Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60
PASSED
Added, 6-0. --Thi (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

I was surprised to find that these were not listed.

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

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

Honestly, I've always viewed the various section quotas as more of a guideline rather than a hard limit. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Under 15 days/1/3 support/5 oppose. J947( c ) (m) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Arthur Conan Doyle

The British authors section is quite crowded. Sherlock Holmes is listed in Fictional characters.[1] We do not list Ian Fleming, Bram Stoker, J.M. Barrie, E.R. Burroughs or A.A. Milne [2]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. pbp 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Vital and crucial. Jusdafax 06:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose for obvious reasons. J947( c ) (m) 04:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 9-0. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Balearic Islands

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. As I state below, I think we are too light on islands in the current list, especially ones with unique cultures/languages or flora and fauna. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gpapazian (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support —J947( c ) (m) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support The Balearic Islands have an estimated population of 1,107,220 people. That is larger than the population of several independent states, such as Montenegro, Luxembourg, and Malta. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 8-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Bermuda

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
    @Rreagan007:, you forgot to add the date and time of your cast of support vote.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, I noticed that. I'm not sure why the timestamp didn't show up in my signature. I'll try to figure out how to add that in. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
    It didn't show up because you accidentally typed ~~~ instead of ~~~~. You can avoid that mistake by always clicking 'Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~' below the editing window. J947( c ) (m) 18:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 04:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support – Probably most vital of all these proposals here (islands). J947( c ) (m) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Cayman Islands

Another island group that should be added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
  2. Support, tentatively – I don't know anything that makes this island group particularly special, and it will become the weakest in the Caribbean, but I'm all in for adding more to this under-quota section. J947( c ) (m) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak support I suggested the Cayman Islands because they're the most famous tax haven in the world and one of the most famous offshore financial centres (along with Switzerland and nowadays Panama post-Panama Papers). Then again, it may be preferable to add the concepts of tax avoidance or tax evasion in the business and economics or law sections instead of adding these islands, which is why my support isn't strong. Gizza (t)(c) 11:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Channel Islands and Isle of Man

More islands that should be added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
  2. Support – I'd say they'd both be more important than Novaya Zemlya, hence my vote. J947( c ) (m) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Another island group that should be added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
  2. Support as we're at a considerable Asian shortage in the Indian Ocean. J947( c ) (m) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Jeju Island

Another island that should be added.

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

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

Marking as neutral on this one; South Korean editors could help. J947( c ) (m) 03:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Socotra

Another island that should be added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
  2. Support as we're at a considerable Asian shortage in the Indian Ocean. J947( c ) (m) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
ABC island (Lesser Antilles) added, Curaçao removed, 6-0. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add ABC islands (Lesser Antilles), Remove Curaçao

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
  2. Support logical swap. Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support, tentatively – Even though this is not a well-known term, it would be a useful umbrella for them as I don't think that these particular islands would make the cut separately. J947( c ) (m) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Both added, 5-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands

More islands that should be added.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2017‎ (UTC)
  2. Both more vital than New Britain, hence support. J947( c ) (m) 04:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Prose poetry

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support —J947( c ) (m) 01:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 9-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Taxidermy

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

Support
  1. Support As nom.  Carlwev  19:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. pbp 14:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support though we are over-quota here. J947( c ) (m) 01:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-1. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Humanism

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support – We're under-quota here. The overlap isn't enough for me to consider opposing this. J947( c ) (m) 01:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Secular humanism is covered by Atheism and History of Atheism. Renaissance humanism is another article. --Thi (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Falun Gong

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Gizza (t)(c) 03:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Weak support. J947( c ) (m) 01:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, though weakly; I support adding a more general page on Eastern new-age religious movements. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose --Thi (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

Falun Gong was removed around three years ago (see archive). Along with it, Scientology and the Hare Krishna movement were removed. The main reason was that there are other NRMs out there like Caodaism, Rastafarianism, Tenrikyo and Yiguandao. And there are others like Christian Science and Ahmadiyya. Having said that, Falun Gong is larger in terms of number of adherents and as you say, more widespread. I think I'll support this as well as Ahmadiyya. Gizza (t)(c) 08:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7-0. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Tequila

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support. It's as vital as the other liquors listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. pbp 20:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  19:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Weak support. J947( c ) (m) 01:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

I actually agree with the overabundance of alcoholic drinks and only proposed this for consistency. I once talked about removing sake instead but it seemed that consensus wanted all of the alcoholic drinks to stay. I also support Mexican cuisine, which I think is more vital than Japanese (IMO there is overlap between Chinese and Japanese cuisine). I also think that lemonade should have stayed. And we can add orange juice and possibly herbal tea. Gizza (t)(c) 11:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I think lemonade should be added back to the list, and probably orange juice should be added too. Cola is very similar to soft drink, so I don't think we need to list that separately. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Mexican cuisine

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add jujutsu

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support a better choice than Brazilian jiu-jitsu IMO. Gizza (t)(c) 01:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Very relevant fighting style with long history and global cultural impact. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  14:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support —J947( c ) (m) 18:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Economic policy

