This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thi (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 1 December 2017 (→Add Jaw: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vital Articles

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and work together to increase the quality of Misplaced Pages's essential articles.Vital ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital ArticlesTemplate:WikiProject Vital ArticlesVital Articles

Introduction

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Misplaced Pages should have high-quality articles. All Misplaced Pages editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. It is also possible to propose a swap of a new topic for a lower-priority topic already on the list.

We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed anytime as PASSED if at least five !votes have been cast in support, and at least two-thirds of the total !votes are in favor of the proposal; or they may be closed as FAILED if at least five !votes have been cast in opposition and the proposal has failed to earn more than one-third support.

After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support; or it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally.

After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and two-thirds support. Please be patient with our process; we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable list.

When you are making a decision whether to add or remove a particular topic from the Vital Articles/Expanded list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what other topics are considered vital in that area. We have linked the sublists at the top of each proposal area.

• 15 days ago: 03:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC) (Purge)
• 30 days ago: 03:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• 60 days ago: 03:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are starting a discussion, please choose the matching section from the TOC:

People

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People for the list of topics in this category.

Entertainers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Entertainers for the list of topics in this category.

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 Carol Burnett

Not as famous as the pioneering comedienne Lucille Ball.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I've been on the fence about this. While you are correct that she is not as vital as Lucille Ball, I still think she's vital enough to remain on the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose – We're under quota here. J947 03:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

• The comparison with Lucille Ball is a bit odd. Ball belonged to an older generation, and was about 22-years-old when Burnett was born. Besides a long acting career, and her pioneer status in American television, Ball has additional claims to fame. She was the co-founder and chief executive of Desilu Productions, which produced such series as Mission: Impossible and Star Trek: The Original Series. How many actresses have similar claims to lasting influence? Dimadick (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Kamal Haasan, Add Guru Dutt

Kamal Hassan isn't in the top 20 let alone top five figures in the Indian film industry. He's popular in same way that Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp are popular but he's not vital.

Guru Dutt has received global critical recognition as a film director and actor. He is ranked as one of the greatest ever by Time, Sight & Sound and CNN and his movies are still watched fervently in Europe and Asia. Dutt was known for bringing realism and poetry to life into film as well as his innovative lighting and shadowing techniques.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 00:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Yeah he's definitely not vital. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support —J947 21:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• Should not this be Kamal Haasan the actor and director, rather than Kamal Hassan the academic? Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes that was a typo sorry. I've fixed it now. Gizza 03:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Visual artists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Visual artists for the list of topics in this category.

Swap: remove Frederic Remington, add Edward Hopper

Remington is known for his historical scenes about old American west. Hopper is more famous, he is called the most important realist painter of twentieth-century America. Remington seems to me more suitable for level 5.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Neljack (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support —J947 23:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Writers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Writers for the list of topics in this category.

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 Arthur Conan Doyle

The British authors section is quite crowded. Sherlock Holmes is listed in Fictional characters. We do not list Ian Fleming, Bram Stoker, J.M. Barrie, E.R. Burroughs or A.A. Milne

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
2. pbp 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Vital and crucial. Jusdafax 06:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose for obvious reasons. J947 04:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

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 Enid Blyton

"Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field." Blyton was just a popular writer with harmless books (she was the queen of fictional food). Roald Dahl is on the list. There is three British Nobel authors not listed: John Galsworthy, Doris Lessing and Kazuo Ishiguro. The Wind in the Willows, Harry Potter and Alice are listed in Literature section. Article about Blyton is now Featured so we don't need it in a to-do list .

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Blyton was popular and prolific but her influence and critical reputation was limited. Neljack (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose for now at least – the people's list is under represented and Blyton is probably more vital than some other British writers listed here. J947 05:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose per the arguments of User talk:J947. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Kazuo Ishiguro

Ishiguro has been compared to Haruki Murakami, who is listed but is not a Nobel prize winner. There is two other living British authors on the list: Naipaul and Rushdie. I think we need one more contemporary author.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
2. It is illogical only to included Haruki but exclude Kazuo.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support —J947 04:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Journalists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Journalists for the list of topics in this category.

Musicians and composers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Musicians and composers for the list of topics in this category.

Directors, producers and screenwriters

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Directors, producers and screenwriters for the list of topics in this category.

Businesspeople

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Businesspeople for the list of topics in this category.

Explorers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Explorers for the list of topics in this category.

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Ronald Coase

Support

1. As nom. Since he established the case for the corporation as a means to pay the costs of operating a marketplace, and his transaction costs approach is currently influential in modern organizational economics, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Was also a central figure in the development of law and economics. One of the most important economists of his time. Neljack (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support —J947 04:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose why? Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

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 Gary Becker

Support

1. As nom. Since he is described as "the most important social scientist in the past 50 years" by The New York Times, and he extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behaviour" means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Winning a Nobel Prize is one thing, being a highly prominent social scientist is another. Support. J947 04:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Changed my mind, sure. GuzzyG (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not in the top 10 economists. Shouldn't be in before Jan Tinbergen, Alfred Marshall, Amartya Sen, Michael Porter, Muhammad Yunus, Joan Robinson among others, whose contributions have become entrenched in standard economics textbooks, if not lay discussions about the economy. Gizza 23:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lots of other equal or better candidates.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Thomas Carlyle

Highly influential polymath, influential in philosophy, history, mathematics and public speaking.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Influential historian. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support – Being somewhat influential in many different fields is an indicator of vitality to me. J947 05:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose not convinced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Jurists to this subcategory

Rename this subcategory Philosophers, historians, jurists, political, and social scientists. (With the serial comma, of course.) Legal theorists, judges, and attorneys have a profound affect on the arc of human history. We list many in other contexts e.g., Plato and Maimonides, however there's arguably (no pun intended) room for others such as William Blackstone and Jean Baptiste Colbert and moving others to this subcategory, such as John Marshall.

Support

1. Support as nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't think jurists really fits that well with philosophers and historians. Just create a separate subcategory for jurists and criminologists. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

As an aside, the Architect of the Capitol lists the 23 relief portraits of lawgivers depicting historical figures noted for their work in establishing the principles that underlie American law. This could serve as a good starting point for potential nominations. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Religious figures

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Religious figures for the list of topics in this category.

Politicians and leaders

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Politicians and leaders for the list of topics in this category.

Add Stamford Raffles

The fact that he founded Singapore and contributed to the rise of the British Empire substantially means that he is vital at this level.

Support

1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support as has high historical significance. J947 04:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose disagree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

   @Maunus: In what respect? J947 05:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Founding Singapore does not make him vital. Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

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 Willy Brandt

An influential figure in the political history of 20th century.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  21:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Surprised he isn't on there. A high-profile and influential international leader. Ostpolitik was pretty important. Neljack (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support per the Nobel prize and his political tenure. J947 02:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
6. He contributed a lot to European integration in the Western Europe.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Is he more important then Paul von Hindenburg? GuzzyG (talk) 07:52, 16 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 Æthelstan

First king of the english, highly influential anglo-saxon king, probably the most well known.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support I don't agree he is the most well-known Anglo-Saxon King - that is surely Alfred the Great. In fact, he is probably the least known of all the great English monarchs. But there is no doubt of his importance and lasting influence, as is well explained in the legacy section of his article. Neljack (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support as exactly how Neljack explained it. J947 02:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Since modern historians regard him the first King of England and one of the greatest Anglo-Saxon kings (taken from the lede of the article), he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield

Probably the most important jurist in British history. The article describes him as "the most powerful British jurist of the century." As jurists go, he's certainly in the same league as John Marshall who is currently listed at this level. Lord Mansfield was also a statesman and a member of Parliament, serving as the Lord Speaker and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as Lord Chief Justice he brought a number of reforms and modernizations to the English common law system, including laying the legal foundations for the abolishing of slavery in the British Empire.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support – We need more jurists on here. J947 01:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Military leaders and theorists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Military leaders and theorists for the list of topics in this category.

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists for the list of topics in this category.

Add Owain Glyndŵr

Last native prince of Wales, led a last major unsuccessful revolt against the English rule of Wales, highly influential and important in the study of UK history.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. In the late 19th century he was recreated as the father of Welsh nationalism.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose There were lots of rebels in medieval Europe and I'm not convinced that Glyndŵr stands out unless one is being British-centric. Neljack (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

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 J. Edgar Hoover

Don't know where this nomination would fit but he is the most influential lawman ever, under his rule the FBI were highly influential and feared and he had a massive role in modernizing law enforcement techniques.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. I want to nominate by myself......--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Removed one "d" 14:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Easy support. J947 04:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Support but as a political leader. pbp 21:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

How does Hoover compare to Robert Peel, who standardized modern policing at the Met as a civilian, rather than paramilitary, force, among other reforms? Hoover modernized law enforcement; Peel created modern law enforcement. (I'm not opposed to adding Hoover; I'm just thinking aloud about whether Peel should get nominated as well.) ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Peel is surely a more important figure. The Repeal of the Corn Laws was his other great achievement - something that had massive economic, social and political effects in Britain and Ireland. He certainly ought to be on the list, in my view. Neljack (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Besides establishing the Metropolitan Police Service and recruiting the first 1,000 police officers, Peel contributed the Peelian principles. It concerned his ideas about how the police could gain the consent and/or support of the citizens, instead of being feared and opposed, and implied some ethical standards. Hoover is in part known for corruption, as he used his position to collect blackmail material on politicians and other public figures. According to Harry S. Truman, "all congressmen and senators are afraid of him". Several of Hoover's activities and methods were themselves illegal. He was in position as director from 1924 to his death in 1972, because even the Presidents he served feared him, and feared the political cost of his removal. Dimadick (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Peel should be added too and i do not think that reflects negatively on Hoover. GuzzyG (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Scientists, inventors and mathematicians for the list of topics in this category.

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 Alfred Tarski

One of the greatest logicians of all time. --Thi (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Also had a major influence in philosophy with his work on truth. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
5. Weak support – In the history of mathematics, Alfred Tarski (1901–1983) is one of the most important logicians (From List of things named after Alfred Tarski) convinces me. J947 04:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Have to admit I had never heard of him before. I've looked over his article and don't really see any reason why he's particularly notable and should be added to the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

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 Edward Drinker Cope

Best known and most influential paleontologist.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support "He discovered, described, and named more than 1,000 vertebrate species, including hundreds of fishes and dozens of dinosaurs." Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support per Dimadick and being influential enough to have a FA written about him. J947 05:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
5. His contributions helped to define the field of American palaeontology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 Wernher von Braun

Father of rocket technology and space travel, highly important. Invented the V-2 rocket and the Saturn V rocket.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support after a quick evaluation of the article's lead and prior knowledge. J947 05:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Gizza 08:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 Sergei Korolev

Regarded by many as the father of practical astronautics, regarded as the main leader in the Soviet space program.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support as per nom. J947 04:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support --Kusnir (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Francis Galton

Polymath, too many things to list but a highly influential statistician. As the oft used phrase goes, i am surprised he is not already on here.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Pioneer in eugenics and credited with coining the term. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support... That's a lot of different fields... J947 05:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add George Cayley

Father of aeronautics, without him we would not have air-flight and he is thus, vital.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support According to his article he was a prolific engineer, inventor, and politician. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
3. About 100 years ago, an Englishman, Sir George Cayley, carried the science of flight to a point which it had never reached before and which it scarcely reached again during the last century (— Wilbur Wright, 1909; from here) Yep. J947 05:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose discovering something vital does not mean that discoverer is vital too.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd prefer the Montgolfier brothers being included before Cayley as far as pioneers in aviation go. Gizza 02:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

For something as big and important as aviation i do not see how we cannot have both. GuzzyG (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sports figures

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Sports figures for the list of topics in this category.

Swap Miguel Induráin for Lance Armstrong

Lance had significantly more international renown and prominence in cycling then Miguel. Lance was removed when the doping got confirmed but i think it was a knee jerk reaction. The doping only improves his vitalness as now not only is he the biggest cycling star he is also the clear personage of doping in sport and thus if you were to write the history of sport and you were to include cycling the fallout from the Armstrong scandal is what you'd write about before you got to Miguel.

