Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Vital Articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Vital Articles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of vital articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's essential articles.
 

Introduction[edit]

The purpose of this discussion page is to select 10,000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia 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 complete 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: 20:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC) (Purge)
  • 30 days ago: 20:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 60 days ago: 20:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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


People[edit]

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

Entertainers[edit]

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

Add Cate Blanchett[edit]

I'm surprised Cate Blanchett is not on the list, especially when there are less accomplished and/or renowned subjects (great in their own right) listed, like Gérard Depardieu, Marcello Mastroianni, Shintaro Katsu, and even Isabelle Huppert. If necessary, I propose removing any of first three. Lapadite (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Lapadite (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Visual artists[edit]

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

Writers[edit]

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

Add Meera[edit]

No doubt User:DaGizza can explain her significance better than I can, but she's a highly popular mystic poet of India. Her biography gets more hits than Tukaram's or Tulsidas's and we list both of those figures as well.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Much more vital than the obscure and forgotten Bhavabhuti if space has to be made in the future. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Meera is indeed more vital than Tukaram whose influence and popularity is confined to western India. In addition to her well-known poetry, she became a symbol for pacifism among people like Gandhi and a women's rights icon for Indian feminists later on. In spite of this, Tulsidas is definitely more important than Meera though both writers should be here. The critical reception section in his article can explain his importance better than I can. A Renaissance Homer. He would be in the top ten of most important Indian people of all time. Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:DaGizza. While we're on the subject of Indian writers, can I get your opinion on some modern English-language writers in India? I'm specifically wondering whether R. K. Narayan and Sarojini Naidu are worthwhile additions. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about English language writers from India before. R. K. Narayan is more famous of the two. Arundhati Roy is a famous modern writer but she's not vital yet. I also notice that Salman Rushdie is listed so this area isn't unrepresented at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 10:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Journalists[edit]

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

Musicians and composers[edit]

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

Directors, producers and screenwriters[edit]

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

Businesspeople[edit]

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

Explorers[edit]

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

Philosophers, historians, political and social scientists[edit]

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

Add Thurgood Marshall[edit]

Support
Oppose
Discussion

@TonyTheTiger:, I would like to support this proposal. We could do with a few more legal people. I think apart from John Marshall, there are no other judges on the list excluding people notable for other reasons. We also have Hugo Grotius who was a jurist. Is Thurgood Marshall the second greatest U.S. Supreme Court justice of all-time? No doubt he is very notable and contributed to the civil rights movement. I still support adding either William Blackstone or the Commentaries on the Laws of England. Gizza (t)(c) 09:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your question "Is Thurgood Marshall the second greatest U.S. Supreme Court justice of all-time?" I'd have to say he's definitely top 10, and that he's also notable for being the NAACP lawyer in Brown vs. Board of Education. However, I'd be inclined to give second great U.S. Supreme Court Justice mantle to Earl Warren, who was chief justice during Brown, Miranda, and a number of other significant cases in the 1950s and 60s. I consider Warren to be one of the gravest omissions of American political figures on this list. pbp 13:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
If diversity is one of our primary concerns then I'm unconvinced a second American jurist is necessary – Americans might still quote Blackstone, but I wonder how often Warren gets quoted outside the US. And while we're talking about American government officials I'll name-drop J. Edgar Hoover. We lack intellectuals from earlier in history, we lack intellectuals outside the Anglo-American world, we lack female intellectuals... frankly I would prefer seeing Ida B. Wells and Maya Angelou added before Booker Washington and Thurgood Marshall (Madam C. J. Walker and Zora Neale Hurston are also worth considering), although Washington looks like he'll be added anyway (in which case there probably isn't room for Marcus Garvey). I will add that Thurgood Marshall is at least more important than Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Cobblet (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Marshall is an excellent Jurist. However, he was also one of the greatest lawyers of all time. He is not only known for winning Brown v. BoE, but also he had a phenomenal record in his Supreme Court cases, as I recall. One of you can look it up, but I think, in the face of all kinds of bureaucratic racism, he might have had something like 10 or 15 United States Supreme Court wins versus 1 or no losses. I don't know law well enough to know who the greatest jurists were. However, that is sort of looking at it from the wrong angle. It would to me be like asking is MLK one of the 10 greatest orators or preachers of all time. He may be, but if he is say 4th or 10th, he is probably more important than almost all of those above him for obvious reasons regarding his social impact. Judging just his legal impact and influence as a jurist is not really what should decide his inclusion, in my mind.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • True. We can't just look at Marshall from a legal perspective but an African-American perspective too. We have to look at every article from many angles (vocation, country, race, gender, etc.) which is why we can't delegate to individual wikiprojects. I'll support this for now although I agree with Cobblet and believe that the lack female intellectuals and people from the rest of the world is a bigger hole at the moment. Gizza (t)(c) 00:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I should note that this was on the the Atlantic Monthly 100 Greatest Americans list that I have seen Purplebackpack89 discuss above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari[edit]

A Persian polymath who composed all his works in Arabic. Today, he is best known for his expertise in Islamic sciences (Qur'anic commentary and law) or history.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that this article is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Religious figures[edit]

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

Swap: Remove John of the Cross, Add Teresa of Ávila[edit]

Both were notable Carmelite reformers and made important contributions to Spanish literature; but given the dearth of female Catholic figures (even though Catholics as a whole are well represented), the presence of another male Spanish saint in Ignatius of Loyola, and the greater overall popularity of St. Teresa (her biography gets about twice as many views and historically there was a short-lived movement to make her the patron saint of Spain), I think she's a slightly better choice for the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition St John of the Cross is one of the most important figures in Spanish literature. When this is considered together with his religious work, I think he is sufficiently important to warrant inclusion. I agree that St Teresa is a figure of comparable importance. Given the under-representation of women both in this area and generally on the list, I certainly support adding her. Neljack (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support addition per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Fethullah Gülen[edit]

Since he has been described in the English language media as "one of the world's most important Muslim figures", he should be included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Politicians and leaders[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Babak Khorramdin, Add Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor[edit]

There are a number of Mazdakist/neo-Zoroastrianist rebels against the Abbasid Caliphate besides Babak, the most notable of whom are Sunpadh and Al-Muqanna. None of these rebels are as vital as Mazdak himself, the Zoroastrian reformer who we don't list. Alp Arslan is another figure from this period of Persian history who's more important than Babak and isn't listed.