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems important enough to include at this level. I'm not sure about Level 3 though. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support, but not for L3. J947( c ) (m) 20:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7-0. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Order of operations

A basic mathematical principle that I think should be included.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support. We're under quota here. J947( c ) (m) 04:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support --Thi (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Sufficient consensus not here, thus failing. J947( c ) (m) 04:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Gary Becker

Support
  1. As nom. Since he is described as "the most important social scientist in the past 50 years" by The New York Times, and he extended the domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of human behaviour and interaction, including nonmarket behaviour" means that he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Winning a Nobel Prize is one thing, being a highly prominent social scientist is another. Support. J947( c ) (m) 04:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Changed my mind, sure. GuzzyG (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not in the top 10 economists. Shouldn't be in before Jan Tinbergen, Alfred Marshall, Amartya Sen, Michael Porter, Muhammad Yunus, Joan Robinson among others, whose contributions have become entrenched in standard economics textbooks, if not lay discussions about the economy. Gizza (t)(c) 23:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Lots of other equal or better candidates.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–1. --Rreagan007 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Alcohol (drug)

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support probably should be added despite the overlap with ethanol, alcoholism and alcoholic beverage. Gizza (t)(c) 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support. We're under quota here. J947( c ) (m) 03:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Alcoholic drink and alcoholism cover the subject. --Thi (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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

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

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

There is some overlap in these related articles, but that is true for other articles as well. For example, we list Tobacco, Smoking, and Cigarette. If we have to remove alcohol-related articles to make room for this one, I think it would be better to remove some of the articles on the various liquors that we currently list. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Quotas adjusted, 5–0. --Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 20:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support whenever somebody has proposed a removal from social sciences, it has more than likely failed and when there is a proposed addition if usually passes. It seems there is implicit consensus for more articles going to social sciences. Vice versa for astronomy. Perhaps 200 may be a better number but we can reassess it at a later time. Gizza (t)(c) 08:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support We freed up a lot of space in the Astronomy section by removing a number of constellations and stars. I think Gizza is right that 200 might be a better quota for astronomy, but the social sciences definitely needs the bump. I've always considered these quotas to be more guidelines anyway (with the exception of people and mathematics), so we can certainly keep adjusting them later as needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Mayotte

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support as per nom. J947( c ) (m) 04:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support --Thi (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Since it is a major destination for illegal immigrants.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
3–2, as per the 60-day rule. We need to focus on new discussions here. J947( c ) (m) 05:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Carol Burnett

Not as famous as the pioneering comedienne Lucille Ball.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I've been on the fence about this. While you are correct that she is not as vital as Lucille Ball, I still think she's vital enough to remain on the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose – We're under quota here. J947( c ) (m) 03:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-1, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Alfred Tarski

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

Support
  1. As nom. --Thi (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Also had a major influence in philosophy with his work on truth. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  5. Weak support – In the history of mathematics, Alfred Tarski (1901–1983) is one of the most important logicians (From List of things named after Alfred Tarski) convinces me. J947( c ) (m) 04:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Have to admit I had never heard of him before. I've looked over his article and don't really see any reason why he's particularly notable and should be added to the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
50,000 article Level 5 created, 5–0–2. Further discussions about Level 5 should take place on the Level 5 talk page. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add a Level 5 of 50,000 articles

See discussion above.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. It will be a big job, but IMO we've got enough active editors here to get to 20,000 relatively quickly. From there we can advertise about it in an attempt to grab more contributors. J947( c ) (m) 04:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per above and being the initiator of this discussion, i think a level 5 would be a complete list of everything that Wikipedia should have a high quality article on. It's good to have a reference list in one spot and there's no negative or downside to having one. GuzzyG (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support. We have many edge-case discussions for the inclusion or exclusion of topics that are clearly very important, but not necessarily top-10,000 important. bd2412 T 04:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support. It'll be a challenge to build a 50,000 article list, but I'm certainly willing to give it a try. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Let's see if we can build a 30,000 one, then try for a 50,000 one. We may find that, due to technical limitations, the list will either have to leave off assessments or else be spread across 30, 40, 50 separate pages. I'd be willing to participate in the building of this. pbp 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. Your figure of 30,000 isn't far off. My first pass at generating a list of all the Category:Top-importance_articles yielded 37,116 articles. However, that figure will rise once I identify and further capture categories that have more than 50 articles, such as Christianity, which has 536 articles. On the other hand, the index includes seemingly not-so-vital articles for our purposes, such as Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo. I created a page in my sandbox where I'll publish my results. (I was not happy the way WP didn't retain my line breaks; I'll fix it in a subsequent update.) ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
      1. I fixed the formatting on my sandbox page. An interesting comparison is diff'ing which articles appear on one list but not the other vis-a-vis one would expect all vital articles to have top-importance to at least one project, but not all top-importance articles are vital. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Add a Level 5 of 100,000 articles is more appropriate, since the Lv1 list includes 10 (101), the Lv2 one includes 100 (102), the Lv 3 one includes 1,000 (103), and the Lv4 one includes 10,000 (104), the Lv5 list should include 105.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion

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

Level 5 or 50000 pbp 00:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The current pattern for each level to go up by tenfold so Level 5 sounds like it should contain 100,000 articles. 50,000 or Level 4.5 may be better. Though I'm leaning towards opposing this proposal.
A few editors have tried making an even bigger expanded list. See User:SethAllen623/Vital_articles and User:Igrek/20000 and the results are horrible. No fault of the editors of course. It's just that nobody knows enough about the world and beyond to make a comprehensive, unbiased list of such a huge number of topics. You would need at least 100 very diverse, knowledgeable and active editors to make a list of 50,000. I think it's a better idea to start keeping a record of the quality of the expanded vital articles at particular times, like we have for the 1,000 Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Introduction. Until a much higher percentage of the current vital articles (at any level) become FA or GA, I feel like this will be a waste of time. 10,000 bios may be feasible but even that will be harder than anticipated. Gizza (t)(c) 01:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
They're made by one person though, this would be a committed group. I have a excel sheet filled with thousands of bios (Which i am reorganizing for the third time) and their listings of like page views, edit numbers and wikidata numbers listed by field/occupation, a start would be adding the highest of each. 50k might be too high but 10k bios i could have a roughly completed shell of it in about 2 weeks - give or take, i would have made my own but i was waiting on Seth to finish his but his list doesn't get updated very often (every month or so). If we end up tagging that many bios it would only lead to a growth of this project due to the exposure, especially if we add articles with high viewership like Trump or Bieber, it costs nothing to try especially if it can lead to more exposure. GuzzyG (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

This probably doesn't just apply to biographies, but all articles. It would be a good idea for us to go through all of the Level 4 archives and see what articles have been demoted or proposed and not passed. Most of those articles will probably deserve inclusion in Level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I am currently doing this for the biographies, my rough shell should be done by Sunday. GuzzyG (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not added, 2-3 Gizza (t)(c) 21:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add C++

Support
  1. As nom. Since C++ remains the 3rd popular programming language as of 2017, and many other programming languages have been influenced by it, including C#, D, Java, and newer versions of C, it is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Imo, the number and choice of programming languages is perfect the way it is. Orser67 (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Cobblet. We're over quota here. J947( c ) (m) 03:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
  1. I had proposed to add it before, however later the proposal failed (cf. Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 34#Add Fortran.2C COBOL.2C BASIC.2C Pascal.2C C.2B.2B.2C C.23.2C Perl and PHP).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'm not really convinced that any of the separate programming languages that we list should be listed. The general article on programming languages is all we really need to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually listing a few frequently used programming languages makes sense, since programming is becoming more and more important, and some countries plan to or already teach primary school students programming.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed—5–3—under the 30 days rule. J947 (c · m) 20:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Enid Blyton

"Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field." Blyton was just a popular writer with harmless books (she was the queen of fictional food). Roald Dahl is on the list. There is three British Nobel authors not listed: John Galsworthy, Doris Lessing and Kazuo Ishiguro. The Wind in the Willows, Harry Potter and Alice are listed in Literature section. Article about Blyton is now Featured so we don't need it in a to-do list [4].

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Blyton was popular and prolific but her influence and critical reputation was limited. Neljack (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support pbp 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for now at least – the people's list is under represented and Blyton is probably more vital than some other British writers listed here. J947( c ) (m) 05:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the arguments of User talk:J947. Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose  Carlwev  20:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add houseplant

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  2. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Sorry, but I just don't see how a subject that is essentially just taking a plant into a house is vital enough to list. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose though definite support for ornamental plant. J947( c ) (m) 01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

The articles Horticulture and Floristry had crossed my mind before too, some time ago.  Carlwev  20:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Those seem more important to me than house plant. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
There is also Ornamental plant which covers houseplants, as well as outside plants such as flowers, trees, grasses and more, but this still may not be vital.  Carlwev  02:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added. --Thi (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Willy Brandt

An influential figure in the political history of 20th century. [5]

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

Is he more important then Paul von Hindenburg? GuzzyG (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Æthelstan

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't agree he is the most well-known Anglo-Saxon King - that is surely Alfred the Great. In fact, he is probably the least known of all the great English monarchs. But there is no doubt of his importance and lasting influence, as is well explained in the legacy section of his article. Neljack (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support as exactly how Neljack explained it. J947( c ) (m) 02:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Since modern historians regard him the first King of England and one of the greatest Anglo-Saxon kings (taken from the lede of the article), he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
8-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add J. Edgar Hoover

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

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

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

Peel is surely a more important figure. The Repeal of the Corn Laws was his other great achievement - something that had massive economic, social and political effects in Britain and Ireland. He certainly ought to be on the list, in my view. Neljack (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Besides establishing the Metropolitan Police Service and recruiting the first 1,000 police officers, Peel contributed the Peelian principles. It concerned his ideas about how the police could gain the consent and/or support of the citizens, instead of being feared and opposed, and implied some ethical standards. Hoover is in part known for corruption, as he used his position to collect blackmail material on politicians and other public figures. According to Harry S. Truman, "all congressmen and senators are afraid of him". Several of Hoover's activities and methods were themselves illegal. He was in position as director from 1924 to his death in 1972, because even the Presidents he served feared him, and feared the political cost of his removal. Dimadick (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Peel should be added too and i do not think that reflects negatively on Hoover. GuzzyG (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Edward Drinker Cope