Support

1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Support I have to agree. His infamy over the doping scandal only adds to his notability. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC
3. Support You cannot be a reasonably educated person and now know of Lance Armstrong. You can be one and not know of Miguel Indurain.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Support removal

1. Support Removal --Thi (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Support removal ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support removal Neither Lance Armstrong nor Miguel Indurian is of a profile to be on a list that's devoid of so many other influential people. pbp 20:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support removal as well said above. J947 04:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support removal Cobblet (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

The section "People" should be more diversified

For instance, chefs, criminals and jurists are currently not included, which is unacceptable since many people travel to a city or country in order to enjoy a cuisine or delicacies, some criminals have been glorified in popular culture, and jurisprudence is nowadays vital due to the popularity of rule of law, thus I suggest that sections "Chefs", "Criminals" be added to the list, and "Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists" should be renamed "Philosophes, historians, jurists, political and social scientists", then add some chefs, criminals and jurists to the list.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I Agree, as i have mentioned before. We list Hugo Grotius so we have one jurist but people like Earl Warren or Clarence Darrow are sufficient adds. You forgot law enforcement which we do not have either and could have J. Edgar Hoover. Sufficiently notable chef's are Auguste Escoffier, Marie-Antoine Carême and Julia Child. Criminals are Jack the Ripper, Blackbeard, Pablo Escobar, Bonnie and Clyde, Gilles de Rais, Lucky Luciano or Charles Manson and then we can move Al Capone and Guy Fawkes into an appropriate section, just like we should move Bruce Lee to sports under Martial Arts and Shigeru Miyamoto under designers. All the people i've mentioned are sufficiently notable for a list like this but the space is not there, which is why a 10k list would be decent. GuzzyG (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And intelligence officers should be included as well (not in the "Military leaders and theorists" section), since in some countries intelligence officers not belonging to military intelligence agencies are not treated as soldiers as in Russia, and William J. Donovan is vital and though he was once a military officer he is best known as the father of American Intelligence--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC) added a missing "c" between "n" & "e" in "one" 07:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC) added "ing" next to "belong" 07:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • While I would not oppose the listing of "criminals", Blackbeard was specifically a pirate. We have a few hundred articles on notable pirates, privateers, and naval warfare figures. We have articles on Blackbeard's former captain and de facto mentor Benjamin Hornigold, his ally Stede Bonnet, and the naval commander who defeated and killed him Robert Maynard. Dimadick (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

History

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

History by continent and region

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#History by continent and region for the list of topics in this category.

History by country

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#History by country for the list of topics in this category.

Prehistory

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Prehistory for the list of topics in this category.

Ancient history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Ancient history for the list of topics in this category.

Post-classical history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Post-classical history for the list of topics in this category.

Early modern history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Early modern history for the list of topics in this category.

Modern history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Modern history for the list of topics in this category.

Historical cities

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Historical cities for the list of topics in this category.

History of science and technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#History of science and technology for the list of topics in this category.

History of other topics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#History of other topics for the list of topics in this category.

Auxiliary sciences of history

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Auxiliary sciences of history for the list of topics in this category.

Geography

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Physical geography

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Physical geography for the list of topics in this category.

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 Balearic Islands

The Balearic Islands are an autonomous community in Spain with their own history and culture and are comparable to other European islands on the list. Their population is larger than the Faroe Islands and Sardinia for example. Majorca and Ibiza are prime, world-famous tourist destinations. Gizza 01:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 01:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support. As I state below, I think we are too light on islands in the current list, especially ones with unique cultures/languages or flora and fauna. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Gpapazian (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support —J947 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
8. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
9. Support The Balearic Islands have an estimated population of 1,107,220 people. That is larger than the population of several independent states, such as Montenegro, Luxembourg, and Malta. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 Bermuda

We are still well under quota in geography. And in the same line as the added islands that have unique geography, culture, or flora and fauna, I think Bermuda should definitely be added to the list.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)

   @Rreagan007:, you forgot to add the date and time of your cast of support vote.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

   Yeah, I noticed that. I'm not sure why the timestamp didn't show up in my signature. I'll try to figure out how to add that in. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

   It didn't show up because you accidentally typed ~~~ instead of ~~~~. You can avoid that mistake by always clicking 'Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~' below the editing window. J947 18:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 04:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support – Probably most vital of all these proposals here (islands). J947 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
8. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 Cayman Islands

Another island group that should be added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
2. Support, tentatively – I don't know anything that makes this island group particularly special, and it will become the weakest in the Caribbean, but I'm all in for adding more to this under-quota section. J947 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Weak support I suggested the Cayman Islands because they're the most famous tax haven in the world and one of the most famous offshore financial centres (along with Switzerland and nowadays Panama post-Panama Papers). Then again, it may be preferable to add the concepts of tax avoidance or tax evasion in the business and economics or law sections instead of adding these islands, which is why my support isn't strong. Gizza 11:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 Channel Islands and Isle of Man

More islands that should be added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
2. Support – I'd say they'd both be more important than Novaya Zemlya, hence my vote. J947 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Another island group that should be added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
2. Support as we're at a considerable Asian shortage in the Indian Ocean. J947 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 Jeju Island

Another island that should be added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Fine, weak support to get it to the barrier. J947 18:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

While I mentioned Jeju, I am not so sure about it. They are South Korea's most famous islands and a tourist destination but are they sufficiently different from the rest of Korea in terms of culture or history (or something else)? I don't know enough about Jeju to reach a conclusion. Gizza 11:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Marking as neutral on this one; South Korean editors could help. J947 03:57, 26 October 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 Socotra

Another island that should be added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
2. Support as we're at a considerable Asian shortage in the Indian Ocean. J947 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support --Thi (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 ABC islands (Lesser Antilles), Remove Curaçao

Another island group that should be added, but we don't need Curaçao separately as it's part of this group.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
2. Support logical swap. Gizza 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support, tentatively – Even though this is not a well-known term, it would be a useful umbrella for them as I don't think that these particular islands would make the cut separately. J947 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

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 American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands

More islands that should be added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
2. Both more vital than New Britain, hence support. J947 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Another island group that should be added. They are geographically unique as they are the only major islands in that part of the South Atlantic Ocean.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support, tentatively. J947 03:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'oppose Why? Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose no significant history or anything else to speak of. Not even the next British Overseas Territory to consider. Barely inhabited. Quite close to the Falklands and the Antarctic Peninsula which are listed. Gizza 23:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

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 Mayotte

Mayotte is the only Overseas region of France that is not listed (the others are Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Réunion). We also have some other overseas French collectivities and territories considered to generally be less important than the regions, such as French Polynesia and New Caledonia.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support as per nom. J947 04:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support --Thi (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Since it is a major destination for illegal immigrants.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add British Indian Ocean Territory

As Gizza points out in the above nomination, this is the more well-known term for the Indian Ocean island chain that encompasses the Chagos Archipelago and surrounding islands. It also appears to be the more inclusive topic, as according to the articles, the Chagos Archipelago includes about 60 islands while the British Indian Ocean Territory includes over 1,000 islands.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support, tentatively – Fine. My support for inclusion of more islands in the Indian Ocean and this being a below quota section, pushes me here, not to forget the historical significance here. As always, we can move this out upon further developments here, but I think in the meantime that it should serve here, although perhaps just as a placeholder. J947 04:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support, was on the fence and wouldn't have supported if it wasn't for the forced depopulation of the Chagossians by the Americans and British on the islands in order to set up a military base. Don't think there is any other place in the world where that has happened to the same degree in modern times. It's something that people need to learn about. Gizza 22:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

I know this term for the islands but I personally think the overlap between the article and Chagos Archipelago pushes this marginally below the barrier; balanced out by my support for inclusion of more islands in the Indian Ocean and this being a below quota section. Marking as neutral. J947 05:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not vital for anyone to know about. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Close?

@Thi: Would you please close some of these discussions above. It would be good to get a better idea of the below-quotaness of this section. J947 04:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@J947: I've close all the proposals in the geography section which already meet the "15-day rule" which explicitly states that any proposal which has at least five votes have been cast in support and at least two-thirds of the total votes are in favour of it after 15 days since the initiation of it can be closed as PASSED.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. J947 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Parks and preserves

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Parks and preserves for the list of topics in this category.

Countries

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Countries for the list of topics in this category.

Regions and country subdivisions

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Regions and country subdivisions for the list of topics in this category.

Add Pacific Islands

I'm surprised it isn't here!

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Geography's the most important thing to cover so i don't mind overlap here. GuzzyG (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose double coverage. Geography is not the most important thing to cover.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

My concern is the overlap. Oceania as a whole consists of Australasia, Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. We list all of these island groups separately. And the Pacific Islands refer to Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia collectively. It's pretty much Oceania minus Australia. I feel that this is a bit like adding British Overseas Territories (the UK minus the British Isles) or Territories of the United States. Gizza 21:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Australasia

Often used term. J947 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'Oppose why? That a term is often used does not mean we need to include it when the areas it covers are already separately included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Cities

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography#Cities for the list of topics in this category.

Add Adelaide

Adelaide is an important Australian city, being the centre of South Australia. J947 02:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Support

Support as nominator. J947 02:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Support for now as we are under quota. Adelaide and South Australia's modern history is a bit different from the rest of Australia as it was the one colony that did not receive convicts. Gizza 03:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  01:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support This list is supposed to be tailored to the English Misplaced Pages, and Australia is one of the major English-speaking countries, which means it should have more cities listed than non-English speaking countries of comparable population size. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, but only due to urbanisation. J947 04:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: There are a lot of cities of equal population and prominence to Adelaide in other countries that aren't, and perhaps shouldn't be, on the list. 5 cities on the VA is too many for a country of just over 20 million people. pbp 03:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

   --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose – I've withdrawn this, but having large support I've left this open. Upon reflection Australia–despite being a major country, the definite most vital country in Oceania, and having a very high urbanisation percentage—should have as a maximum 5 cities here. Canberra is probably marginally more important than Adelaide due to it being the capital city of a G20 member, which is a pretty considerable level of vitality. Definitely when Australia is at 28/29 million people this should be proposed again, as the population there is rapidly rising for a country in the western world. J947 03:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

   Also, this page view comparison shows that Canberra is by readers considered the 3rd most important city in Australia, compared to Adelaide at 6. By number of watchers Canberra still edges it out. I cheekily watchlisted Melbourne to have it equal with Sydney. :) J947 05:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose the list of cities shouldn't accentuate bias. Gizza 22:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

   This list is meant to be tailored to the English Misplaced Pages, so it will by design have a certain bias to it. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

   Nope. J947 04:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

   The front page clearly says that "This list is tailored to the English-language Misplaced Pages", and I think that makes perfect sense, as there is a general list of 10,000 vital articles for all Wikipedias here: . Just trying to duplicate that list here would be a stupid waste of time. I've actually never looked at that FAQ you linked to, and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about its creation. It also seems specifically written for the Level 3 list, not this one. Even so, I don't think it accurately reflects the current consensus, as English literature was recently added at Level 3. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

   English literature was added because literature in English is most common and had and enormous impact on the field of literature. Also, bias issues don't change from level to level here. J947 04:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

   So please explain to me what you think "This list is tailored to the English-language Misplaced Pages" means. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

1. Oppose What makes Adelaide a city everyone needs to know about? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Canberra

Capital of major country. J947 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  02:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support The capital city of Australia should definitely be on the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Gizza 22:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