But I think the two most notable omissions from the history of Central Asia are Mahmud of Ghazni and Muhammad of Ghor, the first of the Muslim invaders of India. The former's repeated plunder of India allowed him to establish Ghazni as a cultural centre that rivalled Baghdad in its wealth and glory: scholars in his court included Al-Biruni and Ferdowsi. The latter laid the foundation for sustained Muslim domination of India by defeating Prithviraj Chauhan (who we added earlier) at the Second Battle of Tarain, a crucial turning-point in Islamic and Indian history. Both are considered national heroes of Pakistan.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support additions. Gizza (t)(c) 09:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Robert Fisk, Add Gertrude Bell[edit]

Frequently awarded Middle East correspondent versus architect of the modern nation of Iraq – Bell's historical impact is far more significant. (Among British journalists William Howard Russell and David Frost seem more important to me than Fisk.)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support addition. Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Military leaders and theorists[edit]

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

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists[edit]

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

Add Diana, Princess of Wales[edit]

No doubt a vital humanitarian, princess and celebrity. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Not quite the first celebrity who donated her image and time to charitable causes (although still a pioneer in this respect), but she did it better than anyone. Cobblet (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support 100% yes, one of the most well known humanitarians whose death caused worldwide grief. GuzzyG (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I question whether her actual impact was as great as her fame. I don't deny the significance of her work for humanitarian causes, but I think others have made a greater impact in that area without having the same fame. Neljack (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Abubakar Shekau[edit]

The former is currently the leader of the Islamic State, and the latter is the leader of Boko Haram. Both presented great threat.

Support
  1. As nom. Some people argue that adding the former is currently not appropriate because of alleged recentism, but since experts argue that IS can't be destroyed in the near future, the leader of IS is by no doubt vital since IS itself gets a lot of media attention--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC) added an argument 15:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose I think the charge of recentism is well-justified here. Neljack (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Neljack. Gizza (t)(c) 08:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. I once had proposed to add Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_40#Add_Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Scientists, inventors and mathematicians[edit]

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

Add Albertus Magnus[edit]

The greatest scientific mind of medieval Europe and also a distinguished theologian.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion


Add Georges Cuvier[edit]

Founder of comparative anatomy and paleontology.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support I think he was one of my previous suggestions so i must honour that, haha. GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Rudolf Virchow[edit]

Founder of modern pathology and also made contributions to anthropology and anti-Aryanism.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Neljack (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Caroline Herschel and William Herschel[edit]

This brother-and-sister team discovered the first planet (Uranus) not known from antiquity and revealed that the nebulae catalogued by Messier were in fact clusters of stars, both groundbreaking discoveries in the history of modern astronomy.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 00:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Add Margaret E. Knight[edit]

An American woman who has been called the most famous 19th-century female inventor.

Support
  1. As nom. Wikipedians will find it vital if they have read both this article and paper bag.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Dozens of inventors are ahead of her. Cobblet (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Sports figures[edit]

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

Add David Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

They are no less well-known than Lionel Messi or Ronaldo in Taiwan, where soccer is not popular, hence they are as crucial as these two listed persons.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that they are not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose There would be lots of soccer players I would add before Beckham. Ronaldo is a bit stronger candidate, but I don't think he is quite at the necessary level at the this point. Neljack (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: pbp 00:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. In the past I had nominated some baseball figures (Pete Rose and Barry Bonds, cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive 44#Add_Pete_Rose_and_Barry_Bonds) for addition but failed because some people argued that adding them would destroy the balance, as soccer is more popular than baseball in the world. This is no good argument, since this list does not adequately cover vital baseball figures (Cy Young, Ed Walsh, Pedro Martínez, Mariano Rivera, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Pete Rose, Edgar Martínez, Barry Bonds, Cal Ripken, Sr., Cal Ripken, Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter and Yogi Berra are currently not included), a lot of Americans, Canadians and Australians watch baseball games, baseball is becoming more popular in Israel and the Philippines, and this is the English Wikipedia, meaning this list should contain all articles whose corresponding topics are regarded as vital by Americans. If adding all of these baseball figures would break topical balance then more soccer figure articles should be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 09:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC) modified a bit
@RekishiEJ: we need to get a better understanding of your views on sportspeople and the rest of the list. In your opinion, how many baseballers do you think should be vital, how many sports figures overall should be vital and how many people (all biographies) should be on the list? Please give at least a ballpark figure for each of these questions so we know where you stand. Otherwise these mass addition proposals are pointless and will be shut down every time. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, this list should contain at least 10 baseball figures, since cricket is less popular than baseball on earth, and currently the list merely contains 7 cricketers, and it should contain at least 120 athletes. The quota of people in the list should be raised to at least 2,010, since there are still many crucial figures not included in it, and currently only eleven more people can be added to the list due to the fact that the quota is 2,000, and the list presently contain 1,989 articles about people.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually cricket is more popular than baseball, so we should be removing baseball players, not adding them. I personally don't think Cobb and Gehrig are vital. Every sport has major figures missing from the list and there are many sports without any representation at all, but there are many types of biographies an encyclopedia needs to cover and I think 100 sports biographies, i.e. 5% of the biographies in general, would be sufficient. And even then most of those biographies would be irrelevant to anyone who isn't a fan of that particular sport. On the level 3 list, not a single sportsperson is listed among the 132 biographies. They're just not that vital. Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Ronaldinho and Rivaldo[edit]

They are no less famous than Ronaldo, and currently Ronaldo is in the list, hence these two figures should be added to it as well.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose I dispute that. In any case, they were not as great as Ronaldo. Neljack (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 23:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose pbp 00:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

History[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

History by continent and region[edit]

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

Add History of North Africa[edit]

Though having only three language editions, this article is still vital since North Africa has unique culture, and it does not consist only of Egypt.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I was thinking about proposing History of Morocco. Africa only has 5 history of country articles compared to 14 for Europe, Morocco seems pretty significant, equally or more so compared to say History of Netherlands or Romania which we have. Thinking about these history of regions articles, we have some like Scandinavia and Middle East, but a time ago many many region articles themselves were removed; regions and history of regions needs some thought, as to which to include and which not to.  Carlwev  17:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that if a particular country or region is strategically crucial, then its history is crucial as well. Hence, history of Singapore should be added, just like history of Israel.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Add History of Central Asia[edit]

An article not less vital than History of East Asia.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add History of Southeast Asia[edit]

Since histories of Burma, Cambodia, East Timor, Malaysia and Singapore are still no included in the list, and to list all of them is impractical due to the fact that there are some other more vital articles. e.g. history of political thought and history of sport not listed and there are not few it's better to add this to the list first.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support as per last time. The opposes weren't really convincing. One said this is redundant to History of Asia (ugh, what?) and the other doubted whether any "history of" articles are vital which is a little extreme. History of Southeast Asia before History of Austria for sure. Gizza (t)(c) 23:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. Logical1004 had made the same proposal before, however later it failed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Add history of the Americas[edit]

This article is more vital than history of North America and history of South America. In fact, the phrase "North America" has various definitions, which is sometimes confusing.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add history of Latin America[edit]

This article is definitely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

History by country[edit]

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

Prehistory and ancient history[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/History#Prehistory and ancient history for the list of topics in this category.