Best known and most influential paleontologist.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support "He discovered, described, and named more than 1,000 vertebrate species, including hundreds of fishes and dozens of dinosaurs." Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per Dimadick and being influential enough to have a FA written about him. J947( c ) (m) 05:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. His contributions helped to define the field of American palaeontology.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
8-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Wernher von Braun

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support after a quick evaluation of the article's lead and prior knowledge. J947( c ) (m) 05:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Gizza (t)(c) 08:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Sergei Korolev

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

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

Add Francis Galton

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Pioneer in eugenics and credited with coining the term. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support... That's a lot of different fields... J947( c ) (m) 05:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Phrase

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

Add Clause

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support An important grammatical topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support —J947( c ) (m) 02:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --Thi (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  21:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  1. I had proposed to add phrase and clause before, however the proposals later failed due to insufficient support (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded/Archive_50#Add_Clause).--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 1–1–3. J947 (c · m) 03:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Social security

The right to social security is mentioned in UDHR.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Other
  1. Swap—tentatively—with welfare state as I believe social security encompasses more ground than that. J947( c ) (m) 02:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We already included Welfare state and Welfare. I think there is too much overlap with those articles. I would consider a swap. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose when there is a high degree of overlap, I think we should generally choose the article with more pageviews, which in this case is welfare state. Gizza (t)(c) 00:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 2–2. J947 (c · m) 03:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Social policy

A branch of public policy and an academic discipline.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support – Social policy is an axis of most political compasses, and the second most important branch of policy. J947( c ) (m) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose there are so many branches of public policy and none of them seems to be more vital than the rest. See Template:Public policy. If I had to pick one, I would say that economic policy (covering fiscal policy, monetary policy, etc.) would be the most important. Gizza (t)(c) 23:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 1–4. J947 (c · m) 03:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add National interest

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose just a phrase. Not a substantial encyclopedia topic. Gizza (t)(c) 20:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We look set to go over quota here, even with my proposed change. J947( c ) (m) 02:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Rreagan007 (talk) 06:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed, 1–4. J947 (c · m) 03:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Public interest

Support
  1. Support As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose another dictionary term. Can't support this when there are meaningful political articles missing like Federalism and Political campaign. Gizza (t)(c) 21:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We look set to go over quota here, even with my proposed change. J947( c ) (m) 02:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This definitely seems like more of a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose --Thi (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 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.

Discussions that can be closed

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

First, people.
I'll do the rest of the sections later. J947 (c · m) 04:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Kazuo Ishiguro

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. It is illogical only to included Haruki but exclude Kazuo.--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support —J947( c ) (m) 04:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom, and the fact that he was nominated four times for the Man Booker Prize for Fiction and has won once.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support He is the writer of the novel The Remains of the Day (1989), "one of the most highly regarded post-war British novels". Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
Directly disobeying the rules here, but there are reasonable arguments on both sides and the outcome does not differ. J947 (contribs · mail) 00:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Ronald Coase

Support
  1. As nom. Since he established the case for the corporation as a means to pay the costs of operating a marketplace, and his transaction costs approach is currently influential in modern organizational economics, he is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Was also a central figure in the development of law and economics. One of the most important economists of his time. Neljack (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support —J947( c ) (m) 04:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. oppose why? Per User:Maunus/Vitality. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not convinced we need Coase when he is only vital for the Coase theorem (which we could add instead). Gizza (t)(c) 21:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Some of his ideas are crucial to economics, but he personally isn't and is not well-known at all to the general public. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Failed; 2–5. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Elijah Muhammad

Key figure in the founding of the Nation of Islam.

Support
  1. As nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Influential in the religious history of the United States. Dimadick (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. We already have Malcolm X to represent the nation of Islam and there are several other American religious leaders I'd add before him. pbp 23:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I do not think he is notable enough to warrant inclusion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose after a period of thought. Relative recentism and western bias sneak me here. Also, we are over quota here. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
I should probably start the VA/5 for Religious leaders soon pbp 03:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5–1. —Rreagan007 (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Add William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support – We need more jurists on here. J947( c ) (m) 01:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Per User:Maunus/Vitality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-1. —Rreagan007 (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Add British Indian Ocean Territory

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support, tentatively – Fine. My support for inclusion of more islands in the Indian Ocean and this being a below quota section, pushes me here, not to forget the historical significance here. As always, we can move this out upon further developments here, but I think in the meantime that it should serve here, although perhaps just as a placeholder. J947( c ) (m) 04:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support, was on the fence and wouldn't have supported if it wasn't for the forced depopulation of the Chagossians by the Americans and British on the islands in order to set up a military base. Don't think there is any other place in the world where that has happened to the same degree in modern times. It's something that people need to learn about. Gizza (t)(c) 22:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
I know this term for the islands but I personally think the overlap between the article and Chagos Archipelago pushes this marginally below the barrier; balanced out by my support for inclusion of more islands in the Indian Ocean and this being a below quota section. Marking as neutral. J947( c ) (m) 05:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not vital for anyone to know about. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 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.