This looks similar to other cities already listed, Brasília, Washington, D.C. and Wellington. All being planned capitals, and not the most populous nations in their countries. Washington, D.C. is slightly higher population, but Wellington and Brasília have about the same population as Canberra, and we list them.  Carlwev  02:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Brasilia's metro population is nearly 3 million though. Wellington's is about the same but is a more influential and important city within NZ (having a smaller overall population) than Canberra is to Australia. I'm swayed a bit by pbp's oppose above. Despite being very urban, Australia shouldn't have six cities considering its population size. Not at least until other underrepresented countries get an increase first. Gizza 04:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This list is supposed to be tailored to the English Misplaced Pages, and Australia is an English-speaking country, which means it should have more cities listed than non-English speaking countries of comparable population size. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As an Australian I disagree with that. Most of the younger middle-class and above around the world due to globalization are becoming literate in English anyway. You learn about the whole world in an encyclopedia, not just the parts that happen to speak the same language as you. Also the English-speaking world (in terms of Misplaced Pages readers) is much bigger than the Five Eyes. See File:English_Wikipedia_–_Most_popular_edition_of_Wikipedia_by_country_–_Wikimedia_Traffic_Analysis_Report_–_1_Jul_2009-31_Oct_2013.svg. Gizza 22:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you really addressed the point that this list is by design meant to be tailored to the English Misplaced Pages and include the most vital articles to readers of the English Misplaced Pages. One good measure of that is article view counts. If we look at Canberra verses other cities currently being nominated (Dire Dawa, Enugu, and Da Nang) the Canberra article has a higher view count than all of those others combined. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be tailored to the English-speaking countries though. That's a subjective opinion. The language someone speaks hardly changes what is vital to read in an encyclopedia IMO. The only thing I'll concede is having more articles on the English language itself (and we have Old English and Middle English here). A French Misplaced Pages may have Old French and Middle French in its place but I don't honestly see why any other article has to be different across different Wikipedias. Part of the reason why vital articles was created in the first place was to address systemic bias and move towards a globalization of topics here. Gizza 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The "vital" part of this list is subjects on which it is vital for the English Misplaced Pages to have a high quality article on. I think it is more vital for the English Misplaced Pages to have a high quality article on the capital city of a major English-speaking nation than for it to have a high-quality article on the other non-English speaking cities mentioned above. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• If Canberra is added, there's a serious case for Sacramento, California being added. California has more people than Australia (by more than 10 million). Each currently have four cities on the list (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane vs. LA, San Fran, San Jose and San Diego). Sacramento is a bigger metro area than Canberra (a lot bigger, actually: 2 million vs. about half a million). Both are capitals. Both places speak English. If Canberra is added, there's a strong case for probably 20 other American cities, dozens of other cities in English-speaking countries, and dozens, perhaps a hundred, of cities in non-English-speaking country. pbp 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed Canberra is just not vital (unless the geography quota goes up to 1300 or 1400 again). One thing to note though, is that Canberra is the capital of a nation and just a state (albeit a big one like California). But I don't think that's enough to make it vital. Cities with populations under half a million need something much more. Gizza 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Nantes

Highest populated city in France not on the list. France is underrepresented comparing to Germany, the UK, and Italy. J947 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Da Nang

There are a few Southeast Asian countries that are underrepresented in the cities section. Thailand and Vietnam for instance only have two cities each. Da Nang is the political, financial culture centre of Central Vietnam and is the third largest city after Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) and Hanoi by urbanization and economy. Gizza 23:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 23:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  02:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support. There are clearly bias issues here. J947 03:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support --Thi (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I think Vietnam deserves at least 3 cities, outside China, Japan and Korea, the rest of East Asia seems a little underrepresented, this city has 1.3 million people and over 1000 years history.  Carlwev  02:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Enugu

As the most important city in southeastern Nigeria and where coal in Nigeria was first discovered.

Support

1. Support as per nom. Stanleytux (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Weak Support Africa is underrepresented and we are significantly under quota although our coverage of Nigeria is OK. It's also the cultural capital of Igboland and the former Biafran state. However, there are bigger holes as far as African cities go. Gizza 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support – As Nigeria has a pretty large population and this being culturally significant, I believe this should be added. I'm going to find more African cities to nominate. J947 04:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  19:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Nampula, Soweto, Gaborone, and Windhoek

Southern Africa is under represented. Also, I would like to move Mozambique, Angola, Zambia, and Zimbabwe into that sub-section as it is too small for my liking. J947 05:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 05:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Windhoek and Gaborone pbp 00:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Soweto, which is part of Greater Johannesburg (already listed). I think adding well-known parts of metropolitan areas will open the gates to too many proposals when we just don't have the space. It would be like listing Manhattan alongside New York City, Kawasaki with Tokyo, City of Westminster with London and New Delhi with Delhi. And potentially many more. Gizza 23:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

I think that any city/suburb with over 1 million people should be included, thus justifying Soweto. Definite support for Windhoek/Gaborone as there are no reps of Namibia/Botswana. Nampula I only have a weak support for, but still so for a rep of North Mozambique; as we have South and Central. J947 19:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Haiphong and Phuket Province

Southeast Asia (except Indonesia) is very under represented. These 2 are major centres, and will bring Vietnam up to ~24,000,000 per city, and Thailand to ~23,000,000. J947 05:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Also, don't let the size of the Phuket City article fool you; it is a major tourism centre. Another city in Thailand with an underwhelming article is the much bigger Nonthaburi. J947 05:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support for Phuket Province. --Thi (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Adding Phuket Province (Phuket island) to Regions subsection is maybe a better choice. --Thi (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. We might as well see how this goes, though, and perhaps propose a swap afterwards. J947 03:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it. Note to closer – put Phuket Province in the 'Islands' sub-section. J947 19:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Dire Dawa

Ethiopia appears to be the only country with over a population of 100 million with only one city on the list (being the capital Addis Adaba). Dire Dawa is one of the two chartered cities in Ethiopia along with Addis Adaba, signifying its importance to the country. Every other part of Ethiopia is administered as a regional state.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 05:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Full support and trout whoever made this. :) J947 05:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  19:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

• I think I would support Gondar as the second Ethiopian city. More populous and a former capital. pbp 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Dire Dawa has a larger metropolitan population although to be frank, as we're 36 articles under the current quota (and there are still some inconsequential seas and straits that could be removed or amalgamated) Gondar should be included too. Gizza 02:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've proposed it. J947 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Gondar

Per above. Ethiopia is under-represented and has a high enough population in my opinion to automatically warrant three cities included. J947 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Arts

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts for the list of articles in this category.

Architecture

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Architecture for the list of articles in this category.

Cultural venues

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Cultural venues for the list of articles in this category.

Literature

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Literature for the list of articles in this category.

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 Prose poetry

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
3. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support —J947 01:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Music

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Music for the list of topics in this category.

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 Medieval music, Renaissance music, Classical period (music), Romantic music, 20th-century classical music, Contemporary classical music

I was surprised to find that these were not listed.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support I find the classical music tradition historically significant. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support - Vital in my view. Good add. Jusdafax 06:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support, tentatively. J947 04:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Good point; how should we reconcile the quota—take ten from Astronomy and add it to Arts? ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I've always viewed the various section quotas as more of a guideline rather than a hard limit. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Performing arts

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Performing arts for the list of articles in this category.

Visual arts

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

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 Taxidermy

We have some artforms such as collage, watercolor, origami, taxidermy is perhaps as well known. It's been practiced in some form since ancient times, and is still practiced today. Numerous purposes, like religious and ritualistic in ancient time, simple decoration, hunting trophies, education purposes in museums etc. More vital than many individual statues, paintings, songs and movies listed.

Support

1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  19:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Gizza 03:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
5. pbp 14:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
8. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
9. Support though we are over-quota here. J947 01:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Modern visual arts

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Modern visual arts for the list of topics in this category.

Fictional characters

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Fictional characters for the list of articles in this category.

Is Aladdin a character?

I think the section of "Fictional characters" is confusing. It includes Aladdin, but technically, Aladdin is not an article about a fictional character "Aladdin" but about a folk tale featuring Aladdin. Cinderella is also an article about a certain type of folk tale, not focusing on a fictional character. Judging from other entries in "Fictional characters", however, it seems that the articles about fictional characters themselves are required - for example, we need the article of Peter Pan separate from Peter and Wendy (the literary work in which Peter Pan appears) and that of Superman separate from Superman (comic book). I think the categorisation is confusing ... How about making a category about folk tales and moving Aladdin and Cinderella to it? --saebou (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

All Disney 'characters' are based on folk tales, so is an incredible amount of literature considering. I'm not sure it's worth changing, since modern perception treats the character as being synonymous with the story, eg if I mention 'little red riding hood', one can hardly separate the character from the story, as they are basically the same thing, a fusion. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I will say if one does not know how the lists work, how they are arranged, one may get the impression an important topic is missing when it is not. In literature, lists of novels, books, works of fiction you will not find Tarzan, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter Count Dracula or Aladdin (or their authors in people either). If you look at video games you will see Tetris, Pokemon and Pong, but not Mario. One may think these are missing, but they not. For Aladdin, I suppose we do list One Thousand and One Nights also in literature. Count Dracula and Mario, could perhaps appear as Dracula and Super Mario in literature and video games instead. For something like Harry Potter, that main overview of the whole topic article at that title does appear to be the best one, the article about the whole franchise in all mediums and its impact on real world culture. It is listed in characters, and there is also Harry Potter (character) that exists, which woulds make more logical sense to list under characters, as one is about the character and the other the franchise, but the main overview article is obviously more vital. One could simply list Mario or Super Mario under video games next to Pokemon, they both have information on the franchise outside of vedeogames like Toys and TV shows. But for something like Count Dracula, Peter Pan, Aladdin, Cinderella, I suppose they originated in literature but the franchise, for want of a better word, spreads across several different mediums, like movies, TV shows, toys, stage, games, and the articles cover much of this, they could be listed in literature, but some may not like it...One more thing I believe in general when the topics have been split into different articles, the articles on the overall franchise eg Harry Potter is better than the article on the one character eg Harry Potter (character). Information on what has been released in the real world, and its design, creation and impact in the real world is normally more important than a fictional biography that tells you where a character's fictional birth took place etc. A good overview would contain the basics of the fictional biography anyhow, plus any important side characters that a fictional biography of the single character should not cover.  Carlwev  05:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion for the list of articles in this category.

Philosophy

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Philosophy for the list of articles in this category.

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 Humanism

Important philosophical/ethical concept that should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support – We're under-quota here. The overlap isn't enough for me to consider opposing this. J947 01:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Secular humanism is covered by Atheism and History of Atheism. Renaissance humanism is another article. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Add concept

Support

1. As nom. No doubt it is a vital term in philosophy of language.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support – Just from reading this: Concepts are the fundamental building blocks of our thoughts and beliefs. Perhaps even level 3! J947 01:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'oppose Per User:Maunus/Vitality. There is no significant literature about this term to my knowledge, and the concept of concept is not something that is a major discussion or topic in philosophy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I had proposed to add it before, however later the proposal failed (cf. /Archive_46#Add_concept).--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Religion and spirituality

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Religion and spirituality for the list of topics in this category.

Add Buddhist texts

Although the list already contains some articles on particular Buddhist texts, it still lacks an overview article on Buddhist texts.

Support

1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed at this level!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose if we add this we would have to add it for another four or five religions as a minimum. Gizza 10:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Weak Oppose – I respect RekishiEJ's opinion, though systemic bias brings me here. J947 01:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. What systemic bias? Currently the number of articles about Buddhism in the list is much fewer than those about Christianity.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Add Kashrut

Now that halal is listed, the Jewish counterpart should be listed as well (although nowadays many Jews do not completely follow it).

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Apparently, Kashrut is at about the same level as Halal, taking into account the different spellings of halal. Both have a similar sub-article. Also, Kashrut was a featured article, and although the standards have reached into space, as recently as 2013, it was promoted to good article status easily, therefore could make a FA if expanded. Another interesting fact if that more people watch Kashrut than Halal, despite a much higher number of viewers for Halal. I will understand an oppose due to that. Thus, weak support. J947 01:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support this would probably get more support if the article was moved to its more common English name, Kosher. Gizza 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Specific religions

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Specific religions for the list of topics in this category.

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 Falun Gong

At present, this section contains only articles on Western NRMs; Falun Gong, which is Chinese in origin, is probably one of the world's largest such movements. In terms of its adherents, it is far larger than, for instance, Wicca, which is already listed in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza 03:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Weak support. J947 01:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, though weakly; I support adding a more general page on Eastern new-age religious movements. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose --Thi (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Falun Gong was removed around three years ago (see archive). Along with it, Scientology and the Hare Krishna movement were removed. The main reason was that there are other NRMs out there like Caodaism, Rastafarianism, Tenrikyo and Yiguandao. And there are others like Christian Science and Ahmadiyya. Having said that, Falun Gong is larger in terms of number of adherents and as you say, more widespread. I think I'll support this as well as Ahmadiyya. Gizza 08:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Islamic schools and branches?