Post-classical history[edit]

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

Add Muslim conquests[edit]

No doubt it's vital, since it substantially changed Near East, Middle East and North Africa. For instance, Egypt was both Arabized and Islamized due to Muslim conquest of Egypt.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support You could argue that if Mongol invasions and conquests is redundant to Mongol Empire, Muslim conquests could be redundant to the early Islamic empires and Islamic Golden Age. However, an overview article is probably useful in this case. Still very relevant in 2015 compared to the Mongol conquests, which although having a stronger impact at the time, lost most of its significance within a few hundred years. Gizza (t)(c) 11:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Muslim conquest of Egypt[edit]

I think that it is more crucial, at least as crucial as Muslim conquest of Persia, since Arab conquest of Egypt both Arabized and Islamized Egypt, as many Arabs migrated to Egypt and more and more Copts got Islamized after this conquest. Arab conquest of Persia only Islamized Persia and made Persians use Arabic script to write their mother tongue.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Early modern history[edit]

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

Modern history[edit]

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

Historical cities[edit]

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

History of science and technology[edit]

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

History of other topics[edit]

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

Auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

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

Geography[edit]

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

Possible rearrange?[edit]

This may or may not be a good idea. Overtime the geography section has become more locations/regions than topics. What I mean is lists of individual examples of political and physical locations/regions/things on Earth are there, but the articles about the type of thing itself is elsewhere. Nile Mississippi Ganges and Amazon are in Geography but river itself is in Earth science. Same goes for mountains deserts etc. Country, state, city-state, are in social sciences, while individual countries themselves are of course in geography. Looking at basics and urban planning they contain many non place articles like cartography, Remote sensing are more arts or science. Urban planning contains city town slum urban planning, urbanization, urban design and zoning and more. These are not places, but are kind of geography topics, but so are river mountain and country, but we moved them. Urban planning stuff could be moved to social science along with country, city state, do people think this is a good idea? Also why is Central Park the only actual place in urban planning, although not a wildlife thing it could go with the other parks, no? And, we still have continent in geography after the move thread was closed as passed. Was it forgotten or moved back?

Basically do we want non places in geography? if so which ones and why? and which ones are we going to have elsewhere and why?  Carlwev  00:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I moved continent out of earth science when that section was above quota, not remembering the consensus we had. I'll move it back. Cobblet (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care whether we move urban planning topics to Social Sciences or cartography topics to Earth Sciences as long as we adjust the quotas accordingly, since both sections are basically full. I'm also indifferent to where you put Central Park – I personally have no problem with park and national park being in different sections. Cobblet (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I think that Hainan should be moved to the section "Regions and country subdivisions", since Hainan not only refers to Hainan Island, but also refers to the Hainan Province, and this province has more than one island.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Basics[edit]

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

Physical geography[edit]

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

Add Mount Ararat[edit]

Since both Jewish and Armenian tradition say Noah's Ark rested on Mount Ararat, it is considered to be a holy mountain by Armenians, and it is the central national symbol of Armenia, it should be listed.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed!--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose - In religious terms it's a pretty minor subject, and I don't think being the national symbol of Armenia is remotely close to justification. Rwessel (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 08:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I would've thought that Noah's Ark is more vital. That itself may be redundant to Noah. Gizza (t)(c) 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But the fact that Mt. Ararat is considered holy by Armenians guarantees its vitality.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Armenia is a pretty small country in scheme of things. It might have been historically larger but so were many other countries. A mountain considered sacred only by Armenians is not vital. Topics that carry significance beyond Armenia's borders like the genocide and having the oldest national church in the world are arguably vital but Mount Ararat isn't. Gizza (t)(c) 08:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Yushan (mountain)[edit]

This mountain is the tallest mountain in Taiwan, and was also the tallest one in the Empire of Japan.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Ridiculous. Cobblet (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Parks and preserves[edit]

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

Countries[edit]

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

Regions and country subdivisions[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Balochistan, Pakistan, Add Sindh[edit]

Removing Sindh was one of the biggest mistakes during the mass cull of regions a few years ago. Central to one of the oldest civilizations in the world with a rich history since, Sindh is far more important to Pakistan than Balochistan in nearly every way imaginable (economy, population, cultural influence, etc.). In fact, Balochistan is the least vital of Pakistan's four provinces. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is more vital too as it is the unstable Afghan border region known worldwide for being the part of Pakistan most affected by the War on Terror (though the instability dates back to British colonial times if not earlier). Gizza (t)(c) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  05:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support addition only. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support addition per Cobblet. Neljack (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I'm fond of geography topics, and I wasn't a fan of the region cull. More sure of the add than the remove. But yes we have to make choices. Balochistan only wins in area which isn't too big a deal, Sindh has almost triple population, almost, and does seem more significant in most things.  Carlwev  05:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally not opposed to listing all four of Pakistan's provinces though I doubt there will be consensus for that. As matter of priority, Sindh and even Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should be in before Balochistan. Gizza (t)(c) 05:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
No question Sindh is absolutely vital. I'd even consider the Thar Desert which is partially located in Sindh to be vital. But Balochistan is the main homeland of the Baloch people and a low-intensity separatist conflict in the region has been going on for much longer than the War on Terror. And it should be noted that we list Peshawar but not Quetta. If you ignore the armed conflicts in either region I actually think Balochistan's a slightly better choice for the list, although I'm not opposed to listing all four of Pakistan's provinces either. (But we should definitely be adding more Indian states and Chinese provinces if that's the case.)
A long time ago I argued Darfur was less vital than War in Darfur; I feel the same way regarding Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the War in North-West Pakistan. Cobblet (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Depending on how this goes, I might delete the removal from the proposal. Gizza (t)(c) 04:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Punjab, Pakistan, add Punjab (region)[edit]

Since Punjab redirects to Punjab (region), meaning the toponym Punjab usually refers to the region including Punjab, Pakistan and Punjab, India, history of Punjab not only encompasses history of the region which is now the Pakistani province of Punjab, and though the number of geographical articles in the list still does not exceed the quota there are many articles corresponding to vital cities not included in the list which are more vital than the article about the province, I think that the swap should be made.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support pbp 15:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Cities[edit]

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

Arts[edit]

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

Architecture[edit]

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

Add Guggenheim Museum Bilbao[edit]

The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a tremendous example of modern, contemporary art/architecture. From the article: "The museum was the building most frequently named as one of the most important works completed since 1980 in the 2010 World Architecture Survey among architecture experts." Also ranked one of the 12 Wonders of Spain.