Close?

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

@J947: I've close all the proposals in the geography section which already meet the "15-day rule" which explicitly states that any proposal which has at least five votes have been cast in support and at least two-thirds of the total votes are in favour of it after 15 days since the initiation of it can be closed as PASSED.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. J947( c ) (m) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5-4, not added Gizza (t)(c) 11:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Adelaide

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

Support
Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 02:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Support for now as we are under quota. Adelaide and South Australia's modern history is a bit different from the rest of Australia as it was the one colony that did not receive convicts. Gizza (t)(c) 03:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  01:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support This list is supposed to be tailored to the English Wikipedia, and Australia is one of the major English-speaking countries, which means it should have more cities listed than non-English speaking countries of comparable population size. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, but only due to urbanisation. J947( c ) (m) 04:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose: There are a lot of cities of equal population and prominence to Adelaide in other countries that aren't, and perhaps shouldn't be, on the list. 5 cities on the VA is too many for a country of just over 20 million people. pbp 03:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose – I've withdrawn this, but having large support I've left this open. Upon reflection Australia–despite being a major country, the definite most vital country in Oceania, and having a very high urbanisation percentage—should have as a maximum 5 cities here. Canberra is probably marginally more important than Adelaide due to it being the capital city of a G20 member, which is a pretty considerable level of vitality. Definitely when Australia is at 28/29 million people this should be proposed again, as the population there is rapidly rising for a country in the western world. J947( c ) (m) 03:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    Also, this page view comparison shows that Canberra is by readers considered the 3rd most important city in Australia, compared to Adelaide at 6. By number of watchers Canberra still edges it out. I cheekily watchlisted Melbourne to have it equal with Sydney. :) J947( c ) (m) 05:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the list of cities shouldn't accentuate bias. Gizza (t)(c) 22:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    This list is meant to be tailored to the English Wikipedia, so it will by design have a certain bias to it. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Nope. J947( c ) (m) 04:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    The front page clearly says that "This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia", and I think that makes perfect sense, as there is a general list of 10,000 vital articles for all Wikipedias here: [6]. Just trying to duplicate that list here would be a stupid waste of time. I've actually never looked at that FAQ you linked to, and there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about its creation. It also seems specifically written for the Level 3 list, not this one. Even so, I don't think it accurately reflects the current consensus, as English literature was recently added at Level 3. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    English literature was added because literature in English is most common and had and enormous impact on the field of literature. Also, bias issues don't change from level to level here. J947( c ) (m) 04:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    So please explain to me what you think "This list is tailored to the English-language Wikipedia" means. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose What makes Adelaide a city everyone needs to know about? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6-2 pbp 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Canberra

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 19:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  02:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support The capital city of Australia should definitely be on the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 22:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose pbp 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Brasilia's metro population is nearly 3 million though. Wellington's is about the same but is a more influential and important city within NZ (having a smaller overall population) than Canberra is to Australia. I'm swayed a bit by pbp's oppose above. Despite being very urban, Australia shouldn't have six cities considering its population size. Not at least until other underrepresented countries get an increase first. Gizza (t)(c) 04:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This list is supposed to be tailored to the English Wikipedia, and Australia is an English-speaking country, which means it should have more cities listed than non-English speaking countries of comparable population size. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
As an Australian I disagree with that. Most of the younger middle-class and above around the world due to globalization are becoming literate in English anyway. You learn about the whole world in an encyclopedia, not just the parts that happen to speak the same language as you. Also the English-speaking world (in terms of Wikipedia readers) is much bigger than the Five Eyes. See File:English_Wikipedia_–_Most_popular_edition_of_Wikipedia_by_country_–_Wikimedia_Traffic_Analysis_Report_–_1_Jul_2009-31_Oct_2013.svg. Gizza (t)(c) 22:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you really addressed the point that this list is by design meant to be tailored to the English Wikipedia and include the most vital articles to readers of the English Wikipedia. One good measure of that is article view counts. If we look at Canberra verses other cities currently being nominated (Dire Dawa, Enugu, and Da Nang) the Canberra article has a higher view count than all of those others combined. [7] Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be tailored to the English-speaking countries though. That's a subjective opinion. The language someone speaks hardly changes what is vital to read in an encyclopedia IMO. The only thing I'll concede is having more articles on the English language itself (and we have Old English and Middle English here). A French Wikipedia may have Old French and Middle French in its place but I don't honestly see why any other article has to be different across different Wikipedias. Part of the reason why vital articles was created in the first place was to address systemic bias and move towards a globalization of topics here. Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The "vital" part of this list is subjects on which it is vital for the English Wikipedia to have a high quality article on. I think it is more vital for the English Wikipedia to have a high quality article on the capital city of a major English-speaking nation than for it to have a high-quality article on the other non-English speaking cities mentioned above. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • If Canberra is added, there's a serious case for Sacramento, California being added. California has more people than Australia (by more than 10 million). Each currently have four cities on the list (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane vs. LA, San Fran, San Jose and San Diego). Sacramento is a bigger metro area than Canberra (a lot bigger, actually: 2 million vs. about half a million). Both are capitals. Both places speak English. If Canberra is added, there's a strong case for probably 20 other American cities, dozens of other cities in English-speaking countries, and dozens, perhaps a hundred, of cities in non-English-speaking country. pbp 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Indeed Canberra is just not vital (unless the geography quota goes up to 1300 or 1400 again). One thing to note though, is that Canberra is the capital of a nation and just a state (albeit a big one like California). But I don't think that's enough to make it vital. Cities with populations under half a million need something much more. Gizza (t)(c) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Buddhist texts