We removed all lists, even substantial ones like list of chemical elements and list of sovereign states and more. Even though this article looks like it is quite substantial, is it just a fleshed out list? there is a category Category:Religious denominations where one can see similar articles. Why do single out the article on branches of Islam to include, but we do not list Christian denominations, Hindu denominations‎, Jewish religious movements‎, or Schools of Buddhism, etc, and I think we removed Religious denomination itself a long time ago. We listed Islamic schools and branches at the 1000 list but removed it there too for similar reasons see here. Should we remove it here too, or should we list the other religion's branches articles too to match, or leave as it is?  Carlwev  04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding the overview branch articles of other major religions would adding four more articles, which is doable as the section is under quota. The other option as you say is removing this, but I would like another Islamic branch or two in its place then. Probably either Ibadi or Ahmadiyya. Gizza 09:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of removing Islamic schools and branches, Christian denominations, Hindu denominations, schools of Buddhism and Jewish religious movements should all be added. Ibadi and Ahmadiyya should be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Western esotericism and New religious movements

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Western esotericism and New religious movements for the list of topics in this category.

Mythology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Mythology for the list of topics in this category.

Everyday life

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life for the list of topics in this category.

Clothing and fashion

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Clothing and fashion for the list of topics in this category.

Color

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Color for the list of topics in this category.

Cooking, food and drink

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Cooking, food and drink for the list of topics in this category.

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 Tequila

Tequila is a notable omission when we have included drinks with equal or less popularity like sake, cider and liqueur. Gizza 03:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 03:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support. It's as vital as the other liquors listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
3. pbp 20:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Weak support. J947 01:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Anyone concerned about the number of alcoholic drinks (13 now) compared to non-alcoholic drinks (7, or 8 including milk in dairy section)? We removed drinks like cola and lemonade with the main argument they were redundant to soft drink and Coca-Cola. Why is Tequila not redundant to Distilled beverage? I agree with the view it's at east as vital as Sake. I think milkshake was opened and failed once, things like orange juice or any specific juice have never been listed. My instincts think Cider is vital, but in essence that means we list alcoholic apple juice, before plain Apple juice, which doesn't bother me much, but still... I would still support Mexican cuisine, which mentions Tequila. But we list both Sake and Japanese cuisine, so it's probably OK to list both Tequila and Mexican cuisine too. I am leaning toward support here though anyway.  Carlwev  11:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with the overabundance of alcoholic drinks and only proposed this for consistency. I once talked about removing sake instead but it seemed that consensus wanted all of the alcoholic drinks to stay. I also support Mexican cuisine, which I think is more vital than Japanese (IMO there is overlap between Chinese and Japanese cuisine). I also think that lemonade should have stayed. And we can add orange juice and possibly herbal tea. Gizza 11:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think lemonade should be added back to the list, and probably orange juice should be added too. Cola is very similar to soft drink, so I don't think we need to list that separately. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 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 Mexican cuisine

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  19:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Gizza 22:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support for the barrier – The situation isn't the same as 4.5 years ago. J947 01:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Been bought up before, and got 5-3 votes Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_16#Add_Mexican_cuisine, I like the idea of Tequila, but Mexican cuisine, is a bigger scope article which covers drink as well as food. There are several well known Mexican foods, which could be argued may or may not be vital in their own right, but if not the umbrella article for the cultures cuisine covers them all, as well as the drinks too. The suggestion before, two of the three opposes were more concerned that the list was over count than how vital or not this topic was, and we are 90ish under count now and about to add a Mexican drink. I remember someone bringing up at some point that Mexican food is only popular in the US and Mexico, I believe this is not true, having only traveled around Europe and the Middle East, Mexican appears more popular than Japanese and French cuisines which we list. Mexican restaurants seem one of the more numerous cuisine restaurants, and Mexican food, has a prominence in supermarkets, below Indian Chinese and Italian, but above Japanese Middle Eastern and others. I think if we can list both Japanese cuisine and Sake, we can list both Mexican cuisine and Tequila.  Carlwev  19:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Family and kinship

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Family and kinship for the list of topics in this category.

Household items

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Household items for the list of topics in this category.

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 houseplant

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry, but I just don't see how a subject that is essentially just taking a plant into a house is vital enough to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose though definite support for ornamental plant. J947 01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

I'd be inclined to add ornamental plant as a general topic before adding the more specific topic of houseplants. Ornamental plant gets about 2 times as many page views. I do note that both articles are in pretty sorry shape; houseplant has more content, but it's getting into How To guide territory. Although, houseplants aren't a perfect subset of ornamental plants; people may grow herbs on their kitchen windowsills to use in cooking. Plantdrew (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The articles Horticulture and Floristry had crossed my mind before too, some time ago.  Carlwev  20:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Those seem more important to me than house plant. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There is also Ornamental plant which covers houseplants, as well as outside plants such as flowers, trees, grasses and more, but this still may not be vital.  Carlwev  02:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality and gender

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Sexuality for the list of topics in this category.

Sports and recreation

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Sports and recreation for the list of topics in this category.

Add Brazilian jiu-jitsu

Century old major martial art. The most important one out of South America. Highly popular worldwide.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Support  Carlwev  13:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Support for globalisation. We're under quota here. J947 03:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose of course not. Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

• How different is this really to jujutsu? I cannot see it being distinct, just a regional variation of the (much older) eastern fighting style/sport. I realize that the rules may have been adapted, but the core style is the same, it founder was a Japanese jujutsu master who used a previously recognized form of Japanese jujutsu, there have been no obvious variations since, particularly as the sport is fairly young. Jujutsu has been adapted into numerous types of judo and other regional variations, so while an overall distinction can be made, i'm unsure of its importance. I note that Jujutsu itself is not a vital article, Is this topic really important enough to make it vital? A Guy into Books (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize jujutsu wasn't a vital article (it should be). The point of nominating BJJ was to diversify the list as it's the most influential South American Martial Art and it was a major influence on MMA (which we list). We're under quota so diversifying our list isn't that bad of a idea. GuzzyG (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Add airsoft and paintball

Support

1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Other

1. Support Paintball Unique sport/game which is used in military training worldwide, subject to laws in most countries. Tournaments are in use and it's a relatively popular spectator sport. We're under quota quite a bit so i will support this. We can always swap it out again if we miss something when we hit the quota. GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Weak support paintball; oppose airsoft on the basis that it's not highly viewed. See here. J947 02:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Weak support paintball. Gizza 21:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose --Thi (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose airsoft. Very niche and obscure. We're only a little bit under quota and there are easily 10 more important articles relating to everyday life. Gizza 21:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
3. oppose Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Just to note that it is currently 1–1–3 on airsoft and 4–1 on paintball. J947 06:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Now 1–1–4 on airsoft and 4–2 on paintball. J947 18:45, 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.

Add jujutsu

One of the major forms of Martial Arts, we list offshoots like Judo. We're under quota here.

Support

1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Support a better choice than Brazilian jiu-jitsu IMO. Gizza 01:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Very relevant fighting style with long history and global cultural impact. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  14:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support —J947 18:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Sambo (martial art)

Support

1. As nom. Now that it's included in the 27th Annual Summer Universiade, it's vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support. We're under-quota here and as always it can be moved out later to accommodate more important topics. J947 02:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Seriously? Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

There are quite a few FISU sports that are not listed here link. It's a slightly strange rationale as there may be important sports missing that should be listed but aren't in the 27th Annual Summer Universiade. Gizza 10:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Add ten-pin bowling

It's odd that the most popular type of bowling is missing in the world while less popular versions like bocce and bowls are listed. Gizza 21:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 21:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support as it is a known sport. J947 06:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Swimming

We list Swimming (sport), but most people who swim do not do it whist competing in a professional sport, they do it for general recreation or fitness, and to a lesser degree some jobs and military tasks, not to mention basic locomotion and survival when in the water. We list other things in duplication where two similar articles exist like sailing in addition to sailing (sport), and cycling in addition to cycling (sport). I believe swimming is one of the oldest and most widespread of activities, a very large proportion of people in most parts of the world swim, and they have done since prehistoric times, it's much more important compared to many things we list in recreation. To not list it because we list the professional sport would be like removing the car because we list Auto racing, or removing running, sailing or cycling and saying they are redundant to 100m, sailing sport and Tour De France. The article on the sport does not cover non-sport information like prehistoric people believed to have swam, children learning to swim, military uses, or job uses like pearl diving. We also list 2 swimmers, swimming pool, diving, underwater diving, scuba diving, rowing, canoeing and more water sports too. If we can have 3 articles for types and diving and individual swimmers, I'm sure we should list the basic article on swimming. The basic swimming article appears in about double the language wikis compared to the sport article at about 45 for swimming sport and 90 for swimming; the sport article has more page views though however.

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  13:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support —J947 20:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Gizza 01:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Stages of life

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Stages of life for the list of topics in this category.

Society and social sciences

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Anthropology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Anthropology for the list of topics in this category.

Business and economics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Business and economics for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Career

"A career is an individual's metaphorical 'journey'." Job and employment are more important articles.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza 10:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support who would look up "career" in an encyclopedia?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

   Over 15,000 people in one month. As a side note this was created in 2003. J947 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

   That is not a lot at all "Bidet" has 29,000 views per month. Do paper encyclopedias have entries on "career"? is there a large literature about the concept "career" for the article to summarize?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

   Career beats Job with pageviews and size BTW. J947 03:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very weak oppose – the article should definitely be expanded, but I marginally think that—being an everyday term—it should remain. J947 02:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"everyday terms" are not vital encyclopedic topics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose it's an awful article, but as a concept I think all of {Job, Employment, Career} are different and in the top 10000. Specifically, career encompasses a "trajectory". And many buzzwords; quoting those would not help the cause. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

   Ok. --Thi (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Culture

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Culture for the list of topics in this category.

Replace New Year's Day with New Year

This seems to be the best page for a generic term for new-year festivities, independent of the date January 1.

Support

1. as nom Power~enwiki (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Support the new article is slightly better choice, not completely sure we need 2 separate articles at all, see my comments below.  Carlwev  16:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose It would be very strange to include Chinese New Year and Rosh Hashanah in the list but not New Year's Day. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose as Rreagan007 said, we have the other specific dates. We don't need to pick a cover-all article. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Other

• Meh. New Year should be a definite add, though oppose removal as covers the main western usage. J947 02:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss (as "remove New Year's Day")

Perhaps a New Year overview would be good. But that aside, if an overview could cover the Persian, Chinese and modern west and others, why should we list Chinese and Nowruz but not the western singularly if the western one is the most celebrated probably? Either list them all singularly or none?

This article does concentrate on the Gregorian Calendar January 1 holiday, calling it probably the most celebrated public holiday. It then talks a lot about new year traditions in other cultures and includes information on Nowruz and the Chinese New Year and many others.

But...Just for a big headache...I just done a bit of looking around, and I realize it's a bit more complicated. There are separate articles New Year's Day, New Year's Eve and New Year. One could presume the "Eve" should write about the 31 December or equivalent, "Day" about 1 January or equivalent and "New Year" about the whole thing. Which is partly correct at the moment but not exactly. New Year has the most examples of different new years' but they are very short descriptions and list-like, New Year's Eve appears to be completely about the 31 Dec/1 Jan and doesn't mention other dates really. New Year's Day is a mixture of the two talking half about 1 Jan, then several examples of others, less examples than New Year's Day, but each example is a tiny bit more fleshed out. Bottom line is, any of the information, wouldn't necessary be out of place in any of those articles as long as the lead explains what it's talking about, The title "New Year" seems the most neutral at first, as though doesn't have to concentrate on the specific day before or day after but the whole thing, including different cultures' dates more easily.

Page views and languages...