Support
  1. As nominator.--DJB3.14 (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Literature[edit]

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

Music[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Guantanamera, Add Music of Latin America[edit]

We need better coverage of music outside the European/North American tradition: but the best way to do it is not by listing cliched tunes like Guantanamera or La Cucaracha or The Girl from Ipanema, but by listing the articles on the musical traditions themselves. That is where one can expect to find coverage of genres, styles, composers, performers and instrumentation – in short, everything one expects in an encyclopedic treatment of music. IMO only specific pieces with a substantial impact on the development of music should be included and in this sense Guantanamera is no more influential than Gangnam Style.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I would rather add specific genres of Latin American music than an overview article on music in the region. I would support removing Guantanamera if another music genre is proposed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per PointsofNoReturn. I also support swapping Guantanamera with a Latin genre. Music of Latin America itself is too big and broad. Gizza (t)(c) 23:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Latin American Music is a genre in which many readers of EN WP place high value on several specific songs. For genres of music more remote to EN WP users this might be a better solution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I have added a similar proposal below, with a specific genre which is not included among the vital articles. Cambalachero (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Sub-Saharan African music traditions, Arabic music and Music of China[edit]

Probably the best articles to cover music in each of these areas. (North African music groups better with other Arab music traditions than with the music of Sub-Saharan Africa.) Most other significant world music traditions have some form of coverage already: we have Indian classical music and several Indian musicians; Latin music was proposed in the previous nomination and is also already represented by several performers and styles; and Southeast Asian music is represented by gamelan, by far its most important subgenre.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Both removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Saint Louis Blues (song)[edit]

There are plenty of jazz standards that are just as popular, and if that's the only measure of a song's vitality then we should be adding stuff like Yesterday (Beatles song) and Amazing Grace.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Remove Over the Rainbow[edit]

Why do we need this in addition to The Wizard of Oz? We don't list hit numbers from any other musical or any famous operatic arias at all.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support didn't know the movie was listed too. Makes it even less vital. Gizza (t)(c) 08:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

It's described as a ballad, we don't have ballad, is ballad worth thinking about? better than Over the Rainbow I would think.  Carlwev  18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ballad is about the genre of folk song in English-speaking countries. I wouldn't mind adding something like European folk music but that's a redlink. (Even Music of Europe is just a redirect.) Over the Rainbow is a pop ballad which is definitely not vital IMO. Cobblet (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove Conga[edit]

Bongos and claves are just as important percussion instruments in Cuban music and I don't see how any of these are particularly vital. If we need another drum-related topic I'd suggest drum kit; and other types of percussion could use some attention, such as gong, tambourine, thumb piano, rattle (percussion instrument), clapper (musical instrument) (claves are a type of clapper) or the recently removed slit drum which is not really a "drum" at all.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support drum kit sounds like a good idea. Central to both jazz and rock music. Gizza (t)(c) 08:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Swap: Remove Guantanamera, Add Bachata (music)[edit]

As suggested above, it may be better to replace that song with a music genre from South America. I first thought about Tango music, but Tango is already included, and may be redundant.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cambalachero (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support add although I think both Cha-cha-cha (music) and Merengue music are as important if not more so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal. This is a tremendously important song culturally to Latino Americans.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. Why is the term Salsa music vital as opposed to Salsa (dance). Similarly, I think Cha-cha-cha (dance), Merengue (dance) and Bachata (dance) are culturally important sort of in that order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Oye Como Va[edit]

Support
  1. Support as nom. It seems to me that this song is arguably as important as Guantanamera.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Performing arts[edit]

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

Visual arts[edit]

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

Added 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2015 (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 Perspective (graphical)[edit]

The rediscovery and codification of the principles of linear perspective had a revolutionary impact on Western art.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support I would rather add specific pieces of art, but since this is such an important concept, I will support this addition. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support I was close to opening this myself.  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

I think we should add Filippo Brunelleschi to the list of architects. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems decent idea  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of opening this myself, also I was thinking of suggesting the removal of Mercator projection as we list Map projection already but no other single type of map projection (unless you include globe as a projection).  Carlwev  17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The Mercator projection is definitely the most significant map projection (used universally in nautical charts) and its invention was an important development in the Age of Exploration. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Modern visual arts[edit]

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

Removed 5-0 Cobblet (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Remove The General (1926 film)[edit]

I see no compelling reason to list the 18th best American film when we have seven other silent films on the list and classic 20th-century American novels like Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse-Five are missing.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Jucchan (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support 18th is quite low. Nothing else suggests vitality. Gizza (t)(c) 04:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

There may be a few non vital old films listed  Carlwev  17:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should be listing more films than works of architecture, so I'd definitely support more well-reasoned removals of films. Cobblet (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Fictional characters[edit]

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

Philosophy and religion[edit]

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

Philosophy[edit]

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

Add concept[edit]

No doubt it is a crucial philosophical topic.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Cobblet (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Swap: Remove Adam and Eve, Add Adam and Eve[edit]

Intertwined subjects. The article on the duo is of comparable quality to the individual articles, and this would save space.

Support
  1. Support as nom.Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Good catch. Gizza (t)(c) 03:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Very sensible idea, noticed this myself before as well. FWIW, the article on the story gets as many hits as the articles on the individual characters combined. Cobblet (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support The combined article appears to cover just about everything the individual articles do. Rwessel (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. To make room for more articles about specific Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Sikh topics.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Religion and spirituality[edit]

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

Specific religions[edit]

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

Add Armenian Apostolic Church[edit]

The fact that it is the first national church on earth guarantees its vitality.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per the previous discussion although this has been renominated quite quickly. Gizza (t)(c) 10:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose per the previous discussion less than six months ago. Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. The fact that this list covers more vital Christian topics than vital Islamic ones does not mean that it covers Christianity sufficiently. Both religions are not adequately covered in the list. So to addres the Islamic issue we should add more Islamic topics as well, rather than reject this proposal.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had nominated this for addition before, but later it failed (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive_43#80_Add_Armenian_Apostolic_Church).--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Esoterics, magic and mysticism[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Philosophy and religion#Esoterics, magic and mysticism for the list of topics in this category.

Mythology[edit]

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

Everyday life[edit]

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

Clothing and fashion[edit]

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

Color[edit]

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

Cooking, food and drink[edit]

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

Add toast, baguette, croissant and doughnut[edit]

No doubt a lot of Westerners and non-Westerners have consumed them, hence they are all vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Opppose
  1. Oppose for now. Some of these are as vital as foods currently listed but it is more pressing to add common cooking methods like barbecue, frying, steaming, etc. first. Gizza (t)(c) 08:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. The fact that some vital cooking methods are not included in the list does not mean that for now this proposal should be rejected. Instead, we should propose that they be added to the list as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Family and kinship[edit]

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

Household items[edit]

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

Sexuality[edit]

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


Sports and recreation[edit]

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

Add dodgeball[edit]

A sport which is quite popular among many male elemantary school students in the world.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it does not belong to the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm not sure how the (unsubstantiated) popularity in that particular demographic makes this vital. Rwessel (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rwessel. Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Stages of life[edit]

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

Timekeeping[edit]

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Everyday life#Timekeeping for the list of topics in this category.