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

Support
  1. As nom. I'm surprised that it is not listed at this level!--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose if we add this we would have to add it for another four or five religions as a minimum. Gizza (t)(c) 10:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak Oppose – I respect RekishiEJ's opinion, though systemic bias brings me here. J947( c ) (m) 01:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    What systemic bias? Currently the number of articles about Buddhism in the list is much fewer than those about Christianity.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    See Gizza's comment. J947 (contribs · mail) 21:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Add Kashrut

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

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Apparently, Kashrut is at about the same level as Halal, taking into account the different spellings of halal. Both have a similar sub-article. Also, Kashrut was a featured article, and although the standards have reached into space, as recently as 2013, it was promoted to good article status easily, therefore could make a FA if expanded. Another interesting fact if that more people watch Kashrut than Halal, despite a much higher number of viewers for Halal. I will understand an oppose due to that. Thus, weak support. J947( c ) (m) 01:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support this would probably get more support if the article was moved to its more common English name, Kosher. Gizza (t)(c) 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:SNOW
This is clearly not going to pass, so I'm therefore invoking the snowball clause. If you have questions with my closure raise them on my talk page. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add black tea

Support
  1. Now that Mr. Guye proposed to add green tea, this type of tea should be added as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for the same reason I oppose adding green tea. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose using that logic we would have to add multiple types of coffee, milk, wine and beer too (all Level 3). and we're only 8 under quota in all of "Everyday life". There are more important articles missing in everyday life than types of beverages. Gizza (t)(c) 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Strongly oppose We already have tea on the list, for heaven's sake! We do not need different types of tea. Just tea itself is sufficient. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. It is less vital than green tea in my opinion and I am neutral over there. Mainly per Gizza. J947 (contribs · mail) 03:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6–3 --Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Career

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 10:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support who would look up "career" in an encyclopedia?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    Over 15,000 people in one month. As a side note this was created in 2003. J947 (c · m) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
    That is not a lot at all "Bidet" has 29,000 views per month. Do paper encyclopedias have entries on "career"? is there a large literature about the concept "career" for the article to summarize?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    Career beats Job with pageviews and size BTW. J947 (c · m) 03:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. VeryVery weak oppose – the article should definitely be expanded, but I marginally think that—being an everyday term—it should remain. J947( c ) (m) 02:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    "everyday terms" are not vital encyclopedic topics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose it's an awful article, but as a concept I think all of {Job, Employment, Career} are different and in the top 10000. Specifically, career encompasses a "trajectory". And many buzzwords; quoting those would not help the cause. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Ok. --Thi (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per the above — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Add news agency

Support
  1. As nom. I think it's vital at this level, since a lot of newspapers, radio and TV stations, news websites use reports written by news agencies (e.g. [8] and [9]).--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Vital for the media. Dimadick (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak oppose – I'm not sure it is vital enough. We're over quota here. J947( c ) (m) 04:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per J947 and Carlwev. Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose --Thi (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

Not only news agencies distribute news, since other news outlets (news magazines, newspapers, radio and TV stations, etc.) distribute them as well, thus news agency to news is not like book publisher to book.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 7-0 pbp 06:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Political campaign

Very surprised it isn't here. Easy add.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 03:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Key concept in politics. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support pbp 02:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Important to any presidential democracy. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED/FAILED
Added, 6–0; Not removed 4–5. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Peasant, Add Underclass

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support, as quite a reasonable change, but keep peasant as still relevant and highly used. We can remove 20 less used ones from the list. J947( c ) (m) 05:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support adding Underclass, oppose removing Peasant. --Thi (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Per Thi.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. 'Oppose remove Mega oppose. Most of the worlds population in historical times have been peasants. There are tonnes of literature about the significance of peasants and the peasantry in world history and society. This is vital even at higher levels. Underclass in turn is a specifically sociological term, which could be added, but not at the expese of peasants. Working class would be another good add, but not instead of peasants.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - per Maunus. Jusdafax (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    Do you oppose the addition? J947 (c · m) 04:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    No. Jusdafax (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose removal  Carlwev  06:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 8–0; Removed, 6–2. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Remove Bourgeoisie, Add Upper class