New Year - 110 languages - 538 average daily views

New Year's Eve - 59 languages - 437 average daily views

New Year's Day - 27 languages - 536 average daily views

Not much difference in page views, but New Year leads in different languages, may be as other languages concentrate all content in one article and link it to this English one, just a guess. "New Year" also has by far the most "watchers" how ever important that is?

I recon the topic should be included, but which article is the best for that I'm not sure. And whether we should list an overview article and a specific only 1 jan article as well, I'm not sure either, the articles overlap a lot at present anyway. I would be happy to swap for New Year, being in much more languages, highest page views, but only just, most watchers, and the most neutral encompassing sounding term, that could naturally cover all the other topics.  Carlwev  07:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel the Chinese New Year is notable as a holiday independently of New Year. It shuts down all of China for a week.

I'm not sure January 1 is more of a holiday (at least in the US) than December 31, and both are dwarfed by Christmas. I would support a swap of New Year's Day for New Year. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Education

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Education for the list of topics in this category.

Ethnology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Ethnology for the list of topics in this category.

Discuss The 32 ethnic groups in here appear very random. We have seven indigenous American tribes, but no European Americans. We have Hmong people but no Japanese people. And there are no South American people at all! There should be some overarching logic agreed for this section, such as "inclusion of the 30 largest primary ethnic groups, plus 10 other particularly notable groups". Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I am very interested in this section, Myself and others tried to improve it in the past, and we can try to improve it again. I would like to point out what our rough aims where in editing that area, it is not quite as simple as one may first think, although some points you raised are relevant and could be addressed.

• • In Europe and much of Asia for example, many, although not all, of the traditional "peoples" have their own nation which we of course list. Although not an exact rule we tried to move away from a long list of peoples if we already have a long list of nations covering by and large the same culture/people in question. It was deemed not necessary for example to list French people, Japanese people, Thai people, Ethiopian people, Turkish people etc when we already list the countries France, Japan etc.

• • Other cultures who are more known historically have an article in the history section, like Celts, Romans, Ottomans, Prussia, Persians

• • The ehnology area kind of tries to list significant races/peoples but tries to avoid simply duplicating the nation list, and to a lesser degree tries avoiding duplicating the historical empire/nation list.

• • Perhaps we also avoid listing "Asian people" and "European people" and "African people" as redundant to the articles on the continents too?

• • In the USA there is one nation covering over 300 million people. Most of these are European Americans, so I'm not sure adding this adds a lot. The USA population also covers all the indigenous people who have no nation of their own today. We have decided those peoples are significant enough to be listed, the article on the people themselves seems to be the most appropriate in these cases. There may be no modern nation to list, any proposed nation, or historic empire/nation may be a poor unknown article which seems second to the article on the people themselves, or may simply not exist.

• • We still list some races that are truly enormous like Han Chinese at well over a billion. But this is over 90% of China and we don't list some other huge races that are similar to nations, we don't list Bengalis or Hindustani. We can discus this further.

• • Much but not all of the ethnology list are people who are significant in culture and population size but do not have a nation or state/region of their own listed or at all that we could list, and sometimes do not have a past/historic nation/empire we could list, or the historic nation is considered less significant than the people (eg the Zulu empire existed for less than a century but the Zulu people existed before and after, and still exist today, so that could be argued it is better to list the people over the past empire/nation in that case)

• • Some people have a nation and several historic nation/empires as well, when other people have no current nation or region to list, and a historic nation may either not exist, or may be quite obscure, these people would only be covered slightly in overview articles of nations where they reside or history of nations where they did exist.

• • For these reasons we list Kurds and Hmong as they have no nation, but not Japanese or Turkish.

• • We also list people who exist across many nations and have a similar unifying cultural identity to one another, like Arabs and Jews.

• • That was just my idea of it, other people have agreed with some of those points in the past, and it can all be discussed more than once if necessary and altered if we wish. Sorry for long comment  Carlwev  10:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carlwev: Great comment, thank you. I have done a lot in the field of ethnic groups, so am keen to discuss this.

One quick question on a tangential point: do you know whether the agreed "rationale" or "inclusion criteria" for each of the subsegments can be added to the project page? It would be much more useful than having it dispersed throughout the archives.

On the rationale set out in your comment, that makes sense to me. I think it needs to be taken to a level of further detail if it is going to hold though. I will set out some examples:

• There are many populations who live primarily outside of just one country - see List of diasporas. Armenian diaspora, African diaspora, Dutch diaspora, Somali diaspora, Tamil diaspora are some interesting ones
• "Arabs" are not technically an ethnic group. They are primarily a linguistic group, or a "pan-ethnic" group. We could list other major groups: Turkic peoples, Bantu peoples, Dravidian people, Slavs etc.
• Jews are usually considered an Ethnoreligious group, as one can be Jewish religion without being ethnically Jewish, and vice versa is also true. The ethnoreligious group article has a good list of examples of each of the different types of group
• Hmong and Kurds are just two of many similar groups without their own nation that we could choose: see List of contemporary ethnic groups

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not have any descriptions of inclusion criteria within the actual lists that I'm aware of, or maybe there is but very minimal. We can discus that option if we wish. Any description could be regular text, tiny text, collapsible text. We could have a description on the page itself or link to the talk page where it's discussed. My main fear is it would be a time consuming job, and at this time there are over 50 talk page archives, discussion about a whole section could be spread out across different archives from different times, and discussion about individual articles in a section, which sometimes brings up important points about the section it's in, are going to be even more spread out across multiple archives, so linking to them or reading through them to write a summary would be tricky. Many areas, many interesting and decent ideas have been bought up for criteria for inclusion, but I'm not sure they are all universally agreed upon; some probably are more than others. Most criteria are rough guides with some exceptions rather than hard rules. I'm not necessarily against the idea, I think it would be difficult and time consuming to put in place and the rules would have to be agreed upon by all or most. Most lists have been discussed on a case by case basis, there has been some discussion about whole section criteria but I think that is relatively rarer.... Also Slavs are included I believe. Turkic peoples have been brought up, but we don't list them. We used to list Turkish people but removed it, primarily as redundant to Turkey. I think Turkic people are at least worth discussing, I would need to think about it, but I think I would support it. You are right about Jews. There are several definitions of the meaning "Jews" but it normally means more than just a follower of Judaism, and is combination of ethno cultural religious linguistic meanings together, or Ethnoreligious group as you said. We listed Muslim but removed it primarily as redundant to Islam, I am sure we do not or would not list Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc as they redundant to the article on the religion. We list Race at level 4, Ethnic group is listed at level 2 (where even gender is not listed). List of ethnic groups or List of Diasporas.... We have a kind of rule, that list articles are not allowed, there are many lists we could include. Listing individual diaspora articles, you could bring it up, we would need to discus each, and include only the most significant, as there are loads, and a list of them here could soon get huge, but we manage to hold a "History of nation" section for the most significant nations without much trouble. I don't think we list any diasporas other than Bantu expansion, and Diaspora itself, which I think was my idea.

I wonder how many articles of similar vein could come to mind. We have "history of x", a few "cuisine of x", "music of x" literature of x" "economy of x" we do not list any "religion of x", "culture of x", "geography of x", "climate of x", and many many more, and other than Bantu expansion, no "diaspora of x" (which way round the words are is not normally relevant eg. presuming African Music and Music of Africa etc etc to mean the same). Some articles like Culture of India and others are quite significant topics and articles. If we start considering Armenian Diaspora, why not culture of India, Religion in China, Climate of Europe, Languages of Pakistan. Not saying we can't. A while back there where no literature of x articles, no literature of nation/language/region/people/religion I started discussion on Literature of..., and got articles like English literature, Chinese literature, Spanish literature and several others added one by one, discussing each one at a time, now we have a list of the most significant "literature" by language/culture, so it can work. If you wish to start thinking about discussing diaspora go ahead. I would suggest looking for the most significant first, and writing a good argument. I would suspect people would reply saying if we include Armenian Diaspora, why not Jewish, Arab, Chinese, Swedish, Irish, Sri Lankan etc etc I imagine there are loads of regions with several million emigrants, the ones we include would need careful discussion as to which we want and which we don't, we have managed it with history of nation, and ethnic groups, so it could work in theory, but I would predict some opposition.

Multiracial or something similar may be worth discussing.  Carlwev  16:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As discussed above, our selection method has been fairly ad hoc and on a case-by-case basis rather than being derived methodically. We have made the ethnic groups section a place to add well known minority/indigenous peoples or very large pan-national peoples (Han, Slavs, Arabs, fit in the latter). Take Aboriginal Australians for example. There is no other article that can adequately discuss the culture apart from the ethnic group article itself. The Australia article doesn't discuss them in much detail as they are now only a small minority of the country. Groups that are a majority in a single country tend not to be listed as they are redundant to the country, nor are pan-national groups added if there is a broader region listed (Latin American overlaps with Latin America). Having said that, we are not consistent and don't believe Slavs should be listed when we have Slavic languages. Slavs in modern times aren't politically connected to one another in the same way Arabs are. At the moment, we have one South American group (Quechua people) but we could add a few more. I have thought about the Aymara people, Tupi people, Guarani people, Mapuche people or something broader like Mestizo are possible additions. Thinking more laterally, there is Afro-Brazilian though we would also have to consider African American. Gizza 23:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I come from two recognised ethnic minorities - neither are listed (yet basques are!). Nor is the other half of my ancestors, how are there no representation for Anglo-saxons (British & American caucasian) or Scandinavian groups? Imagine an exterrestrial came and read this, what opinion would it get of humanity? (I always consider how an ET would consider things, it helps get an overview). A Guy into Books (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully the ET won't look at the ethnic groups section in isolation but in conjunction with geography and history (and for that matter every other section), as we have been doing. Anglo-Saxons is actually listed but is in another section. So is Scandinavia. Ultimately, where the articles are here doesn't really matter. All that matters is whether the article is vital. It is just for our convenience and to make the list look organized and easy to navigate. Gizza 02:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

International organizations

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#International organizations for the list of topics in this category.

Language

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Language for the list of topics in this category.

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 Phrase

Support

1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support An important grammatical topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Definite support as basically covers the three proposals below. J947 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Clause

Support

1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support An important grammatical topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support —J947 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

1. I had proposed to add phrase and clause before, however the proposals later failed due to insufficient support (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_50#Add_Clause).--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Idiom

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

   An idiom I think is slightly more important than a proverb and we don't need both, thus weak support. Would like to see other opinions on the matter, though. J947 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

2. Support An important concept in translation studies. --Thi (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. (Changed from neutral) Crazily, I have to change again. I still believe idioms encompass more ground, but the ground that proverbs cover is more dense with the historical importance that they convey and have. Thus, weak oppose. Hopefully I don't change again... J947 05:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

As per below. J947 02:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Proverb

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support An important form of folklore. People have used proverbs in their everyday language more often when printed forms of communication and formal education were rare. --Thi (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. (Changed from neutral) Crazily, I have to change again. I still believe idioms encompass more ground, but the ground that proverbs cover is more dense with the historical importance that they convey and have. Thus, weak support. Hopefully I don't change again... J947 05:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

An idiom I think is slightly more important than a proverb and we don't need both, thus weak oppose. Would like to see other opinions on the matter, though. J947 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No, proverbs are as important as idioms, since proverbs convey traditional wisdom and reflect a country, region or ethnicity's values, and proverb is not synonymous with idiom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. This looks to go over quota even with my proposed change, so I'm thus neutral. J947 02:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose per J947. Proverbs and idioms aren't exactly the same but there is significant overlap. We can't include everything. Gizza 04:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Law

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Law for the list of topics in this category.

Mass media

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Mass media for the list of topics in this category.

Add news agency

Support

1. As nom. I think it's vital at this level, since a lot of newspapers, radio and TV stations, news websites use reports written by news agencies (e.g. and ).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Vital for the media. Dimadick (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose – I'm not sure it is vital enough. We're over quota here. J947 04:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per J947 and Carlwev. Gizza 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose --Thi (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

After having news, why have news agency? should we list Film company or film industry in addition to film, Telephone company or Telephone network in addition to telephone, or book publisher?....Saying that we do list airline. so...?  Carlwev  21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not only news agencies distribute news, since other news outlets (news magazines, newspapers, radio and TV stations, etc.) distribute them as well, thus news agency to news is not like book publisher to book.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove Meet the Press, add Eurovision Song Contest

Eurovision is a major European TV spectacle. Meet the Press is just a weekly news program (though a very old one).