Society and social sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Anthropology[edit]

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

Business and economics[edit]

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

Culture[edit]

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

Add Cultural assimilation[edit]

No doubt it's vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support we have many articles on the stratification/segregation side of things but none on assimiliation. This is a good choice. Gizza (t)(c) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Education[edit]

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

Ethnology[edit]

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

Swap:Remove Austronesian peoples, add Taiwanese aborigines[edit]

Most major groups of Austronesian people are represented by their countries and islands, making the main article redundant. The most notable of groups not really represented are the Taiwanese aborigines, who are a minority in their country and similar to other indigenous people we list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Taiwanese aborigines should be added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Austronesian peoples should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't think the Taiwanese aborigines are all that noteworthy compared to other marginalized peoples in Asia like the Ainu in Japan, the Moro in the Philippines, the Shan and Rohingya in Burma, Syriac Christians, or any number of ethnic minorities in mainland China or Siberia. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

I think we should do something with Bantu peoples and a famous Bantu people, possibly Zulu? Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to remove the Bantu and Austronesians, why not the Arabs and Slavs as well? I think non-Bantu ethnicities in Africa (e.g. the Hausa, Igbo and Fula in West Africa and the Amhara and Oromo in East Africa) should get some attention as well. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes I support removing Slavs. Arabs are more politically unified and have made regional organizations like the Arab League although the Arab League itself is listed so I can understand removing Arabs too. The Ainu are a good choice IMO. Non-Bantu African groups are also a good idea. I have been thinking of the Congo Pygmies, Hausa and a few others. Gizza (t)(c) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Slavs are a significant pan-ethnicity, and Arabs are quite influential in history, so both should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Quechua people[edit]

There are no South American ethnic groups listed. Every other continent has at least two groups represented. The Quechua are among the most well-known in South America.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

This has been hinted upon a few times in the past (I could find the archives if you want) but I honestly think the ethnology section needs to become bigger. These articles are precisely the type of article you expect to find in an encyclopedia. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree: but it would be nice if we could establish some sort of criteria for what might constitute a vital ethnic group instead of taking the shotgun approach to this section as we previously have. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Amish[edit]

The Amish are the most famous group of simple living people in the world. Ranked 3142 in page traffic. I would personally have the Amish before many American biographies and pop culture topics that nobody has heard of outside the States.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 07:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose If we're adding an ethnic group from the United States it simply has to be African American. Cobblet (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Cobblet. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Assyrian people[edit]

This ethnicity should be added to the section, since Assyrian people are absolutely descendants of Ancient Assyrian people, who ruled the Assyrian Empire, and during the Umayyads and the Abbasids they contributed hugely to the Arab Islamic Civilization by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Iranian peoples, Persian people and Kurds[edit]

These are no doubt vital, since Iranian peoples has been playing an important role in the history of the world.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Kurds. Important enough the have ethnicity and region listed. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Kurds, per Gizza. Rwessel (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose Iranian and Persian. Very redundant to Iran, the Iranian language and the Persian language. Gizza (t)(c) 02:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Iranian and Persian, per Gizza. Rwessel (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Why are the Kurds important enough to have both ethnicity and region listed? Most countries do not have both the country and the nationality or its most common ethnicity listed. Cobblet (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the larger population of the Kurds (at least 30 million) and the fact that they compose a significant minority in four countries (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran) makes them stand out from other groups. FWIW, we have both Tibet and Tibetan people, Xinjiang and Uyghur people. Gizza (t)(c) 01:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Add Turkic peoples and Turkish people[edit]

Since Turkic peoples, especially Turkish people play a crucial role in the history of the world, they are absolutely vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Strong Oppose Turkish. It was already on the list (many suspect by accident) and removed. Ethnic groups that are a near majority in one country and don't have a significant population elsewhere barring recent migration are redundant to the country. Including Turkish people is pointless when Turkey is listed. Using other examples, Brazilians is redundant to Brazil, Norwegians is redundant to Norway and Ugandans is redundant to Uganda (interestingly it is a redirect too). I thought this would be very obvious. Gizza (t)(c) 08:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Add Copts and Yazidis[edit]

Since both of these two ethno-religious groups have been persecuted by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and news media pay attention to them a lot, they are crucial, just like Ebola virus disease.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
  1. Oppose I agree with DaGizza - persecution, by itself, is an insufficient rational for inclusion, except perhaps in exception cases. Although as an ethnic group of some ~30 million, the Copts may come close to qualifying on just that basis. Rwessel (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The Coptic church is listed. Cobblet (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The Yazidis are really a subgroup of the Kurds. Gizza (t)(c) 02:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Ebola was on the list long before the recent news about it spreading in West Africa. As fascinating as they are, Yazidis are not vital. Not every group in the world facing persecution is vital. There are hundreds of them and there's clearly not enough space. Gizza (t)(c) 23:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

International organizations[edit]

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

Language[edit]

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

Swap: Remove Assamese language, Add Ahom Kingdom[edit]

While Assamese has some literate history and has official status at the state level, it only has 15 million speakers, which in the context of the highly populated South Asia region, is very little.

To maintain coverage of this part of the world, I propose replacing it with the Ahom Kingdom, a kingdom that lasted for around 600 years and successfully resisted Mughal expansion into the Northeast of India before finally succumbing to the Burmese and British. It was founded by the Ahoms, a Tai people from Southern China. Over time, the kingdom became Indianized and today the area reflects a cultural and, for wants of a better term, racial mix of all these areas.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support removal only. Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

Is there any reason you didn't pick the Pala Empire? They seem to me the most noteworthy entity in eastern India that we're missing – they represent the last great flourishing of Buddhism in South Asia and were involved in the Tripartite Struggle. Pala art is quite well known and important in the context of Buddhist and Indian art. There were lots of little kingdoms in Southeast Asia and I've never heard of Ahom, while at least I've heard of places like Lan Na, Pegu and Ava. Cobblet (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Pala Empire is good too. I thought it was already included. It should definitely be in. I was just thinking of a like-for-like swap in this proposal as both articles are about the Northeast. Gizza (t)(c) 07:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Ottoman Turkish language[edit]

Given the fact that it was the only administrative language in the Ottoman Empire (cf. languages of the Ottoman Empire), it was deeply influenced by both Arabic and Persian, and a lot of literary works were written in it, it is worthy of being included in the list.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The only historical language I might support adding is Proto-Indo-European language (but we already have Proto-Indo-Europeans). Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Law[edit]

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

Mass media[edit]

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

Add The Economist[edit]

This news magazine is no less influential than Der Spiegel on earth, but currently the former is not in the list, unlike the latter, which is quite strange.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support This is a very important publication.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support The magazine section is currently very American-centric. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I'd put investigative journalism at a higher level of importance than political analysis from one particular viewpoint. Like I don't see how The Economist is more vital than the Brookings Institution. Cobblet (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Jucchan (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