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support, as quite a reasonable change. J947( c ) (m) 05:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    Not changing my opinion here as per Rreagan and Gizza. We are looking to go over quota here. Changing it to 'weak' because of my findings presented below. J947 (c · m) 05:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support add but not remove ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support bourgeoisie was vital 100 years ago but not anymore. Per above an outdated term in an increasingly white-collar, automated, post-industrial society. Gizza (t)(c) 00:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Vctrbarbieri 22:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support add but not the removal because 'bourgeoisie' is an important term in Marxist thought. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose the removal. The bourgeoisie is historically and culturally quite important term and it means the middle class. --Thi (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose remove ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added.---Thi (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Social equality

An important concept in social philosophy and social sciences.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support —J947( c ) (m) 04:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support this though open to egalitarianism instead (probably don't need both). Gizza (t)(c) 00:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support I'm open to having both though. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 21:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Underweight

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

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Definitely more vital than Anorexia nervosa, thus an easy support from me. J947( c ) (m) 03:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose it is a word. The actually significant topic is malnoutrition which is already here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose an adjective only per Maunus. Gizza (t)(c) 00:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

We do list Body mass index. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding underweight, but it would have to go hand in hand with overweight, would human body weight and human height be just as good?  Carlwev  11:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No discussion in over 30 days. J947 (contribs · mail) 03:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Root canal, part of tooth, or dental procedure?

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

List Root canal (part of the tooth)

Support
  1. The article was created over 3 years before endodontic therapy and is definitely the most common phrase these days, as confirmed by a google search (7.2 million versus 670,000). Support. J947 (c · m) 03:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose  Carlwev  11:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

List Endodontic therapy (dental operation)

Support
  1. Support  Carlwev  11:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose as per my comment above. J947 (c · m) 03:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0. –Rreagan007 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Properties of water

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

Support
  1. Support As nom. Galobtter (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Having looked at the articles, this seems reasonable. You'd expect an article just on the chemistry of water (as opposed to other things) at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 03:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support as a closely related sub-article of water has high importance. J947( c ) (m) 03:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Thi (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
Nomination withdrawn in favor of Water vapor nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Steam

We already include the article on solid water Ice, so I think we should also include the article on gaseous water. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support and I'm very surprised it is not on here. Good catch! J947 (contribs · mail) 21:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 21:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 6–0. –Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Moraine

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

Support
  1. Support As nominee. Moraines are everywhere. Curoi (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Plantdrew (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Long-wanted support. J947( c ) (m) 03:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 9–0. –Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Gemstone

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 13:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  13:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support Science aside, they are important luxury items and artwork material. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  8. Of course —J947( c ) (m) 04:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  9. Support Vital, and unanimous support. Let’s close. Jusdafax (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 8–0. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Horticulture

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 03:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  21:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. pbp 23:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support agriculture is probably the best section to put this in. Gizza (t)(c) 23:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    @DaGizza: Yeah. I wasn't sure where this should have been. Could you do it? I don't have a lot of time on my hands. J947( c ) (m) 02:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
     Done belatedly. J947 (c · m) 19:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support Significant aspect of human culture. Dimadick (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  8. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Passed, 7–0. J947 (c · m) 20:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Roller (agricultural tool)

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

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

Support
  1. Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  14:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support – We're over quota here. J947( c ) (m) 03:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed Gizza (t)(c) 21:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. GuzzyG (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The purpose of these lists is to be a centralized place where you can view the quality of the most important articles. Having to click through each level would add a layer of complexity. I want to be able to see the top 1,000 vital articles all in one place, not the 101-1,000 most vital articles or the 101-1,100 most vital. The current system really isn't confusing once you understand it, and the articles that are included in higher lists are well marked in the lower lists. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose there's no benefit from having 10k articles at level 4 instead of 9k; and people will wonder why Level 3 articles are missing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Gizza (t)(c) 21:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Discuss