Support

1. Support as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Good to add a non-US TV show of sorts. Close in scale to some of the sports events listed. Gizza 06:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support The contest has been organized since 1956 and is broadcast throughout Europe and in countries beyond it. Dimadick (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support, rather tentatively. J947 21:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
5. The addition.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose removal. Meet the Press is the longest-running program in television history. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
2. The removal, per above.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Museums

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Museums for the list of topics in this category.

Politics and government

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Politics and government for the list of topics in this category.

Add populism and elitism

Nowadays populist political parties and politicians play a vital role in Europe and the U.S.

Support

1. Support as nom. I think that populism and its antonym, elitism should all be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support populism. --Thi (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support. Populism especially, as it is quite past the vital barrier and per Thi's comment below. Maybe up the social science recommendation to 925 and remove 25 from another one, perhaps physical sciences/Astronomy? J947 05:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

   So you support the addition of elitism?--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

   Only just, covering elite (a failed proposal) as well. J947 18:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

5. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Populism only GuzzyG (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Isn't elitism another word for Oligarchy and populism a form of communication i.e., us-versus-them? They're undoubtedly important concepts in political rhetoric, however their inclusion on the vital articles list seems wanting. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlike elitism, populism is in everyday use in the news. The term has some concrete meaning, there have been Populist Party in the USA. Populism is in my old encyclopedia which has 5,000 articles. --Thi (talk) 09:28, 21 October 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 Social security

The right to social security is mentioned in UDHR.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Other

1. Swap—tentatively—with welfare state as I believe social security encompasses more ground than that. J947 02:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We already included Welfare state and Welfare. I think there is too much overlap with those articles. I would consider a swap. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose when there is a high degree of overlap, I think we should generally choose the article with more pageviews, which in this case is welfare state. Gizza 00:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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 policy

A branch of public policy and an academic discipline.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support – Social policy is an axis of most political compasses, and the second most important branch of policy. J947 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose there are so many branches of public policy and none of them seems to be more vital than the rest. See Template:Public policy. If I had to pick one, I would say that economic policy (covering fiscal policy, monetary policy, etc.) would be the most important. Gizza 23:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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 Economic policy

I have thought to nominate this to Level 3 but DaGizza noted that it is not yet added to this level.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Seems important enough to include at this level. I'm not sure about Level 3 though. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support, but not for L3. J947 20:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add National security

Support

1. As nom. I'm very surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support —J947 02:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

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 National interest

Support

1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose just a phrase. Not a substantial encyclopedia topic. Gizza 20:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose We look set to go over quota here, even with my proposed change. J947 02:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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 Public interest

Support

1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose another dictionary term. Can't support this when there are meaningful political articles missing like Federalism and Political campaign. Gizza 21:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose We look set to go over quota here, even with my proposed change. J947 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose This definitely seems like more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Federalism

Common political system around the world. Easy add.

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 03:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Good find. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Wide-spead political system, covering such significant countries as Australia, Germany, and Russia. Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support --Thi (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Political campaign

Very surprised it isn't here. Easy add.

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 03:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Key concept in politics. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza 22:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Psychology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Psychology for the list of topics in this category.

Society

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Society for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Peasant, Add Underclass

As I state above, I think we need to use the more modern terms for the social classes. The more antiquated terms just aren't very relevant in the modern context.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support, as quite a reasonable change, but keep peasant as still relevant and highly used. We can remove 20 less used ones from the list. J947 05:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support adding Underclass, oppose removing Peasant. --Thi (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Per Thi.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'Oppose remove Mega oppose. Most of the worlds population in historical times have been peasants. There are tonnes of literature about the significance of peasants and the peasantry in world history and society. This is vital even at higher levels. Underclass in turn is a specifically sociological term, which could be added, but not at the expese of peasants. Working class would be another good add, but not instead of peasants.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• In case anyone wants to know, peasant (the article) was created in August 2002 and underclass (the article) was created in November 2004. J947 03:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove Bourgeoisie, Add Upper class

As I state above, I think we need to use the more modern terms for the social classes. The more antiquated terms just aren't very relevant in the modern context. Bourgeoisie and Middle class are fundamentally the same thing, and we already include the article on middle class. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support, as quite a reasonable change. J947 05:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support add but not remove ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose the removal. The bourgeoisie is historically and culturally quite important term and it means the middle class. --Thi (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose remove ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

As Thi points out, Bourgeoisie means middle class, but we already include that article in the list, which is why I don't think the Bourgeoisie article is needed. Regardless, Upper class should be added whether we remove Bourgeoisie or not. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to know, Bourgeoisie (the article) was created in June 2002 and upper class (the article) was created in February 2004. J947 03:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Social equality

An important concept in social philosophy and social sciences.

Support

1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support —J947 04:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support this though open to egalitarianism instead (probably don't need both). Gizza 00:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

How does this compare to Egalitarianism? ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sociology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#Sociology for the list of topics in this category.

War and military

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Society and social sciences#War and military for the list of topics in this category.

Biology and health sciences

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Anatomy and morphology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Anatomy and morphology for the list of topics in this category.

Add Jaw

Important part of the human anatomy, and major turning point in animal evolution, a good article could be written on this topic if we find decent sources.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support —J947 04:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discusion

Add Venom

Numerous different species have evolved venom, among them snakes, lizards, some mammals, spiders, scorpions, jellyfish, fish, amphibians, centipedes, wasps, and more. different venom kills about 60,000 people a year combined, more vital than some individual insects and fish we list for example.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  12:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Venom is a type of toxin, which in turn is a type of poison and we have both of those. I'll still think about venom though. Gizza 02:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Biochemistry and molecular biology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Biochemistry and molecular biology for the list of topics in this category.

Biological processes and physiology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Biological processes and physiology for the list of topics in this category.

Botany

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Botany for the list of topics in this category.

Cell biology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Cell biology for the list of topics in this category.

Ecology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Ecology for the list of topics in this category.

Zoology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Zoology for the list of topics in this category.

Organisms

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Organisms for the list of topics in this category.

Health, medicine and disease

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences#Health, medicine and disease for the list of topics in this category.

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 Alcohol (drug)

Under drugs, we list Tobacco, Opium, and Cannabis but not alcohol. I think this article should be added.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support probably should be added despite the overlap with ethanol, alcoholism and alcoholic beverage. Gizza 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support. We're under quota here. J947 03:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Alcoholic drink and alcoholism cover the subject. --Thi (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

We can consider whether to add problem gambling in addition to gambling too. Gizza 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the page views of Alcohol, Ethanol, Alcoholic drink, Alcoholism and Alcohol (drug). Alcohol (drug) is by far the lowest pageviews, it's had a rise in views this September, when content was taken from Ethanol and editing increased, before this time it had existed as an article for 3 years with very very low page views. Can someone explain why we need in general, and in this list separate articles for Alcohol (about the organic compound), Alcoholic drink (about different drinks, making them, and the health social and cultural aspects of them), Ethanol (also about the chemical, what it's made of, how it's made, what it can do), Alcoholism (long and short term effects of excessive alcohol consumption, on the body mind and society, what can cause it, what can improve it), and Alcohol (drug), mostly about the composition of the compound with parts from all the other articles too.

Alcohol drug is significantly below all the others in page views, the others range from 1200 to 4000+ daily page views compared to Alcohol with 143 (before September this year it's average daily page views were below 5, sometimes 0).

The amount of other language wikis the article appears in, or is linked to is interesting to. Alcohol 117 other language wikis, Alcoholism 88, Alcoholic drink 96, Ethanol 105....and Alcohol (drug) 0, it appears linked to no other language wikis whatsoever, this might just be an issue with translation, how people link one article to another when there is not one obvious identical topic article.  Carlwev  18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some overlap in these related articles, but that is true for other articles as well. For example, we list Tobacco, Smoking, and Cigarette. If we have to remove alcohol-related articles to make room for this one, I think it would be better to remove some of the articles on the various liquors that we currently list. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Add Underweight

Before the second half of the 20th century in America there was not an obesity epidemic but underweight one.

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Definitely more vital than Anorexia nervosa, thus an easy support from me. J947 03:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose it is a word. The actually significant topic is malnoutrition which is already here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

We list several articles in that general area. At level 3 there is Obesity and Malnutrition and the slightly related Poverty. Then here at level 4 there is also, Hunger, and the slightly related Anorexia nervosa. We already list articles about 4 possible causes of being underweight. If we list underweight, a perfectly reasonable presumption is that we should also list the opposite overweight, or potentially the overview human body weight instead; and if we list that an argument could also be made for Human height and perhaps other articles. The issues of being underweight, are included in some form, not completely missed out, probably covered more than the issues of being overweight in fact; also if I think of the issue of being underweight, there is much of the world historically and today with problems relating to that, not just USA in the early 1900s.

We do list Body mass index. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding underweight, but it would have to go hand in hand with overweight, would human body weight and human height be just as good?  Carlwev  11:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Contact lens

Distinct enough from glasses/spectacles, article states 125 million people wear them. Been mentioned before in discussion but never opened as an addition. I don't think a second article on corrective eyewear is too much, we list 5 articles under dentistry for example, we list many diseases/disorders which effect much less than 125 million people.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Gizza 21:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not a vital technology item, it is just a form of eye glasses. Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Contact lens and dentures are technological devices. They could be in the same section as wheelchair and prosthesis as they are medical. Contact lens can also be placed alongside glasses in optical technology. Gizza 21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, contact lens should be adjacent to eye glasses. I knew glasses were in and contact lens wasn't but I forgot to check which sublist it was in when I opened this.  Carlwev  05:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Dentures

We list Dental restoration and Root canal, but not dentures, removable dentures are fairly common, especially in the elderly, seems more important than root canal. Looking up facts about them, I read 57 percent of Americans aged 65 to 74, and 51 percent of those age 55 to 64 have full or partial dentures. 45 million Americans 16% of the total population or approximately 1 in 7 people wear dentures, (11% full and 5% partial). I imagine numbers in other western nations more or less similar.

Support

1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose No. Not a vital technology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

Also on the topic of teeth, I am wondering about baby teeth, something that effects, well pretty much everyone? Is human tooth enough? maybe.  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Baby teeth are indeed a much more important article as it is a a basic biological aspect of human anatomical development.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Root canal, part of tooth, or dental procedure?

Root canal is listed under dentistry. When one hears the term root canal one may think it refers to the operation; I did. The article root canal is about the part of the tooth/jaw itself not the operation. An article about a part of the tooth should be listed with tooth in anatomy, not under dentistry. I'm not sure if an article about tooth roots is vital, we don't list things like baby teeth or even jaw. (But I might suggest Jaw). The operation is listed at Endodontic therapy, it covers fillings and closely related procedures. We already list, Dentistry, Dental restoration, but the operation is fairly important too. I give four options. Listing the part of the tooth/jaw, listing the operation, listing both, or listing neither.

List Root canal (part of the tooth)

Support

1. The article was created over 3 years before endodontic therapy and is definitely the most common phrase these days, as confirmed by a google search (7.2 million versus 670,000). Support. J947 03:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

List Endodontic therapy (dental operation)

Support

1. Support  Carlwev  11:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as per my comment above. J947 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• In case anyone wants to know, root canal (the article) was created in January 2004 and endodontic therapy (the article) was created in June 2007. J947 03:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Replace toxin with toxicity

Support

1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support dosis facit venenum.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

In case anyone wants to know, toxin (the article) was created in November 2001 and toxicity (the article) was created in January 2003. J947 03:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Physical sciences

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

Measurement

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Measurement for the list of topics in this category.

Astronomy

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Astronomy for a complete list of articles in this topic.

Chemistry

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Chemistry for the list of topics in this category.

Add Properties of water

Water deals with water in general e.g in geology, biology, or in human civilization. Propose adding Properties of water to inorganic compounds list. It deals with water as a chemical compound and is similar to the other articles in the list.

