian empire didn't have world-wide impact the way the British Empire did, and it's not historically important/different compared to the Soviet Union period.

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. My nomination of the Spanish Empire a while back failed, and the Spanish Empire certainly had a larger world-wide impact than did the Russian Empire. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support RJFJR (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose It was a great power of its era. "The third largest empire in world history, stretching over three continents, the Russian Empire was surpassed in landmass only by the British and Mongol empires. The rise of the Russian Empire happened in association with the decline of neighboring rival powers: the Swedish Empire, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Persia and the Ottoman Empire. It played a major role in 1812–1814 in defeating Napoleon's ambitions to control Europe and expanded to the west and south." Dimadick (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I guess I'm neutral on the Russian Empire as there are good reasons for both keeping and removing it. Even though it was the third largest empire in world history, much of its land was thinly populated. Its territory by and large overlapped with the Soviet Union (although at one stage it had modern-day Finland, Alaska, parts of Turkey, Poland, China, Mongolia and Iran). The Spanish Empire overlaps with European colonization of the Americas moreso than Russia. Also in a general encyclopedia containing 1000 articles, would you expect an article on the Russian Empire itself before its greatest leader, Catherine the Great, who is on here separately? Gizza (t)(c) 21:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding Western imperialism in Asia here as a complement to European colonization of the Americas and Scramble for Africa if it gets added to level 4 first. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed 5-2 Cobblet (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Agnosticism

As I point out above, Agnosticism, Deism, Pantheism, and Polytheism were all removed in 2013, and agnosticism was added back about a year later. I don't think Agnosticism is needed at this level, as the distinction between it and Atheism isn't particularly strong, particularly when you are looking at strong atheism vs weak atheism, which the article on Atheism goes into. Weak atheism is essentially like agnosticism. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I can't see how both Agnosticism and Atheism are necessary at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose a straight removal. I would support this being swapped out with an article in similar territory like irreligion or skepticism. Gizza (t)(c) 20:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose It was one of the main currents in ancient Greek philosophy: "Agnostic thought, in the form of skepticism, emerged as a formal philosophical position in ancient Greece. Its proponents included Protagoras, Pyrrho, Carneades, Sextus Empiricus and, to some degree, Socrates, who was a strong advocate for a skeptical approach to epistemology. Pyrrho said that we should refrain from making judgment as we can never know the true reality. According to Pyrrho, having opinion was possible, but certainty and knowledge are impossible. Carneades was also a skeptic in relation to all knowledge claims. He proposed a probability theory, however. According to him, certainty could never be attained. Protagoras rejected the conventional accounts of the gods. He said: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be. Many things prevent knowledge including the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life." " Dimadick (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

Agree with nom. Not different enough from Atheism. The differences between beliefs that are similar or came from the same religion, like different branches of Christianity or Islam, have lead to significant differences in culture, practices, laws, beliefs, society in the people that have held those beliefs, and have had influence on history. One could argue Agnostic in its strictest definition is different to Atheist, but the difference is not that huge; not huge enough to warrant an additional article in the top 1000 most vital articles. Being a lack of belief as opposed to a belief, many atheists/agnostics do not care that they are, some people may prefer to be referred to as one term but not the other, but some people could be called either and couldn't care less. Enough for one article but probably not 2 here, atheism is the more well known and used term. There is no history of groups of Agnostics doing specific things because they are agnostic, or separating themselves from atheists or going to war with them the way Catholics and Protestants have for example....Irreligion is another article of interest. It's not even in the 10'000 list and not a well known term.  Carlwev  20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Already included in Everyday Life Gizza (t)(c) 23:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Jewellery

There will be space in the arts section if proposed removals happen, and this is a plausible addition. Jewellery has been worn all around the world for possibly 100000 years.

Support
  1. Support as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_11&oldid=1137398191"