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

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

I did not think of the hassle in clicking through everything, yeah i agree it's a dud of an idea. I just kinda think there should be a level 5 or something that includes current pop culture, because having high quality articles of random objects/things/people like iPad, Los Angeles Lakers, Chevrolet Corvette or Justin Bieber etc are important as they're highly read. But the tech limitations of a higher list would make it unlikely. GuzzyG (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Judging a list of 10,000 is pretty tough now and a larger list of 20,000 or 50,000 or 100,000 would be even harder, but not impossible. I'm open to the idea of a Level 5 list. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
One option would be a level-5 list of 10000 biographies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. And it could eventually serve as the biography section of a larger 50,000 Level 5 list. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
A level 5 makes sense, i'd be happy to do the leg work in creating it, maybe this proposal should be changed into if we should have a level 5. It would be easier to manage this list as we can dump stuff on the border onto the bigger list. GuzzyG (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's a skeleton of what a 50,000 Level 5 list might look like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SethAllen623/Vital_articles/Expanded Rreagan007 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be a starter, plus all listed here. I'm happy to help maintaining it, though the talk page should be split up and main split up further. I think 12,000 people and 5,000 geography would be good to start with. I'd like more sub-quotas as well. J947( c ) (m) 04:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The 10,000 list is 20% people (2,000) so I'd say a 50,000 list should probably be 20% people (10,000). Rreagan007 (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
One approach we could take is invite the editors of the various topical projects to nominate articles they believe should appear on a top 50,000 list. Obviously their top-importance articles are the most likely candidates. I wouldn't limit the initial round of submissions; save that for the subsequent triage. (I'm not sure if there's an automated way to identify all top-importance articles across the entire wiki; if so, that could help with the first pass, too.) On a related note, instead of top 50,000 articles, why not tie the index to the top 1% of articles at the beginning of each year? Perhaps call it WikEssentials or something. (Wiki Prime has a good ring to it. ) ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand the desire to remain flexible, but I think we do need concrete target numbers like 50,000 articles instead of a moving target like 1% of all articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Failed Gizza (t)(c) 21:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator. J947( c ) (m) 04:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral
Oppose
  1. Oppose. The current voting system seems to work reasonably well. I don't think I'd want nominations passing if the vote were 5 to 4. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose a majority is not consensus. A double majority isn't perfect but it's the best of what we got. There was a time when 70% was required which wasn't too bad though e.g. a 6-3 proposal would fail which felt a bit harsh. Gizza (t)(c) 11:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above opposes. Jusdafax (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose A bare majority is too low a threshold. pbp 01:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Should we have the barrier as 62.5%? That seems to be the best way to address this problem. An additional proposal would be to close proposals with between 37.5% and 62.5% as NC. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus is for the status quo - no restrictions on mass noms Gizza (t)(c) 22:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Limit mass nominations

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

No mass nominations (All single nominations)
Cap mass nominations at 2
  1. pbp 18:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Cap mass nominations at 3
Cap mass nominations at 4
  1. 4 is probably the best for a maximum in a underrepresented sub-region in a mainly underrepresented region in an under-quota section (see my proposal in cities). 5 would probably be too much to research for, none would be time-consuming, 2 would still make the TOC longer, although I would be okay with 3. J947( c ) (m) 18:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Cap mass nominations at 5
No restrictions on mass nominations
  1. Looking at the archives, I think there are situations where mass additions and removals are appropriate, like when we removed 13 transactinide elements in one go, the seven days of the week or many of the zodiac constellations. I'd prefer dealing with mass proposals on a case-by-base basis. If there are e.g. 5 additions, and many people are supporting some, opposing others and neutral on the rest it would be a good idea to split that proposal up but I don't think this always needs to happen. Gizza (t)(c) 21:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. If a mass nomination isn't appropriate, then it won't pass. If it is appropriate, then it will pass. I see no need to artificially limit nominations in this manner. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  3. Agreed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. If a mass nomination is inappropriate, let it fail and resubmit as separate nominations. No reason to impose a limit. There are cases of mass nominations where the logic is the same for all the nominated articles; 18 plant orders were removed in a single nomination (Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 18#Remove plant orders) Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. --Thi (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The 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.

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

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

I have now also done this with the geography articles. pbp 18:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Withdrawn by nominator. --Thi (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Add Okinawa Prefecture

Japanese prefecture.

Base of many American troops. Birthplace of karate. Overall very different culture from the rest of Japan. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support
Support as nominator. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  1. Support This is a relatively recent addition to Japan. The area used to be controlled by the Ryukyu Kingdom (1429-1879), and had a mixed Chinese and Japanese population. The prefecture still has its own languages (Ryukyuan languages), and religion (Ryukyuan religion). Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    Dimadick, would you consider withdrawing so we can count this as a full withdrawal? J947 (contribs · mail) 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    OK, but usually when the nominator withdraws, the discussions are over. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    That was not the case at #Add Adelaide, and even though it was at /Archive 53#Add Chagos Archipelago the nominator went on to nominate a very similar article as it encompassed more ground. That doesn't happen at AfD or RfA anyways. J947 (contribs · mail) 22:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose redundant to Ryukyu Islands per Carlwev. Too much overlap. A bit like including both Southeastern United States and Southern United States. Gizza (t)(c) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as redundant to Ryukyu Islands per Carlwev and Gizza. I'm starting to think that both could be okay then rebutting that and launching a rebuttal to the original rebutt... But I'm not going to write all those rebuttals down, unlike at #Add Sacramento, California. :) Anyhow the Ryukyu Islands are the main term and cover more ground (literally and figuratively). J947 (contribs · mail)
Discuss

The prefecture has only existed since 1945, any arguments regarding its long history, culture, language, birthplace of karate, religion, historic kingdom, seem more relevant to the article on the Ryukyu Islands which we already include. I understand they don't cover 100% the exact same land, but they are similar, and the islands article covers more land, and more time/history. Why would we need this in addition to the Ryukyu Islands? what would this cover that the Ryukyu islands does not or should not cover; and would it still be vital as stand alone article in addition to the islands.  Carlwev  22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_54&oldid=1137397538"