These proposals deal with a part of the list that has not been touched in a long time. Whatever the outcome of these four individuals proposals, thank you for bringing this area to attention Rekishi. The questions we have to ask ourselves are first of all, how many newspapers and magazines are vital and then which ones are vital. What sort of variety do we want in terms of categories, country, circulation, prominence and language? Gizza (t)(c) 09:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We cut the TV networks down to one some time ago. I think we should be similarly selective when it comes to newspapers and magazines. Different types of media within the same news genre should be compared – is it necessary to list both WSJ and the Financial Times when we don't have Forbes, Fortune, CNBC or Bloomberg L.P.? Also, I suggest that the most important factor for inclusion should not be online traffic (in which case Xinhua News Agency, People's Daily and China Daily take the top three spots globally; how are they more vital than other highly-viewed websites?) but historical influence, which is usually tied to journalistic quality – in that sense it's obvious no Chinese paper has any real significance while I think The Times and The New York Times are ahead of the pack among English-language papers. It's also the reason why Punch and Mad are on the list. Cobblet (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Add Financial Times[edit]

This paper is quite popular among most senior financial decision makers in the world's largest financial institutions, and was regarded as the most credible publication in reporting financial and economic issues among the Worldwide Professional Investment Community audience, hence it is vital, in fact more worthy of being included in the list than Wall Street Journal.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Museums[edit]

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

Politics and government[edit]

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

Add referendum[edit]

No doubt it's vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support even though this is framed as a straight add instead of a swap, there are less vital articles in the politics section so I'll support this. I also believe that the current quota of 900 articles is not enough for social sciences. Gizza (t)(c) 00:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Psychology[edit]

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

Society[edit]

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

Sociology[edit]

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

War and military[edit]

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

Biology and health sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Add Trinomial nomenclature[edit]

This article is vital since this nomenclature is used to describe the scientific names of taxa below the rank of species, e.g. subspecies of a particular animal species.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Subtopic of binomial nomenclature. There really isn't that much we can say about it. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add Phylum[edit]

This article is, in fact, no less vital than domain, since some middle school biology textbooks mention phylum but not domain, and the latter is currently included in the list, which I think should be kept.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. In many fields classification is increasingly cladistic, rather than using Linnean ranks. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add class (biology)[edit]

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. In many fields classification is increasingly cladistic at this level, rather than using Linnean ranks. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add order (biology)[edit]

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. In many fields classification is increasingly cladistic at this level, rather than using Linnean ranks. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add family (biology)[edit]

This article is in fact no less vital than species, since all middle school biology textbooks stress that there are at least seven taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add tribe (biology)[edit]

This concept is vital in both zoology and botany.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Minor rank, not vital Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add genus[edit]

This article is important, since the first part of the scientific name of a particular species is the genus where it belongs to.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Important, but ultimately an artificial and arbitrary way of slicing up the tree of life. There's not really much we can say about each of the traditional ranks. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Add subspecies[edit]

This article, though not as vital as species, still deserves to belong to the list since a lot of species have subspecies.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose this and all the other nomenclature-related proposals above per Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 28#Remove Phylum, Class (biology), Order (biology), Family (biology), Genus. As for subspecies, existence != vitality. Cobblet (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Minor rank. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per Plantdrew and Cobblet. Gizza (t)(c) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

Anatomy and morphology[edit]

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

Add elbow[edit]

No doubt it is vital. It is especially vital to baseball players.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Not as vital as knee. Gizza (t)(c) 10:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    1. Then let's add knee as well!--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Discuss

I'm not sure of these, not the worse ideas, but we've recently added arm and Human leg which could obviously have fairly in depth info on knee and elbow, and possibly hip and shoulder too. Pushing it, if one were arguing for hip, shoulder, knee, elbow, one could argue for wrist and ankle, although they seem less vital and are covered by hand and foot. Also although covered by hand finger and or thumb seem reasonable and could be argued for, as could jaw. Neck isn't covered by much that isn't a wide overview, may have a mention in some articles like head but it's not part of the head. Other anatomy articles on my mind were tendon and/or ligament.  Carlwev  18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Add knee[edit]

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support As vital as Elbow. Perhaps Hip and Shoulder should be added if they are not on the list. Then maybe Neck. That is if we want more joints. Perhaps there are other anatomical parts not on the list. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Hip[edit]

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add shoulder[edit]

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Add Neck[edit]

No doubt it is vital.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not include in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Biochemistry and molecular biology[edit]

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

Biological processes and physiology[edit]

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

Botany[edit]

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

Cell biology[edit]

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

Ecology[edit]

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

Zoology[edit]

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

Organisms[edit]

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

Health, medicine and disease[edit]

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


Physical sciences[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Measurement[edit]

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

Astronomy[edit]

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

Chemistry[edit]

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

Earth science[edit]

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

Physics[edit]

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

Technology[edit]

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

Agriculture[edit]

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

Biotechnology[edit]

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

Computing and information technology[edit]

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

Add smartphone[edit]

Now that a lot of people use it, and this term has been mentioned many times by news media, it should be crucial.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Add computer file[edit]

No doubt it is crucial.

Support
  1. As nom. I'm quite surprised that it is not included in the list!--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. While a bit of that is covered in File system, it's Computer files which are the fundamental topic in data storage - all the rest (including the file system, disk drives, and whatnot), is just there to hold the file. Rwessel (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Opposition
Discussion

Electronics[edit]

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

Engineering[edit]

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

Industry[edit]

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

Infrastructure[edit]

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

Machinery and tools[edit]

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

Media and communication[edit]

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

Medical technology[edit]

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

Military technology[edit]

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

Navigation and timekeeping[edit]

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

Optical technology[edit]

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

Space[edit]

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

Textiles[edit]

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

Transportation[edit]

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

Remove Honda and Nissan[edit]

Six car companies is too many if we're not listing historically important companies in other areas such as McDonald's or AT&T, and listing one Japanese car company is enough if we're not listing any other Japanese company/zaibatsu.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  1. McDonald's and AT&T should be added, not removing Honda and Nissan, since these two Japanese car companies are indeed vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mathematics[edit]

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

Basics[edit]

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

Algebra[edit]

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

Add Cross-multiplication[edit]

It's one of the basics.

Support
  1. As nom Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not really that important as an individual technique, already mentioned in Fraction_(mathematics), which is in the list. Rwessel (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Not that vital. I think that topics like Japanese mathematics, hexadecimal or resultant are more vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Rwessel and Rekishi. Gizza (t)(c) 10:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

Calculus and analysis[edit]

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

Discrete mathematics[edit]

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

Geometry[edit]

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

Other[edit]

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

Probability and statistics[edit]

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

General discussions[edit]

People from the Islamic Golden Age: a case study on the completeness of the list[edit]

Some people seem surprised that I'm very picky when it comes to proposals adding more people to the list, even though we're still below the quota by 17. I want to show how there are many people who are very significant in their discipline or time period that we haven't yet included, and as an example of that, I've decided to examine how well we cover the Islamic Golden Age. This used to be a weak spot on the list, especially in terms of people who were not political or military leaders, but we've made significant progress, having added Al-Biruni, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi, Geber, Khadija bint Khuwaylid and Aisha over the last couple of years.