Support

1. Support As nom. Galobtter (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Having looked at the articles, this seems reasonable. You'd expect an article just on the chemistry of water (as opposed to other things) at this level. Gizza 03:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support as a closely related sub-article of water has high importance. J947 03:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support --Thi (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Earth science

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Earth science for the list of topics in this category.

Add Moraine

If estuary is already on the list and we consider moving 'fjord' to the 'Water section', I think it makes sense to have another 'glacial landform' feature that is fairly ubiquitous at higher latitudes.

Support

1. Support As nominee. Moraines are everywhere. Curoi (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Long-wanted support. J947 03:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Gemstone

Gemstones have somehow been overlooked for a long time. There are many types of gems and precious stones listed (ruby, sapphire, emerald, diamond, amber, pearl, ivory) but not the article on gemstones itself. Some gems were even removed but the parent article didn't come to anyone's attention. And unlike some parent or umbrella articles, gemstones is a coherent topic in and of itself.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 13:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support  Carlwev  13:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support Science aside, they are important luxury items and artwork material. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
8. Of course —J947 04:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

I would personally like to see some of those removed gemstones back, especially lapis lazuli. Earth sciences is just under quota and IMO these articles are more significant than some of the obscure extinction events. Gizza 13:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Physics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Physics for the list of topics in this category.

Technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology for the list of topics in this category.

Agriculture

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Agriculture for the list of topics in this category.

Biotechnology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Biotechnology for the list of topics in this category.

Computing and information technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Computing and information technology for the list of topics in this category.

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 C++

Support

1. As nom. Since C++ remains the 3rd popular programming language as of 2017, and many other programming languages have been influenced by it, including C#, D, Java, and newer versions of C, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Imo, the number and choice of programming languages is perfect the way it is. Orser67 (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Cobblet. We're over quota here. J947 03:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

1. I had proposed to add it before, however later the proposal failed (cf. Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 34#Add Fortran.2C COBOL.2C BASIC.2C Pascal.2C C.2B.2B.2C C.23.2C Perl and PHP).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm not really convinced that any of the separate programming languages that we list should be listed. The general article on programming languages is all we really need to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Actually listing a few frequently used programming languages makes sense, since programming is becoming more and more important, and some countries plan to or already teach primary school students programming.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Electronics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Electronics for the list of articles in this category.

Engineering

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Engineering for the list of topics in this category.

Industry

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Industry for the list of topics in this category.

Infrastructure

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Infrastructure for the list of articles in this category.

Machinery and tools

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Machinery and tools for the list of topics in this category.

Remove Roller (agricultural tool)

Rollers don't seem particularly important when there are more important agricultural topics missing like horticulture. For some reason the article was placed in machinery instead of agriculture which is why I think it wasn't picked up earlier. There are also more significant garden tools missing such as the wheelbarrow. We already have harrow and plough which serve a similar purpose to rollers.

The fact that the usage of the word "roller" in this way is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is telling.

Support

1. Support as nom. Gizza 01:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  14:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Support – We're over quota here. J947 03:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Remove Sickle, Add Wheelbarrow

We currently list both Scythe and Sickle. They are very similar tools used for similar purposes. The primary difference between the two seems to be that one is usually a 1-handed tool and the other is usually a 2-handed tool. I don't think we need to list both.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 01:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Supporting addition; neutral on removal

1. Support the addition. Neutral on removal. Gizza 04:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Opposing removal

1. The removal, since the sickle is used as part of the well-known symbol hammer and sickle, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose due to symbolic importance of the sickle. Dimadick (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

   Do you oppose the addition of wheelbarrow?--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

   No, but I find it less important. How many flags with wheelbarrows have you seen? Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

   We don't list swastika and that was on flags too. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

   I would support adding the swastika. An important religious symbol for millennia. Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose removal due to the symbolic importance of sickles. Wheelbarrows are vital as well, and perhaps more so. J947 01:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

So let's just get the tally straight: 8–0 for addition; 4–3–1 on removal. Will do another check in 5 days. J947 04:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• No changes after a week. Will check again sometime. Removal is actually 4–3–2. J947 03:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Removal is actually 4–3–1. J947 05:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Flags are not the only thing that makes things important. With animals, eagles and dragons appear much more on flags than dogs, sheep, cattle or even humans, does this mean one is more important the other? Some symbols are just more popular to heraldry, probably simply because they look, cooler, for want of a better word. The sickle was used in the communist symbol, then copied across several flags in nations adopting that ideology, it wasn't used numerous times completely interdependently.  Carlwev  20:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Add Horticulture

Per above. Vital topic. J947 03:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 03:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support  Carlwev  21:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
5. pbp 23:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
6. Support agriculture is probably the best section to put this in. Gizza 23:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

   @DaGizza: Yeah. I wasn't sure where this should have been. Could you do it? I don't have a lot of time on my hands. J947 02:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

7. Support Significant aspect of human culture. Dimadick (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
8. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Media and communication

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Media and communication for the list of topics in this category.

Medical technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Medical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Military technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Military technology for the list of topics in this category.

Navigation and timekeeping

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Navigation and timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.

Optical technology

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Optical technology for the list of topics in this category.

Space

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Space for the list of topics in this category.

Textiles

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Textiles for the list of topics in this category.

Transportation

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Transportation for the list of topics in this category.

Mathematics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Basics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics#Basics for the list of topics in this category.

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 Order of operations

A basic mathematical principle that I think should be included.

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Gizza 23:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
6. Support. We're under quota here. J947 04:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
7. Support --Thi (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Add Mathematical problem

Let's get this quota to the exact figure and add this weirdly missing topic. J947 03:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 03:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Algebra

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics#Algebra for the list of topics in this category.

Calculus and analysis

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics#Calculus and analysis for the list of topics in this category.

Discrete mathematics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics#Discrete mathematics for the list of topics in this category.

Geometry

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics#Geometry for the list of topics in this category.

Probability and statistics

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics#Probability and statistics for the list of topics in this category.

Other

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics#Other for the list of topics in this category.

General discussions

Global proposals

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.

Reallocate 25 articles from Astronomy (215→190) to Society and social sciences (900→925)

Society and social sciences is currently 19 over quota, and looks set to take a few more. Astronomy on the other hand is growing slowly, but with not many proposals. Both will probably become more important in decades to come, especially Astronomy, so this reallocation will still leave them with room to grow.

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 20:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Support whenever somebody has proposed a removal from social sciences, it has more than likely failed and when there is a proposed addition if usually passes. It seems there is implicit consensus for more articles going to social sciences. Vice versa for astronomy. Perhaps 200 may be a better number but we can reassess it at a later time. Gizza 08:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
4. Support We freed up a lot of space in the Astronomy section by removing a number of constellations and stars. I think Gizza is right that 200 might be a better quota for astronomy, but the social sciences definitely needs the bump. I've always considered these quotas to be more guidelines anyway (with the exception of people and mathematics), so we can certainly keep adjusting them later as needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

Radical idea about the level 1, 2, 3 and 4 lists.

I have been thinking about this idea for a while and have finally decided to share it now. Our mission regarding the "Vital Articles" project is as quoted "Vital articles are lists of subjects for which Misplaced Pages should have corresponding high-quality articles. They serve as centralized watchlists to track the status of Misplaced Pages's most important articles.". Instead of listing the same articles on all four lists, why not keep them separate and thus not having redundant spaces, as people interested in the lists and plan to work on articles based off them are going to see Human on level 1 regardless if it's listed on level 4. Articles talk pages are only tagged by their highest levels which limits us to this concept already and it's confusing to the average editor to see "Human" listed as level 1 but also on 2,3 and 4. It also means we can cover more ground and it makes more sense to have these different levels as sub-pages rather then one big list. Like say The arts on level 1, then Visual arts on level 2, Painting on level 3, then painters and specific works on level 4. The only negative i can see is if something gets removed from one level and there's no space on the below level, but that's a non-issue as if something is removed from one level it can only be replaced by something on the below level as if it's not on the below level it wouldn't be notable to be on the above one. It might be too much work to re-do it this way but this is how it should have probably have been done from the beginning, it means more articles which need work are highlighted for a fuller picture of what we can have and it adds prestige and exclusivity to improving a article on a higher list imo.

Support

1. Support as nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The purpose of these lists is to be a centralized place where you can view the quality of the most important articles. Having to click through each level would add a layer of complexity. I want to be able to see the top 1,000 vital articles all in one place, not the 101-1,000 most vital articles or the 101-1,100 most vital. The current system really isn't confusing once you understand it, and the articles that are included in higher lists are well marked in the lower lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose there's no benefit from having 10k articles at level 4 instead of 9k; and people will wonder why Level 3 articles are missing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

This has been discussed before though it was a few years ago and I'm having trouble finding it in the archives. The practical effect of this is that each respective level will contain the Top 10, Next 100, Next 1,000 and Next 10,000. In other words, the top 10, 11th-110th, 111th-1110th and 1111th-11110th most vital articles.

I honestly prefer to keep the lists at their current size and am not a fan of lowering the benchmark for vitality. Avoiding duplication is a fair point and we can do that by not listing the higher level articles on the bigger lists, which would mean Top 10, Next 90 (Top 100 overall), Next 900 (Top 1,000 overall), Next 9,000 (Top 10,000). Even this would mean everybody having to monitor the other levels to see what articles are vital within a particular topic. It could also confuse new visitors this project when they e.g. look at the list of elements at this level not containing oxygen, silicon, etc. but see an element like osmium. We could add an introductory paragraph explaining what we did at the top but newbies may not read nor grasp what it actually means. Gizza 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not think of the hassle in clicking through everything, yeah i agree it's a dud of an idea. I just kinda think there should be a level 5 or something that includes current pop culture, because having high quality articles of random objects/things/people like iPad, Los Angeles Lakers, Chevrolet Corvette or Justin Bieber etc are important as they're highly read. But the tech limitations of a higher list would make it unlikely. GuzzyG (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Judging a list of 10,000 is pretty tough now and a larger list of 20,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 would be even harder, but not impossible. I'm open to the idea of a Level 5 list. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

One option would be a level-5 list of 10000 biographies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. And it could eventually serve as the biography section of a larger 50,000 Level 5 list. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

A level 5 makes sense, i'd be happy to do the leg work in creating it, maybe this proposal should be changed into if we should have a level 5. It would be easier to manage this list as we can dump stuff on the border onto the bigger list. GuzzyG (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's a skeleton of what a 50,000 Level 5 list might look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:SethAllen623/Vital_articles/Expanded Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a starter, plus all listed here. I'm happy to help maintaining it, though the talk page should be split up and main split up further. I think 12,000 people and 5,000 geography would be good to start with. I'd like more sub-quotas as well. J947 04:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The 10,000 list is 20% people (2,000) so I'd say a 50,000 list should probably be 20% people (10,000). Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

One approach we could take is invite the editors of the various topical projects to nominate articles they believe should appear on a top 50,000 list. Obviously their top-importance articles are the most likely candidates. I wouldn't limit the initial round of submissions; save that for the subsequent triage. (I'm not sure if there's an automated way to identify all top-importance articles across the entire wiki; if so, that could help with the first pass, too.) On a related note, instead of top 50,000 articles, why not tie the index to the top 1% of articles at the beginning of each year? Perhaps call it WikEssentials or something. (Wiki Prime has a good ring to it. ) ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand the desire to remain flexible, but I think we do need concrete target numbers like 50,000 articles instead of a moving target like 1% of all articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 1 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 a Level 5 of 50,000 articles

See discussion above.