Have we done enough? Look at the following people (just intellectuals for now – I'll discuss political and military leaders further down) who aren't on the list, sorted by number of page views over the past 90 days. I don't use page views as an absolute measure of vitality (any two-bit celebrity today will beat these page views easily), but when comparing people belonging to the same culture and historical period, I find it a useful way of seeing at a glance whose importance stands out.

  • Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, also known as Rhazes (20,176 page views): polymath especially known for his contributions to medicine. Britannica flat-out calls him "the greatest physician of the Islamic world" which is a bold claim with Avicenna, Geber and al-Zahrawi to contend with, but perhaps not unjustifiable – for example, he was the first person to note the difference between smallpox and measles. I'm not surprised he's missing since we got around to adding two terribly important physicians only recently.
  • Al-Farabi (19,163 views) and Al-Kindi (17,692 views): the two most distinguished figures of Islamic philosophy before Avicenna – the Arabs considered Al-Farabi the greatest philosopher after Aristotle and Al-Kindi the father of Arab philosophy. Both wrote on a wide variety of subjects and played an important in preserving, disseminating and building upon the work of the ancient Greeks.
  • Al-Jazari (14,509 views): the most famous of Arab inventors (next in line would probably be the Banū Mūsā brothers with only 3214 views), noted for his intricate designs of machines and automata.
  • Maria al-Qibtiyya (13,102 views): the only one of Muhammad's wives besides Khadija bint Khuwaylid to bear him a child.
  • Rabia Basri (12,908 views): the first of the Sufi mystics, and the only one of four women listed in The Muslim 100 not on our list. The only other notable women of the period who weren't wives or daughters of Muhammad I could find were Al-Khansa (3953 views), one of the greatest Arab poets, and Arwa al-Sulayhi (3276 views), Queen of Yemen for over 60 years (known as the "little Queen of Sheba") and the only significant example of a female Arab ruler in Islamic times.
  • Abu Hurairah (12,447 views): one of the most important narrators of hadith, #10 on The Muslim 100 and the only one in the top ten not to appear on our list.

These are all the people I could find with over 9000 page views during the last 90 days. Other people that nearly met this threshold of 100 views/day were Ibn al-Nafis (8981 views), Al-Jahiz (8604 views) and Attar of Nishapur (8381 views). There are still a number of interesting figures whose biographies get even less attention, e.g. Yunus Emre (6934 views), the first great figure in Turkish literature; Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi (4092 views), the first astronomer to record observing the Andromeda galaxy and Large Magellanic Cloud; Imru' al-Qais (3807 views), the most distinguished of pre-Islamic Arab poets; Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād (3267 views), the best-known of Persian miniature painters and one of the few plausible choices to represent Islamic art, and Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (2570 views), pioneer of the study of the Arabic language and compiler of the first Arabic dictionary.

I'll let everyone decide for themselves how many of these figures they deem vital. Personally I'm only strongly inclined to add Rhazes and al-Farabi.

That was intellectual history. While our coverage of Muslim political and military leaders of this period is better, there are still some notable omissions:

  • Mahmud of Ghazni (48,136 views): the first of Muslim invaders of India, and as brilliant a patron of the arts and literature as he was a warrior. His court entertained such luminaries as Al-Biruni and Ferdowsi, author of Shahnameh which is even on our level 3 list.
  • Alp Arslan (17,476 views): second Seljuk sultan whose victory over Romanos IV signaled the decline of the Byzantine Empire, and whose vizier Nizam al-Mulk (6571 views) was one of the most capable political administrators in Islamic history.
  • Tariq ibn Ziyad (16,151 views): Moorish conqueror of Spain – Muslim rule there would endure for another 500 years.

I also came across figures like Al-Mansur (10,809 views) and Al-Ma'mun (10,418 views) who I don't think are particularly vital. The Barmakids (3755 views), the great viziers of the Abbasid Caliphate mentioned in the Arabian Nights, seem more interesting to me but the page views would suggest others don't share this opinion. Of the list above, I think the first two definitely make good additions, while Alp Arslan could be swapped with Tughril (3575 views) and Tariq with 'Abd al-Rahman I (6143 views).

So this is how our coverage of the Islamic Golden Age looks: we have many key people but are still missing quite a few, and there is no way we could include every person that has the slightest claim to being vital. I personally think we should consider a net addition of four people and they're all from this one cultural region 800-1400 years ago. Who knows how many people closer to our time we still don't have? Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I briefly mentioned Al-Kindi once too. This will take time to research and discuss. Hopefully I'll get the time in the next couple of days. Gizza (t)(c) 13:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding some of these guys. If we go over 2,000, we can just cut some more sportspeople. pbp 13:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of all pop culture sections in People, modern music has taken the smallest hit. There are 27 Rock musicians, nearly all from only two decades (60s and 70s) and two countries. For comparison there are 15 soccer players spread from the 1940s to 2015 and from all over the world. Gizza (t)(c) 01:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I had to pick four, I would choose Rabia, Al-Razi or Al-Kindi (hard to decide), Muhammad of Ghor and Tariq. I'm less certain with the intellectuals than political and military leaders. Muhammad of Ghor is the foremost symbol of early Islam in South Asia and is revered as a hero in Pakistan and to a lesser extent Afghanistan. Assuming there are no other Islamic conquerors of Iberia listed, Tariq should be listed as his conquests lead to the only instance of long-term Muslim rule in Western Europe. I'm guessing he gets low views because Spain and Portugal are no longer Muslim so nobody really reveres him in a patriotic sense but 500 years of history and influence is enough IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 10:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)+

Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari is currently not included in the list, despite the fact that he was a Persian polymath who wrote all of his works in Arabic and contributed to tafsir and fiqh a lot.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Women on the list[edit]

Now that Sojourner Truth's been nominated again for removal, this seems as good a time as any to ask a question that's been on my mind a lot lately: how many women should we have on the list? If that's too loaded a question or too hard to answer, how about this: is there a minimum number of women we should be including? Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the first question we should ask is how many women and men are currently on the list (and other classifications like nationality and historical era). It will take a long time to count though. Apart from actors and actresses, no other section is divided by sex. That aside, if we do not have a target or quota for women, there are obviously many vital women due to their contributions and actions in a particular field. The fact that they're women doesn't come into it. Curie, Austen and Thatcher to name a few.
Deciding on a specific number of women is difficult because the number is shaped by the number of people we have on different categories. The gender split in acting and musicians will be closer to 50-50 than in areas like sports and military leaders. Therefore if we increase the sizes of the former at the expense of the latter, we will end up with more women on the list but that isn't the best way to go about it.
When a man and woman are roughly equal in vitality in terms of "objective" criteria, I favour adding the woman to reduce the monotony in the list. Same with nationality. I support diversity in the sense of adding variety to the people section (and other section) since this vital list is aiming to summarize all human knowledge. For this reason, I don't necessarily believe a non-political leader needs to change the world to the same extent as a political leader to be vital. On the other hand, you do have the draw the line somewhere and can't add people who have made no real long-term impact in their field just because they're female, non-white, LGBT, disabled or some other minority group. Gizza (t)(c) 10:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I basically agree with what you said. If there are men and women of similar vitality then it should be at least be 50/50 as to the gender of the person we pick – you seem to be suggesting we go even further. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