Support

1. Support as nominator. It will be a big job, but IMO we've got enough active editors here to get to 20,000 relatively quickly. From there we can advertise about it in an attempt to grab more contributors. J947 04:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Support per above and being the initiator of this discussion, i think a level 5 would be a complete list of everything that Misplaced Pages should have a high quality article on. It's good to have a reference list in one spot and there's no negative or downside to having one. GuzzyG (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Support. We have many edge-case discussions for the inclusion or exclusion of topics that are clearly very important, but not necessarily top-10,000 important. bd2412 T 04:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
4. Support. It'll be a challenge to build a 50,000 article list, but I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Let's see if we can build a 30,000 one, then try for a 50,000 one. We may find that, due to technical limitations, the list will either have to leave off assessments or else be spread across 30, 40, 50 separate pages. I'd be willing to participate in the building of this. pbp 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. Your figure of 30,000 isn't far off. My first pass at generating a list of all the Category:Top-importance_articles yielded 37,116 articles. However, that figure will rise once I identify and further capture categories that have more than 50 articles, such as Christianity, which has 536 articles. On the other hand, the index includes seemingly not-so-vital articles for our purposes, such as Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo. I created a page in my sandbox where I'll publish my results. (I was not happy the way WP didn't retain my line breaks; I'll fix it in a subsequent update.) ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
      1. I fixed the formatting on my sandbox page. An interesting comparison is diff'ing which articles appear on one list but not the other vis-a-vis one would expect all vital articles to have top-importance to at least one project, but not all top-importance articles are vital. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Add a Level 5 of 100,000 articles is more appropriate, since the Lv1 list includes 10 (10), the Lv2 one includes 100 (10), the Lv 3 one includes 1,000 (10), and the Lv4 one includes 10,000 (10), the Lv5 list should include 10.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

What should it be called? Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Extended even more? I think the 10k biographies is a good number to start with, I'm not sure what the overall quotas would be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Level 5 or 50000 pbp 00:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The current pattern for each level to go up by tenfold so Level 5 sounds like it should contain 100,000 articles. 50,000 or Level 4.5 may be better. Though I'm leaning towards opposing this proposal.

A few editors have tried making an even bigger expanded list. See User:SethAllen623/Vital_articles and User:Igrek/20000 and the results are horrible. No fault of the editors of course. It's just that nobody knows enough about the world and beyond to make a comprehensive, unbiased list of such a huge number of topics. You would need at least 100 very diverse, knowledgeable and active editors to make a list of 50,000. I think it's a better idea to start keeping a record of the quality of the expanded vital articles at particular times, like we have for the 1,000 Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Introduction. Until a much higher percentage of the current vital articles (at any level) become FA or GA, I feel like this will be a waste of time. 10,000 bios may be feasible but even that will be harder than anticipated. Gizza 01:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

They're made by one person though, this would be a committed group. I have a excel sheet filled with thousands of bios (Which i am reorganizing for the third time) and their listings of like page views, edit numbers and wikidata numbers listed by field/occupation, a start would be adding the highest of each. 50k might be too high but 10k bios i could have a roughly completed shell of it in about 2 weeks - give or take, i would have made my own but i was waiting on Seth to finish his but his list doesn't get updated very often (every month or so). If we end up tagging that many bios it would only lead to a growth of this project due to the exposure, especially if we add articles with high viewership like Trump or Bieber, it costs nothing to try especially if it can lead to more exposure. GuzzyG (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level 5 as a mockup; please don't create sub-pages until there's some consensus as to the sub-pages we want and the name of that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Good!--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the biographies, are we keeping a running list of folks who were demoted and not added to Level 4 for future review for inclusion in a broader list? Once we start fleshing out the Level 5 (however many articles that may ultimately be), seems like folks not included on Level 4 could merit a second look for inclusion on Level 5. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This probably doesn't just apply to biographies, but all articles. It would be a good idea for us to go through all of the Level 4 archives and see what articles have been demoted or proposed and not passed. Most of those articles will probably deserve inclusion in Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I am currently doing this for the biographies, my rough shell should be done by Sunday. GuzzyG (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Change the 66.6...% threshold to 50.01%

In my opinion, VA is more like AfD than RfA, thus we should change the 2/3 threshold for support on proposals to one half. My rationale here is that despite having large support, many articles proposed in the 'People' section may not pass even though there is a large consensus to do so. I can't find any evidence here that 'oppose' opinions take significantly more ground into account than the supporters, especially on Global proposals/People/Geography. Proposals that are 50/50 should be evaluated as no consensus. J947 04:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947 04:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

1. Oppose. The current voting system seems to work reasonably well. I don't think I'd want nominations passing if the vote were 5 to 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose a majority is not consensus. A double majority isn't perfect but it's the best of what we got. There was a time when 70% was required which wasn't too bad though e.g. a 6-3 proposal would fail which felt a bit harsh. Gizza 11:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposal: Lengthen the voting period before nominations can be marked as FAILED or NO CONSENSUS.

Sometimes, nominations will remain open over a year before they pass. It can take a long time for some proposals to "cook". Contributors to this page are usually pretty good about leaving them open after they could be closed if it looks like they have a chance of success, but it has always bothered me that anyone could come along at any time and shut the nomination down when if left open longer it could succeed. I propose changing to the following nomination closure rules to more accurately reflect the convention of letting nominations with a chance of success to continue to remain open long after they could have been closed.

"After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has earned at least 3 4 opposes and failed to earn two-thirds support; or it may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 120 or more days regardless of the current !vote tally. After 60 180 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has failed to earn at least 5 support !votes and two-thirds support. Please be patient with our process; we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable list."

Support

1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

Oppose

1. 4-6 months is just way too long a minimum time to leave something open. pbp 20:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose I could change my mind if the page becomes very inactive but considering the current boom the project is in, I don't think it makes sense to lengthen the timeframes now. I was strongly supportive of the last change in this area (making it faster to fail proposals that have no chance of success - see archive). From a practical perspective, we leave things for a longer time than what we say anyway. The only user who religiously followed the closing rules was User:Malerisch, who would close everything after exactly 15, 30 and 60 days. Also this will lead to old proposals where there is clear consensus one way or the other cluttering up the page. Gizza 22:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Just to clarify, is that so many days from the day the nomination was proposed or the from the date of the last vote/discussion? I think in practice we do a good job of keeping nominations open when active discussions take place, so it seems like this is more of a codified guidance than a hard-and-fast rule. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This wording is literally the same wording used in the current voting rules at the top of this page, with the proposed changes marked with strikethroughs and bolding. The 30 and 180 day period is from the date of nomination, just like it is now, and the 120 day is from the last vote, just as it is now. This is essentially modifying the rules to be closer to what we do anyway, leaving nominations open if it looks like they have a chance of passing if given more time. Nominations still would not have to be closed after the 120 or 180 days, but could be just like now. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

On a related matter, should we specify how soon someone can renominate an article whose previous nomination failed or gained no consensus? Perhaps 180 days? ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd prefer to address that question in a separate nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive nominations using red/green/blue templates

Moving forward, let's use {{Archive top red}} to indicate nominations which did not pass, {{Archive top green}} for nominations which pass, and the blue default {{Archive top}} for nominations which do not garner consensus. All other parameters remain the same.

Support

1. Support as nom. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose We've been using blue for passes and red for failed/no consensus for quite some time, and changing this convention would make looking through the archives more confusing. I'm not sure what advantage this change would give as "failed" and "no consensus" are functionally equivalent. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
2. Oppose Usually color codes are not the main point in web usability. --Thi (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

So I checked the bios list against the index of the encyclopedia in my house

If you're interested in the results, e-mail me and I'll send you the document in my reply. pbp 18:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I have now also done this with the geography articles. pbp 18:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Limit mass nominations

I propose that the number of articles mass-nominated for removal or addition be capped. When you have so many articles nominated together, it's very rare for them to all be of the exact same merit. My personal preference is capped mass-nominations at a maximum of 2 articles per nomination, but I've offered up some other alternatives. pbp 18:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No mass nominations (All single nominations)

Cap mass nominations at 2

1. pbp 18:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Cap mass nominations at 3

Cap mass nominations at 4

1. 4 is probably the best for a maximum in a underrepresented sub-region in a mainly underrepresented region in an under-quota section (see my proposal in cities). 5 would probably be too much to research for, none would be time-consuming, 2 would still make the TOC longer, although I would be okay with 3. J947 18:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Cap mass nominations at 5

No restrictions on mass nominations

1. Looking at the archives, I think there are situations where mass additions and removals are appropriate, like when we removed 13 transactinide elements in one go, the seven days of the week or many of the zodiac constellations. I'd prefer dealing with mass proposals on a case-by-base basis. If there are e.g. 5 additions, and many people are supporting some, opposing others and neutral on the rest it would be a good idea to split that proposal up but I don't think this always needs to happen. Gizza 21:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
2. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. If a mass nomination isn't appropriate, then it won't pass. If it is appropriate, then it will pass. I see no need to artificially limit nominations in this manner. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
3. Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
4. If a mass nomination is inappropriate, let it fail and resubmit as separate nominations. No reason to impose a limit. There are cases of mass nominations where the logic is the same for all the nominated articles; 18 plant orders were removed in a single nomination (Misplaced Pages talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 18#Remove plant orders) Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
5. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Polite reminder

Polite reminder, when a proposal has been correctly closed and archived, which several have earlier today, one should probably complete the process or things will get forgotten and start to be incorrect, things appear to have been forgotten or overlooked. One should add or remove the VA template on said article's talk page; add the article the the relevant list, or remove it, and adjust the count numbers of the section headers that have changed in the list. It can be time consuming and easy to forget some of it, but I'm sure myself or other users can help with it if it's a little tricky. ...But I don't have a lot of spare time today. If one is unsure ask for help or mimic what other user's have done when closing threads in the past  Carlwev  17:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I want to second this. Anyone who closes a nomination should go through the entire process of adding (or removing) the article to the list and tagging (or removing) the article's talk page with the Vital Articles template and updating the counts. This list is simply too big to not be properly maintained. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I will fix tomorrow if no one else does, got work now. I see the geography articles have been processed, but several have still been missed. Taxidermy, Prose poetry, humanism, Falun Gong, Mexican Cuisine, Economic policy, Order of operations.  Carlwev  22:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a bot that should clean up the talk page templates. A few (Taungoo Dynasty) are redirects that should be fixed here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's make a checklist after which the archive template can wrap around the topic to imply completion. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Something akin to WP:AFD/AI ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cue sports

We should probably specifically include Pool (cue sports) and Carom billiards, in addition to Snooker (already listed). There are three general families of cue sports subject to global professional and amateur competition (and usually completely separate competition and governance; snooker is under WPBSA and IBSF, pool under WPA, and carom under UMB). Very few pros compete across these lines, but narrower topics like nine-ball, eight-ball, and straight pool within pool are normally competed by the same people. It's similar to the fact that a professional skiier is likely to compete in various forms of snowskiing but probably not also water skiing, or a pro snowboarder is probably not also a pro skateboarder, despite the historical connections between these sports, which have separate governing bodies, different equipment specifications, and involve different skills. The same is true of the three cue sports fields, despite their superficial similarity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ<  17:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree and would support those additions. Pool in particular should be added. If we can have multiple types of skiing, rugby and wrestling, there is no reason why we can't have multiple cue sports. I have though about carrom too. To be honest, they are all more significant than basque pelota for instance (not that anything needs to be removed). Gizza 21:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

About Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/Nav bar

I noticed that all subpages of WP:VA/E transclude this page (with {{Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Level/Nav bar}}), however the people and physical sciences subpages, unlike other ones, do not show the link to the Level 5 subpage at all. Can other Wikipedians explain why?--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

They should once somebody does a "?action=purge" request. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

The article previously at Indochina was renamed to Mainland Southeast Asia last year, and the current Indochina article is now specifically about the term rather than the geographical region. The bot recently moved the vital article tag to the new Indochina article. Is this the intended outcome, or should the list be updated to follow the page moves? Does this require a formal discussion above? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In this case, I think a formal discussion is needed. I have no idea which one should be on the list. I might vote against having either one on the list, Southeast Asia is possibly enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussions that can be closed

Here I'm going to post the discussions that can be closed, updating it weekly. J947 03:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

First, people.

• Willy Brandt (as successful)
• Athelstan (as successful)
• J. Edgar Hoover (as successful)
• Edward Drinker Cope (as successful)
• Wernher von Braun (as successful)
• Sergei Korolev (as successful)
• Francis Galton (as successful)
• Sports swap: removal successful; addition not.

I'll do the rest of the sections later. J947 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1. "About Relief Portrait Plaques of Lawgivers". Architect of the Capitol | United States Capitol. Retrieved 2017-11-14.

• WikiProject Vital Articles pages