By my count, there are 191.5 women on the list – I'm counting the Williams sisters as one because only Serena has any business being on the list anyway, and the half is because of Kenneth and Mamie Clark. (I did not count mixed-gender music groups like ABBA.) In other words, women make up less than 10% of the list. Cobblet (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For comparison, it's been found that around 15% of the biographies on the English Wikipedia are about women. Cobblet (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research Cobblet. Did you make a note of other information like whether the percentage of women is lower in ancient history than modern (which is what one would expect) and possibly lower in non-Western countries than Western? Anyway there are vital women from many areas still missing from the list. I've thought of proposing some but am unsure about when and how to propose them (swaps or straight adds).
We generally guard against recentism though we do list people that only became prominent since the mid-2000s like Lionel Messi, Rafael Nadal, Manmohan Singh, Usain Bolt and Barack Obama (while Kofi Annan, the Williams sisters and Vladimir Putin became notable only a little bit earlier). I think you can put forward a strong case for adding Angela Merkel. Chancellor of Germany since 2005 and regarded as de facto leader of the European Union for most of this time. Credited as being a stabilizing force for the continent during tumultuous economic period. Merkel has been ranked as the most powerful woman for nine of the past ten years by Forbes. And the only people consistently above her in the Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People over the past five years are Obama and Putin who are listed. Gizza (t)(c) 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
IMO Merkel is clearly vital – that her name has never even been mentioned once on this talk page until now says a lot about our priorities. Other women from the 2000s I'd point to are Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, J. K. Rowling and Marit Bjørgen. From the 1990s I think Anna Wintour, Diana, Princess of Wales and Anggun have cases to be made for them. Only Marit's been proposed before.
I have a list of about 60 women for whom I believe I can make a decent case (and have already made it for Maria Montessori), and for whom I can find swaps to keep us at 2000 people. That would bring us up to 250 women, or in other words one in eight people on the list would be female. That's not asking for a lot, is it? It's not hard to find another 50 women beyond that who would also make interesting choices, but finding swaps for them is harder, and it's not like we've included all the deserving men on the list either. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
250 women seems reasonable. Do you think the reason we're low on women compared to Wikipedia as a whole is because this has a different distribution by vocation than the whole project? (not that I'm saying change the distribution of the VA/E/P, I think it's pretty good as is). pbp 21:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Really good question, and frankly I have no idea if that's the reason or not. I don't know if Wikidata analysis has been done on the distribution of biographies by vocation yet. Cobblet (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be fascinating to find out how many modern biographies (1800-present) listed are of a particular nationality. I'm too lazy or busy to do this right now. My guess for the top five would be the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia (not sure of the precise order apart from the US and UK leading). Then probably Japan, Spain, Italy, China and India for the top ten though the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway might make it in the top ten too. It is difficult to look at nationality specifically for earlier periods of history though we can still classify people by empire or well-defined parts of continents. Gizza (t)(c) 13:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that information although I do know that the most populous country without a political leader listed is Kenya (Jomo Kenyatta has a good case) and the most populous country not represented by anyone at all is Cameroon (I couldn't find a Cameroonian biography I considered vital). Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with having a specific quota for men and women. That will just cause controversy as we are forced to eliminate important male articles for less important female articles. Instead, I prefer to take a case by case basis, looking into sections where there could be a few important women, but those women must be equal in importance to the men in that section. Adding women just to reach a quota amounts to a watering-down of the list. I do believe there should be more women on the list, such as J.K. Rowling. I will simply decide based on which woman is nominated. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with your points and have no wish to propose a hard quota. The point of the numbers was to illustrate how this list is more biased towards men than Wikipedia is as a whole. Before I propose adding a large number of women to the list I wanted to explain why I think this is necessary and see what others thought about this. I consider Sojourner Truth a rather marginal choice but nevertheless people are willing to defend her. I think there are plenty of women who have even stronger cases to be made for them. Cobblet (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your logic. The list does have too few women. We just have to add some one by one, perhaps swapping women for less important male articles. Perhaps some famous female world leaders could be added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, women are still underrepresented on an objective basis. Well as objective as you can get. Everyone has biases. I don't know how far we can go until we will be adding woman because they're women and not purely because of their accomplishments but we're not there yet. Gizza (t)(c) 11:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Cobblet and User:DaGizza What do you guys think of Jane Jacobs? She's one of the top figures in urban planning and urban studies and we don't have a figure for it which can diversify the occupations and add a woman as-well. GuzzyG (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Never thought of her. I looked at several women social scientists (Ruth Benedict, Harriet Martineau, Marija Gimbutas, Mary Leakey) and ultimately felt Melanie Klein, Karen Horney and Zora Neale Hurston were the three with the best cases; YMMV. And surely there are many female activists more influential and better known in the English-speaking world than Jacobs – Alice Paul and Millicent Fawcett for starters; and from the rest of the world one could look at some of the Nobel Peace Prize winners from the last 25 years, Rigoberta Menchú, Shirin Ebadi, Wangari Maathai, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Malala Yousafzai – I think Sirleaf has the best case among all of them. I also think there's a better example of a well-known woman who's prominent in a so-far-unrepresented field: Julia Child. Cobblet (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Harriet, Mary and Zora were on my potential list in my head. I'm not too sure about Alice or Millicent (Alice out of the two), Malala's too recent (maybe), i thought Sirleaf was on the list and i'd definitely vote her in a instant, first elected female head of state of a continent and if we have recent women like J. K. Rowling on the list then recentism should not apply to Ellen, not so sure about Rigoberta/Shirin/Wangari though, may be too regional. I was in favour of adding a chef and Julia i feel would be a good representative if we go that route. The biggest omission on this list though is Diana, Princess of Wales, by faaaaaaaar. Hugely popular activist, historically important, song commemorating her is the highest selling single or second behind White Christmas, the only non 21st century household name not on this list that's not a entertainer in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree Princess Diana's vital; other female humanitarians I'd support adding are Elizabeth Fry and Clara Barton (but we should also add Henri Dunant). Cobblet (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2015-48
353289
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:JXUI37EIO335V5DTSNZJU7D4XQQNJGYP
<urn:uuid:444317a9-e1ea-4727-9744-126d2af96c26>
2015-11-29T21:05:46Z
208.80.154.224
sha1:JM6BF7TM2UMSDQOWQ7NTWLG7PEKXUEKE
<urn:uuid:71c2da01-0bdb-408b-b64c-033516fcca7d>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Physical_sciences
response
<urn:uuid:350b713b-3e51-4399-927a-00ab944cadb3>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-71-132-137.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-48
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for Nov 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf