Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

People

Comedians

Remove Moms Mabley

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support deletion of Mabley. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Mabley is a pioneer of comedy, and the only black representative born in the 19th century. What was all that about diversity anyway. This list is whiter then cornbread! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I suggest removing Moms Mabley from the list of comedians. She was added recently with no discussion, there was an attempt earlier to reduce the comedians perhaps to 25 from 40, she is probably not in the top 25, or top 40 most vital comedians. She is an earlier comedian and she is a black woman, but I think the diversity attempt is outweighed by her non "vitalness" in my opinion, and the present biography bulk. She only appears in English and Spanish Wikis, I don't think she is well known popular or influential world wide.
• Um, cornbread is yellow, and it's worth noting that Oliver Hardy, Groucho Marx, Jack Benny, Bud Abbot, and a number of other people on the list were, like Mabley, born in the 1890s. Since the list is bloated anyways, perhaps a better approach would be to remove some white American comedians, so that people like Bill Cosby and Whoopi Goldberg will constitute a greater percentage of the list pbp 16:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• PBP, if we delete Mabley, that leaves Cosby, Goldberg, Murphy and Pryor as black American comedians, or more than 10% of the total list of 38. In addressing the bloat you mention, I would also suggest that Larry David, Tina Fey, Lorne Michaels (a producer, not a comedian), and Betty White are obvious candidates to be removed. From there, you have to start prioritizing the remaining 34 or 35 names on the list, and strike the lowest priorities. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2013 (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.

Writers

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 Gabdulla Tuqay

Support !votes:

1. The most popular poet among the all Turkic peoples in the early XXth. - Derslek (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

1. Oppose - to parochial, no one knows who Tuqay is outside a small community. Not vital in a global context. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose For globalization I would like to support, but simply not vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (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.

Add Mussa Jalil

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.

---

Support !votes:

1. The only winner of the two top USSR awards – as a soldier and an artist. - Derslek (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

1. Oppose - not even famous in Soviet Russia, not even close to the vital stature of Akhmetova, Pushkin or Yevtushenko. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (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.

Actors

Remove Charlton Heston (actor)

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. As per ML below. Rothorpe (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - Per Melody. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• The list is too long and full of these pop-icons. No academy awards, not among the top 100 in the frequently quoted AFI-list.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "No Academy Awards?" Pretty sure he won for Ben-Hur pbp
    • Yes, you're right, he won one Academy Award for Ben Hur. Still, we can't keep everyone on the list who did. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • This one Oscar is the only one he won according to the article here in Wikipedia. I'm not convinced that awards are the best criterion for vitalness, but most others on the list have won more than one. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Burt Lancaster (actor)

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - He was certainly extremely talented, but not top 10,000 material, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• The list is too long and full of these pop-icons.--Melody Lavender (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2013 (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.

Add Paul Robeson (actor)

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - FTR, this add was my idea. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose without identification of specific topic to be deleted to make room for this topic. Will support if and only is a lower priority topic is identified for deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Actually a rather insignificant figure in the wider world of acting, more prominent as a social activist (and for being a true believer, then an atoning Stalinist) and noted just for being African-American. Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, and Sidney Poitier were more accomplished.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• In comparison with those actors and actresses now being cut, Robeson becomes and easier an easier choice to oppose for inclusion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (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.

Musicians and composers

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Li Yundi

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support wow how did he creep in Carlwev (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per Colonel Henry's discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support, per Colonel Henry. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
7. SNOW Support Too many classical performers on this list anyways pbp 16:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Smacks of RECENTISM, Li is not vital, not as well known as other recent pianists, who put this yet-another-Chopin-playing-Chinese-pianist on the list? By comparison: So what if he performed at Carnegie Hall. I performed twice in Carnegie Hall...why am I not on the list?--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (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.

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 Fats Domino

Support !votes

• Support as the nominator. MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC) !vote from a confirmed sock-puppet of an indef blocked user

1. Support. - As long as Jacques Brel remains. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. An essential. Rothorpe (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Just not that significant compared to others, especially when we are 400+ topics over the limit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Dirtlawyer1. --Igrek (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
3. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Great artist, not "vital" given the significance of other 20th century performing artists. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• We need to !vote and put this one to bed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (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.

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

---

Swap: Remove Frederica von Stade, Add Feodor Chaliapin

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Remove von Stade (as much I admire her work, not vital), do not add Chaliapin.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Per Henry. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (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.

---

Remove Alan Jay Lerner

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support The comic lyricist section is bloated. At least four or five have to go.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Lerner and partner Lowe produced five or six of the most popular and enduring musicals in Broadway history (e.g., Brigadoon, Camelot, Gigi, My Fair Lady and Paint Your Wagon), second only to the Rodgers and Hammerstein partnership. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Can you give another reason why Lerner should be kept? We have other American musical theater personalities; and in comparison to them, Lerner is not particularly significant pbp 04:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Probably should reference the "Lerner and Lowe" creative partnership article, rather than Lerner individually. Still a candidate to be bumped from the list if higher priority topic is identified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2013 (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.

Add Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, vital. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support how is this not on the list?--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

---

Swap: Add John Williams, Remove Henry Mancini

1. Support: as nom pbp 17:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, Mancini's not the worst musician here. But Williams does looks better on the list than Mancini. Carlwev (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Mancini was the name in the 1960s and early 1970s, but Williams has far eclipsed him in terms of acclaim, influence and body of work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose John Williams is not strong enough to go on the list. Ennio Morricone is far more influential.Rsm77 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per Rsm77. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose, per Rsm77, and considering Williams rips off his best work off Borodin, it's best if we not make plagiarists "vital"--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Support remove but not add. If we absolutely must add more film composer's Morricone is the obvious choice.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• As film composers go, I think the guy who wrote the music for Star Wars, Jaws, E.T., Schindler’s List, etc trumps the Pink Panther guy. pbp 17:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• I believe John Williams to be more important than Morricone. I would appreciate it if Rsm delineated why a man with 5 Oscars (and the second-highest number of nominations ever behind only Disney) is "not strong enough" to be on this list pbp 03:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Personally, I wouldn't look to the Oscars to support an argument - they don't have that much influence on canon-forming. And clearly it's easier for composers to be nominated for Oscars than actors or directors, so having five Oscars and the second-highest nominations after Disney is not as impressive as it might sound otherwise. --Rsm77 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2013 (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.

Directors, producers and screenwriters, 56

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Directors, producers and screenwriters, 56 for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Tim Burton

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support Wonderful visual director, but never really a true pioneer of the medium. If you want to get this list down in size, it's this type of director that needs to go. A relevant director today, but he's no Bunuel and he won't be all that relevant in 50 years time. Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support: pbp 21:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Weak oppose Carlwev (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure about removing him, if there is large consensus to, I won't stand in the way. Carlwev (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2013 (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.

---

Remove Ang Lee

Support !votes

#Support as the nominator. What significance does he have? MadeinJapan (talk · contribs) 11:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Support removing Ang Lee. Big box office in Asia, but still too new to evaluate lasting impact. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, despite a few great movies, nothing that is groundbreaking. better non-American/non-European directors (although prefer we trade him out with Bela Tarr).--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Keep for globalisation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. There is a case for removing him, but he is more eminent than half a dozen others on the list, and he is one of the few foreign language film directors on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per Betty and Gabe. I'd give additional points for being groundbreaking. Jusdafax 22:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose: big box office world wide. Ground breaking and experimental at the same time. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Betty Logan, who are the other filmmakers you consider less prominent/significant than Ang Lee? If we can agree, I would like to propose them for removal, too. This filmmaker sublist is bloated and in need for trimming. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2013 (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.

Swap: Remove Joseph L. Mankiewicz and add Carl Theodor Dreyer

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support Mankiewicz had a respectable career but hardly ground-breaking, whereas Dreyer was one of the most influential film directors of the 20th century. He is one of the few true greats missing from the list. Betty Logan (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, per Betty. Dreyer would be quite an omission. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per BL --Rsm77 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Discussion

Swap: Remove Lewis Milestone and add Yasujiro Ozu

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support Ozu was a towering figure in the history of cinema, while Milestone wasn't, despite some good films.--Rsm77 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support – Should definitely be on the list. One of the titans of world cinema. Betty Logan (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Reasonable swap, Yasujiro Ozu influenced many others: Alain Resnais, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Wim Wenders and Aki Kaurismäki. It also makes the list more global.--Melody Lavender (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2013 (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.

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 Ousmane Sembène

Support !votes

1. Support Having lost Spike Lee we have no black film-makers on the list. Furthermore we have no film-makers from Africa. The LA Times refer top Sembene as the "father of African film" and "the most significant force in African filmmaking history." Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Betty's fine logic. 76.25.128.19 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Who's this? can IPs vote?
3. Support Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Minimal long-term impact. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, We have already removed greater filmmakers than this, would not improve the list. Carlwev (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have to take issue with some of the oppose rationales. There is a fundamental problem with the film-makers on this list in that they are all of the Northern hemsiphere. We haven't a single African film or film-maker on the list. And he is only "not great" by Anglo-centric logic: would Martin Scorsese be placed ahead of him on African lists? Has Martin Scorsese really been more influential in Northern hemisphere films than Sembène has been on African film? Are we really saying that in covering the topic of film on Wikipedia African cinema isn't worth covering at all? Remember, we are not compiling Smash Hits here, we are compiling a list of articles that are necessary in covering a topic area. Now I'm no expert on African cinema so if anyone can come up with better noms to represent it then I'll happily defer to superior judgement, but it does need some representation. All our choices are pretty much North American, European and Asian so we need to counterbalance that. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (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.

Swap: Remove Robert Wise and add Howard Hawks

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support Wise directed a few classics (The Day the Earth Stood Still/West Side Story/The Haunting/The sOund of Music/Star Trek) but was generally a solid "director for hire". Solid body of work, but Hawks had an incredible impact across a wide range of genres. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 15:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Sports figures

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Sports figures, 178 for complete sublist of related topics.

Add Garrincha

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support:Rauzaruku (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose -per Dirtlawyer. The list is too big. Must not be adding, or as little as possible. Jusdafax 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose might be persuaded to consider a swap with something lower, maybe, not a straight add Carlwev (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Recognized as the best dribbler of all time. Have won 2 World Cups. Brazilians in general, consider him the second best player in the country's history, behind only Pelé. Some even consider Garrincha better than Pelé... Rauzaruku (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• I will not support adding another large round of athletes to already bloated sublists, even for list-worthy athletes. If you propose a swap of a lesser athlete in favor of Garrincha, I will consider supporting it. A big part of this VA/E exercise is prioritizing and forcing hard choices, not making easy additions to the list. When we are almost 400 topics over the limit, there are no free adds. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure do not have any other area, other than the sports, which is really bloated? Because sports clearly need 150 people, not 100, to be a fair list. It's difficult to propose an exchange between two legendary athletes, I should propose if an athlete is not as important in favor of another, but at the moment it is not very possible. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Rauzaraku, personally, I don't think we should pare the list of athletes to only 100 worldwide, especially when we have a better worldwide representation. (I think we're moving in the right direction.) That having been said, I think there are still many athlete bios that could be trimmed. As for other topic areas, in my opinion, no area is immune from being trimmed, and I've said so repeatedly. There are several dozen pending deletions and swaps pending on this page that are languishing for lack of someone reading the nominator's rationale and reviewing the articles. It's easy when we know the subject areas, like you know soccer and swimming, but it's harder when we venture into topic areas that require doing some homework. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, think 100 is the number. Considering that we have fewer than 500 political leaders, fewer than 300 authors, and fewer than 200 philosophers, all careers that have existed far longer than the rise of sports superstars (which is 100 years old or less), 150 athletes seems excessive. pbp 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How about some gladiators? ;-) Seriously, I agree that 100 athletes is plenty. Ypnypn (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2013 (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.

Add Kelly Slater

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - Per Rauzaruku. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Can not support when we are way over the limit. I begin to regret my !vote to add Little Richard as a bad example. Please people, we have got refrain from more additions! Jusdafax 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Best surfer of all time. Freaking monster, 11 World Titles. Don't need to include any other surfer, if Kelly Slater is added. Rauzaruku (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• If Rauzaruku wants to covert this "add" into a "swap" by naming a less vital sports personality, I would consider supporting adding Slater, but not in the absence of identifying a lower priority for removal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2013 (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.

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

---

Swap: Remove Sócrates, Add Paulo Roberto Falcão

Support !votes

1. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose add, support removeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose support remove oppose add.Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I am Brazilian and I saw them play. Socrates is a super-estimated player, because he was at a club in a major Brazilian city, then gaining greater visibility. Falcão was much more player, he was a TRUE genius. His team in the 70s, Internacional, was the biggest club in Brazil this decade. He won three national championships and in the rest of them, was always placed in the top 5. Socrates never won anything relevant. At one stage, Falcão was the world's highest paid footballer. He was one of the first Brazilian to be sold to Europe in a millionaire transaction. At Roma, he had earned the nickname "the 8th King of Rome". He coached the Brazilian national football team. He is still considered the best player in the history of the Internacional, even after the world championship in 2006 against Barcelona. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2013 (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.

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 Javier Sotomayor

Support !votes

1. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• He is the only person ever to have cleared 8 feet (2.44 meters). He is widely regarded as the best high jumper of all time. Olympic champion. Of the 24 all-time best high jumps, 17 are his. Only 12 men in history have jumped 2.40 meters (or higher), and only three of them have done it more than once, Sotomayor did it 24 times. Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to add to many athletes to the list right now, because it is already too long. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but I think 100 people listed in Sports is not sufficient due to the existing amount of legendary athletes. The list will end up being unfair and incomplete. Rauzaruku (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2013 (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.

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 Secretariat (horse)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose probably the most famous racing horse of all time, near the top of many of the all-time greatest athletes, which is the only animal on them. Secret ^account 01:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Secretariat gets more than 2000 page views per day. Other horses on the list Carl mentioned above only get an insignificant amount of hits. Secretariat must be a very well known horse because he has streets named after him in several cities - other racehorses don't. In 2010 Disney made a movie about Secretariat. The page about the movie has much less traffic than the the page about the horse itself. So I don't know yet what to do about him. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  I haven't looked into it so I may be wrong but as a first guess I think it is not likely the horse has streets named after it. The word Secretariat means administrative office, especially of government, so I would guess streets were named as such due to nearby government offices. But it's only a guess. Carlwev (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  The info is from an infobox in the WP-article. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Secretariat is one of the two or three greatest thoroughbred racing horses in the history of the sport. He won a rare Triple Crown in 1973, one of only three since 1948, and one of only eleven Triple Crown winners ever. Secretariat continues to hold the track records in all three Triple Crown races (Kentucky Derby, Belmont Stakes, Preakness), forty years later. By comparison, there is not a single human running or swimming event where the timed record for any distance still stands since 1973. This horse has three current timed records dating back forty years. That's almost unbelievable, given the intervening advances in training and sports medicine. If we're going to have one or more all-time great race horses listed, Secretariat should be one of them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• After horse racing and horse, which other articles would be vital to cover the topic of horse racing? Is secretariat a more vital article than Grand National or Kentucky Derby which have been going well over 100 years, and we don't have, I would probably expect a print encyclopedia to have them first? Although it does appear Secretariat is a bit more notable than I originally gave him credit for though. Carlwev (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Grand National (ranked 5431 in traffic) seems as much an omission as Tour de France. I can't find a list of sports events anywhere on the expanded-list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I cannot and will not make VA/E decisions based on Wikipedia article hits. One of the things we are supposed to be doing here is evaluating the greater significance of persons within their specific field of endeavor and history generally. Article hits may be one of several ways to evaluate a topic, but we are required to read, think and use our best judgment in updating this list. Otherwise, we wind up with another version of the bloated pop culture lists we already have, which currently suffer from inclusions based on name recognition, recentism and popularity of the moment. Article hits are not the be-all, end-all. If we are going to have "vital" example topics, such one or two great thoroughbreds, we are going to have review the articles in question and use our collective judgment. There is no formula. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2013 (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.

Ice Hockey

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 Gordie Howe

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Weak oppose: see below pbp 16:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Pbp. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Howe and Orr should be there with Gretzky Secret ^account 01:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Secret has it exactly right; Wayne Gretsky, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr are both among the three to five greatest hockey players to ever play the sport. Football/soccer is not the only significant sport played on planet Earth, even if it is the most popular. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Too many ice hockey players on the list, they should all be nominated except for Wayne Gretzky, the most wellknown name on the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Gordie Howe was the second-greatest hockey player of all time (after Gretzky). I'd like to see some other hockey players put on the chopping block before I vote to cut Howe pbp 16:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have seen several ill-thought-out comments that hockey's global scope is somehow limited to North America. That is factually incorrect. Yes, hockey is quite popular in the United States and Canada, but it is also one of the most popular team sports in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Russia and several other central and east European countries, and generally tracks the popularity of other winter sports like snow-skiing and figure-skating. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Remove Bobby Hull

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

We have to cut somewhere, and individual ice hockey players seem a good possibility to me. Why not list sports-teams instead of individual players? --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2013 (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.

Journalists

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Journalists, 34 for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Ring Lardner

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 20:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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.

Swap: Remove Mike Wallace, Add Ernie Pyle

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support replacing CBS correspondent Mike Wallace with Ernie Pyle, one of the two most recognized correspondents of World War II (the other being Edward R. Murrow). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, this swap improves the list --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. -- Dariusvista (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• This swap deserves some real attention. Mike Wallace was just another CBS reporter and talking head, one of eight or ten of his generation, most of whom are now under discussion on this list. Ernie Pyle was the representative American war reporter, a gutsy journalist and a cultural icon to the World War II generation, who was killed in combat on Okinawa while covering the American invasion. You can't talk about contemporary media coverage of World War II without mentioning Edward R. Murrow first and Ernie Pyle second. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Fictional characters

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Mythical, legendary and fictional people and characters, 80 for complete sublist of related topics.

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

---

Swap: Remove James Bond, Add James Bond (literary character)

Support !votes

1. Support, as nom. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, difficult choice though. The "cultural impact" section is in the first article, and cultural impact is an important factor to this list. Still, the second article is rather list-like and gives an overview of the products. The character, however, is the vital topic, not the commercial success. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. SchroCat is right. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. It's the character itself that is the cultural icon. Betty Logan (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• The article James Bond does not relate to the character per se, but acts as an overview to all Bond media: books, films, video games, comics etc. The James Bond (literary character) article is the main examination of the character. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• James bond is just the kind of article we should have. Most of the topics notability is from the movies, not the books. But even if you disagree with that statement it doesn't matter, as the article we already have covers the books and the movies and more, it covers all aspects of the franchise and character, and covers everything the other one has just not in as much depth. We are trying to remove articles primarily about characters not franchises, most seem to agree we should have Star Trek, Star Wars and LOTR but not Kirk, Luke and Frodo. This is the opposite, removing a franchise to add its main character. Why would you want to remove a wider concept article and add a narrow one, that the wider one covered and more? Both are long but the article we already have is slightly longer. Also the existing article appears in about 65 languages compared to the literary character which appears in 10 languages. Carlwev (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• My mistake, I thought this was the "Fictional characters" sub-section of the "People" section, not the "In-universe" section. If you want an "In-universe" section, that's fine and this article can move there and we'll get rid of all the other characters at the same time. As a separate point, do you know what the 65 language variants cover? The majority cover the character, not the universe. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Several people including myself are trying to move the fictional people and series out of people into art 1 because some are not characters at all they are franchises/series and 2 because even the ones which are characters don't belong in biographies. I started a post at the bottom of the talk page, to move fictional characters out of people, some users gave support the move proposal. Neither characters nor franchises belong in biographies. We should not swap an article potentially for a worse one just because it follows the title of the section better. It is better to move a list or rename it. Not delete articles from it for not matching the title. I believe it is the lists title/name and place in the project which is wrong. In the long run Star Wars, Star Trek, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Batman and others, probably belong in the same list as they are multimedia franchises all covering movie, TV, games, books/comics to a degree. The whole list is a work in progress, it's not perfect but we're trying to make the articles included and they're lay out better. In this case I believe this swap would not improve the list. Carlwev (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Deeply flawed that. The Bond literary character is the source of the all the other elements. Why are you going for something less pertinent in the list rather than the core source? I see the argument above about slimming down Star Wars or LOTR slots from 3 to 1, but Bond takes up only one slot in the whole list, so it's not a question about making space. The character is the wellspring for all that follows: films, continuation books etc, all flow from the literary form, not the other way round. On a slight side issue, you are right that the 10,000 is deeply flawed at the moment, but this piecemeal tinkering isn't really addressing some of the structural problems. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• What do you think the structural problems are? --Melody Lavender (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• In case anyone thinks I'm criticising the efforts of everyone here to sort and tidy up, I'm certainly not: there is excellent and much-needed work going on here, but I wonder if it is in the right direction. The issues are pretty much the same as the content of en.wiki overall: WP:recentism and WP:WORLDVIEW. We fail both as a Wiki and as a list of the 10,000 most important subjects of all time and for all places. There are things on this list that wouldn't make a vital 100,000 articles. It's difficult to justify 11 baseball players on a list, when you consider what a "vital" article is. David Beckham shouldn't even make a list of 10,000 things vital to the UK, let alone to everything that's ever existed. Rather than swapping a few articles around, perhaps measuring each proposed article against clear-cut criteria based on what is truly considered "VITAL" would be a better way to go? - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Most regulars seem aware of the worldwide view-problem and the recentism. We are currently trimming the list by these criteria: Obama has been proposed for removal, there are ice-hockey-players listed to sign out and we are working on the problem in the actors/actresses, directors and performers - sections. There are discussions here and there whether we should have the specific or the general, the tangible or the abstract. It is hard to find a working definition of what vital is. In this example here (James Bond) the individual character makes more sense than the general article. But that's not the case with Captain Kirk and Star Trek.

I was thinking about bringing the question of a definition of what vital is to the general discussion section, but I think it becomes clearer and clearer on a case-by-case basis. Currently the problem is that the list is too big and we have to cut it. 11 baseball players are obviously too much - the question is which ones to cut. It takes time and research in every case.--Melody Lavender (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• What I was actually thinking about was the fact vegetables are split between plants in organsms, and food in everyday life, drugs between plants and chemicles, movies and tv shows should be together or near each other, comics and books together or near each other. In the 100 and 1000 agriculture and industry are under technology. at the 10,000 they are in social sciences, but in the technology list the first sublist is called agriculture and has many agriculture things but not agriculture itself. Technology list has a sublist called industry that does not include industry itself. I could go on. Pop culture is definitely out of control. Organisms is misguided. We have about 160 fish and 160 birds but we didn't have, until I added them, Carnivore, herbivore, predation, parasite, bird migration etc. Carlwev (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• There are 2 main things going on the first is swapping mostly of people and pop culture. I think this prime minister is more important than that one, keeping the numbers the same but trying to get better/more important articles to represent topics. The second is removing, I think there too many...Tennis players or fish or music albums and trying to trim from 20 to 10 or 160 to 100 or whatever. Both are handy but as we move on the second thing will become more prominent. Deciding some lists are too big and others not big enough because we all agree some are like 11 hockey players, 20 tennis players etc. Why we had only 4 English cities but 8 English footballers or journalists, and adjusting the capacity of each part higher or lower. Carlwev (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that by dealing with it on a case-by-case basis there is only tinkering, not a revamp. From what I've seen, a lot of this has been replacing one western-centric, recent article with a different western-centric, recent article, which isn't dealing with one of the main problems. Trimming the sub-sections down to achieve a better balance is crucial, but I'm not seeing any criteria or methodology for dealing with that point: 11 hockey players and 20 tennis players make up the top 10,000 most vital things in all world history? 1 hockey player and 2 tennis players are about the most that should be in the list (modern sports, relatively recent, one (Ice hockey) is largely focused on two countries, the other has more of a claim to be global, but isn't exactly one of the larger sports around. When you add 11 Baseball players (11? Really? For a limited focused, modern sport?) it all becomes way too lop-sided without getting the base numbers in place first - especially when the Level 3 list doesn't even include Baseball, ice hockey or tennis at all! What's the point in having long list of sportsmen in minority sports if the sports themselves are not included. I'd junk most of the sports people entirely and add the sports-specific articles in their place, which is way more important than just having lists of players existing in a vacuum where their own sports are not even listed! - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. We have eliminated several jockeys in the past few weeks (actually all of them except the horse), and most of the ice-hockey-players are currently listed and will hopefully get enough votes to be removed (you can vote for them here). Several American and British footballers were voted off, Brazilians are currently listed to be voted onto the list. Many people agree that the tennis-players, actors and baseball players have to be cut (significantly!), and also actors and performers. The question is: which ones should be removed, and we determine that by using a voting system.

Sports-specific articles are listed on a different sublist: Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Anthropology,_psychology_and_everyday_life#Sports.2C_121--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2013 (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.

Geography

Countries

Politically independent associated states

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.

---

I propose to remove countries with population < 200 000:

Countries, 207-20

North America, 23-6

1. Antigua and Barbuda - 86,295
2. Dominica - 71,293
3. Grenada - 103,328
4. St. Kitts and Nevis - 51,970
5. St. Lucia - 166,526
6. St. Vincent and the Grenadines - 100,892

Africa, 54-2

1. São Tomé and Príncipe - 187,356
2. Seychelles - 90,945

Europe, 44-4

1. Andorra - 76,246
2. Liechtenstein - 36,842
3. Monaco - 36,136
4. San Marino - 32,576

Oceania, 13-8

1. Kiribati - 104,573
2. Federated States of Micronesia - 101,823
3. Marshall Islands - 55,548
4. Nauru - 9,945
5. Palau - 20,770
6. Samoa - 187,820
7. Tonga - 103,036
8. Tuvalu - 11,264

State-like entities, 2-2

1. Sovereign Military Order of Malta
2. The Holy See

Politically independent associated states, 2-2

1. Cook Islands - 550
2. Niue - 1,613

--Igrek (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove all countries with population < 200 000

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Strong oppose see discussion Carlwev (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose: I disagree with enough of the countries proposed for removal to disagree with this in mass pbp 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Deleting any of the 200-odd independent countries from the VA/E list of 10,000, especially when we still have numerous rubbish articles in other categories, strikes me as misguided. Doing so based on an arbitrary population threshold, en masse, also seems a bit arbitrary. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - per above opposers. Suggest, with the nominators approval, that we retire this one asap in the interests of thinning out the wordage on this page. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about topic area: Countries

• Removing all sovereign states who's population is lower than 200k? While I can understand the idea I do not agree with it. Firstly proposing several articles in one go, although simpler is tricky, people will won't support unless they support every single one, which in this case is unlikely. While I proposed 2 fencing swords in a single thread, proposing over 20 states in one go is too broad and too much to vote one single vote. Population here is supposed to be the deciding factor, the populations of the states range from 550 to 187,000, that's quite a range. This would work better if you proposed all or some of these individually, maybe with the lowest population first.

• Being a sovereign state kind of raises the notability or vitalness of a state or place, above other equally populated places that are not sovereign states, it is not odd to think an encyclopedia as large as 10,000 articles would include an article for every nation of the world even the lower population ones. Liechtenstein and Monaco both have a population of just over 36,000, about the same as the French commune Poissy. But Monaco and Liechtenstein are obviously a lot more vital. some of the states have been states for over 1000 years like San Marino have been a nation since 301 AD. They may have much more history culture or identity than other places that are not nations.

• Some of the tiny island nations have populations much much lower than your cut of point 200,000, and have had independence for less than 50 years, although they may have had native populations for a long time before being discovered by the west though. nations who's population is about 10,000 like Nauru and Tuvalu have a slightly higher chance at getting voted off perhaps propose all or some of these separately, although I still don't think any will go though. The other states and entities again probably have a slightly higher chance at support, but again I don't think they will get booted off. To have all Sovereign states is not that bad an idea for a 10k article encyclopedia, they are by far not the worst articles on the list. By all means post threads but I just don't see proposals to remove countries working, This didn't work when you proposed it last year. Carlwev (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don`t understand, what kind of articles you want to remove from Geography sublist (cities, regions etc), if you want keep these countries. You can look at my ready sublist (User:Igrek/10000/Geography), it have 1296 articles (Target Number=1300, current version have 1418 articles). --Igrek (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe geography deserves a high number of articles, but others and myself are still working on trimming it though. Without examining it, the worst articles I recall from the list are National parks and preserves, mid ocean ridges, Antarctic territories, Regions and country subdivisions. Some of the parks have low population, are very newly created, very little information is out there about them, they are not a very written or read about topic and any wildlife is covered much better by the article about the country or region anyway. There are much more vital topics missing from a geology and geography POV than the majority of Mid Ocean Ridges. Antarctic territory claims, have no meaning to physical geography, and are almost meaningless in political geography too as nobody recognizes or upholds the claims anyway and the population is virtually non existent as well. Regions and Country subdivisions, while some are vital being well known, written about large populations, huge history, cultural identity, recognized people and boundaries and some used to nations, like England, Bavaria, Texas etc. Some regions while large are just created administrative divisions of countries, some only created very recently too, and are not well documented or well known areas in their own right, they are not something one would want to read or write about. Like Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region or Delta State only created in the 1990s, I bet there are much more books or articles on Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, and Grenada than these areas and most I believe would see the nations although lower in population more vital. There are some physical geography places/terms I believe are not important or are just not used that much, like Fennoscandia which I've never really seen used any where or Severnaya Zemlya that was discovered in the twentieth century and has no population past or present. Carlwev (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have skip read through your sandbox list Igrek, and while you have left things like Parks and Preserves in, you have removed several things like Antarctic claims and seldom used terms like Interior Plains. It looks like you have trimmed other areas in geography not just nations, not all but many look similar to what I would cut, why not nominate other articles you trimmed out not just the nations, and probably nom them one at a time, I bet many would end up getting voted off. Carlwev (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2013 (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.

Ocean floor

See Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Geography#Ocean_floor.2C_11 for the sublist of related topics.

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 East Pacific Rise

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose, see below. --Igrek (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

East Pacific Rise is important for Geological oceanography (Marine geology) and Seismology, 104,000 search result at Google Books ("Mariana Trench" - 22,400, "Mid-Ocean Ridge" - 84,000). --Igrek (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Igrek is right, this part is more important because it moves faster than other parts and seismologists believe there could be a hotspot underneath. Hotspot might be the topic to include as vital article. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good thinking about hotspot, fairly vital, but just to let you know, Hotspot (geology) is already included in vital articles here Physical sciences, Earth sciences, geomorphology. But good thinking though. Carlwev (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2013 (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.

Arts

Music of nations and regions

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

---

Swap: Remove Ballades (Chopin), add Music of France

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

See my comment about removing individual works and replacing them with more general topics. We have other Chopin works on the list pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Goldberg Variations, add Music of Germany

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

See my comment about removing individual works and replacing them with more general topics. We have several other Bach works on the list pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Nocturnes (Chopin), add Music of China

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

See my comment about removing individual works and replacing them with more general topics. We have other Chopin works on the list pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), add Music of Africa

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

See my comment about removing individual works and replacing them with more general topics. Note that we still have two more Beethoven works on the list pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev), add Music of Russia

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

See my comment about removing individual works and replacing them with more general topics. Note that we still have one more Prokofiev work on the list pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove What's Going On, add Music of the United States

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

See my comment about removing individual works and replacing them with more general topics pbp 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What's Going On? is a disambiguation page. Ypnypn (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2013 (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.

Films

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts#Modern visual arts, 80 for complete sublist of related topics.

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

---

Swap: Remove Midnight Cowboy, Add Breathless (1960 film)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. I personally prefer Midnight Cowboy, but Breathless is an absolutely seminal film and most likely figures on most film school courses. It's probably the most influential film since Citizen Kane, and features on TCM's most influential films of all-time. Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - Per Betty. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose!votes

Discussion

I was thinking about nominating The Searchers again to replace this as one "cowboy" film for another. But this is fine too. Midnight Cowboy doesn't belong on the list. I guess we'll get The Searchers in some other way. --Rsm77 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Clockwork Orange is coming off anyway, so when it does we should just straight nominate The Searchers in its place and keep the list at 40 entries. Betty Logan (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2013 (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.

Performing arts

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

---

Swap:Add Professional Wrestling, Remove La mer (Debussy) (musical composition)

Support ! votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose votes

1. Oppose: Wrestling as a performing art? Seriously? - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per SchroCat. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose: This has got to be a prank.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose: Are there too many compositions? Yes. Should they be swapped out for stuff like this? No, they should be swapped out for other musical topics or axed outright pbp 23:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Not a chance. We don't need more US-centric sports. Try something from another part of the world like No theatre or Kabuki or Balinese puppet theater or any of the many worldwide performing arts that exist out of American television culture.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Wrestling as a straight add in sports is not gaining weight. I propose a swap in arts, as wrestling is a performing art, not a competitive sport. I propose to add professional wrestling and remove La mer (Debussy). I know one is artistic music and the other is pop culture and silly to some. But opinions aside we have 31 classical music compositions plus lists of classical composers and genres, this one musical piece is not that vital, and which one of the two La Mer and Wrestling is more popular, well known and has had more impact on culture and society, and performing art and probably is more vital. Pro Wrestling is actually older than this composition, What will be remembered more in 100+ years time. The main reason for opposition before was that wrestling is not a sport it is athletic acting. That statement only means it should not be added to sports, it doesn't mean it should not be added at all. I think it should be added to performing arts in the list with acrobatics and circus. Everyone knows it's not real and it's for show, no one pretending it's genuine combat like boxing. People watch acrobats at the circus, people go to watch wrestling, they are both athletic choreographed performing art. Wrestling has probably been viewed by more people and had a bigger impact on culture than many of the listed movies, theatre shows, and some of the less popular sports, like rowing etc and There's loads of merchandise involved too, and it's a billion dollar industry
• And for the record I have always hated professional wrestling as a child and as an adult; but this list shouldn't be what we like it should be what we think is vital.
• If I have picked a piece of music you think should stay why not suggest something else. Carlwev (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Things that are forms of entertainment: Ballet and dancers are allowed 18 spaces on the list, Tennis and racket and players at one point took up 22 spaces on the list, Football, world cup, goalkeeper and players had 28 slots on the list. Why can these forms of entertainment be allowed so many slots and others are ignored completely and aren't even allowed to have one space for itself. Wrestling is a huge form of entertainment, has a solid place in popular culture, makes loads of money and loads of people watch it on tv and live. Yes it is silly and fake but that shouldn't matter, we shouldn't judge it by that. If it isn't a sport, if it isn't a performing art, like acrobatics for example, were does it belong? Carlwev (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• You know what? I hate wrestling....Looks like everyone else hates it more than I do, well this is out for the count, on to other things. Carlwev (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2013 (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.

Anthropology, psychology and everyday life

Ethnology

See Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Anthropology,_psychology_and_everyday_life#Ethnology.2C_18 for the sublist of related topics.

Ethnic groups swap proposals

Swap: Add Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Remove Turco-Mongol,

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
3. support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose votes

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.

Unsorted Anthropology, psychology and everyday life topics

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

---

Swap: Remove Primitive culture, Add Totemism

Support votes

1. support as nom. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

oppose votes

Discussion

OK you got some good ideas going. Totemism crossed my mind to, I found it is already listed under religion here though, probably the right place for it? Carlwev (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. I think it belongs more in culture since it is a concept like taboo that has been used to describe different kinds of cultural systems - not all of which are religious. Basically Totemism is usually described as the way in which a clan system is organized by pairing each clan with a totem. But if its already on the list then that is good. In any case I think primitive culture should be removed since its not really a useful concept.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 30 June 2013 (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.

National cuisines

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life#Cooking, food and drink, 159 for a complete sublist of related topics.

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 Japanese cuisine

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support I don't like adding this as much as Chinese cuisine, but I would still support this, however I feel we will have to wait a long time until lower grand total attracts more support for this. Carlwev (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. While I consider this topic to be good addition to the list, I cannot support adding Japanese cuisine until we get the VA/E list under 10,000 topics again. It is simply a matter of forcing the process of prioritization and making choices. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (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.

Individual foods: Dairy

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life#Cooking, food and drink, 159 for a complete sublist of related topics.

Add Cream

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak Support, Not my favorite candidate, but I think we should have cream before half of the listed cheeses, such as Feta and Ricotta. Carlwev (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose -- not vital, as would be "milk".--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, um, there just isn't enough room. --Melody Lavender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (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.

Food: Miscellaneous

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life#Cooking, food and drink, 159 for a complete sublist of related topics.

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 Confectionery

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Carlwev (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose -- not vital. candy is. this isn't--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per ColonelHenry. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per ColonelHenry --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Regarding the oppose above, candy is a type of confectionary; in my opinion the latter is more vital than the former. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• I don't want to oppose this out of ignorance, but I have to question it . . . . Is this a tidbit of British/Commonwealth vocabulary that I somehow missed in my year of graduate school at a British university? In the United States, the word "confectionery" is rarely used and many, if not most Americans would not understand its meaning. Is this a commonly used word in the UK and other Commonwealth countries? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Get ready for another essay....This was another thread "posted on my behalf" from a comment where I mentioned it, but I did see it and deliberately left it here, as I didn't hate the idea. hmmm, I'd love to say confectionery is used a lot to bump this up but I would be exaggerating. I would say almost everyone knows what it means but don't use it in everyday language we say sweets. I can waffle on for ages about sweets candy and confectionery. It's confusing US vs UK terminology, similar thing happens with the words biscuit and cookie. In the UK candy is not used much, it can mean the same as it means in the US, but it not heard very much. Or it is used specifically within terms like candy cane and candy floss. It usually "sounds" American when it's used much like "potato chips" does too, we say crisps. Some say candy only includes hard candy cane type, some say candy is a word for all confectionery. I'd like to point out it has been proposed that confectionery and candy be merged at confectionery although I don't think the ball is rolling on that yet. In the UK the mostly used word is by far sweets, at the moment sweets redirects to confectionery, although that was only one user's doing perhaps, it could quite as easily redirect to candy or even be its own article. I work in a supermarket (woohoo) sweets is used more for customer orientated information and adverting, confectionery when used is more used for staff/industry orientated information, but sweets is also used, both terms are kind of used interchangeably anyway. A store that sells mostly this is usually called a sweet shop. It's not an exact science but some would say sweets includes all things like chocolate bars and chewing gum some would say it does not. Confectionery when used is usually regarded as the over-encompassing term including bars and gum etc, if sweets is not. Some say confectionery is the proper "official/scientific/international" word for it with no regional connotations, and candy is the American regional term for it, and sweets the British regional term for it. It's all really down to terminology, sweets, candy and confectionery should "probably" all redirect to the same article but what the name of that article should be people will no doubt argue about. Also the way they have been interlinked to other languages, I'm not sure of, may only be the opinions of one user who linked them. I speak a little French and they have 2 words, confiserie translated as confectionery and bonbon, which is translated as as sweets or candy. Anyway I think we only need one article, that includes all kinds of sweets/candy/confectionery, it would appear the wider wiki community uses the term candy most, it is a longer article with more language links, although some Brits will probably hate this, some would say confectionery is the term we should have, I personally think confectionery is the right word but I am not ignorant to the wide spread use of the term candy, and I would happily leave it at candy and move on to more important things, I couldn't care anymore it's only a word. Carlwev (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Carl, nobody reads your verbose walls of text. Please see WP:TLDR. You almost always make some strong points, but IMO, they are more often than not lost in your overwhelming comments. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • He's right though. 'Candy' is American for 'sweets'. But I think we only need confectionery, spelt properly! Rothorpe (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2013 (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.

Sports

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Anthropology, psychology and everyday life#Recreation: games and sports, 185 for a complete sublist of related topics.

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 Human swimming

Support !votes

1. Support. Human swimming is a means of locomotion, not a sport. We already have swimming (sport); we don't need both. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: pbp 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Redundant. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Many people swim for fun, and in some places in the world past and present for food/work. Not many people are professional swimmers. swimming sport is a lower topic of swimming in general. I wouldn't remove Automobile and/or driving because we have autoracing. Just a thought. Carlwev (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Maybe it is misplaced, maybe it should be in transport or anthropology or somewhere else. The swimming sport is a sub topic of human swimming, not the other way round. Swimming sport is easy to place in a list as it's a sport, human swimming may be harder to place in the correct spot, swimming is pretty important topic to people today and historically, not isolated to just competitive swimming. Many many people swim, today many people swim as recreation, but do not compete in it, children learn how to swim in swimming lessons, they don't all compete in it as a sport. It is a skill or activity, means of transport or survival not just a sport. Humans have been swimming probably since before they were even human, sometimes for food or pearls etc. I must oppose human swimming removal. Also human swimming appears in 77 other languages, swimming sport in 29. If you were to include all information in one article it would be human swimming, not sport swimming. Carlwev (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2013 (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.

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 Professional wrestling

Support !votes

1. Support add Professional wrestling. Carlwev (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Professional wrestling is not a sport, its a form of athletic acting. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral for now. This probably belongs on the list somewhere, given its popularity, but I'm not sure where it should go, or how it should be represented. We need to think on this one a bit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose, not a sport. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I propose adding Professional wrestling, as distinct from Olympic wrestling I think its popular enough to be in list. It's origins are from the 1800s somewhere according to the article, around the same age as some other sports. Despite it being something of a theatrical pseudo sport it has a bigger impact on culture and media than some other sports we have, like sculling for example. Also not that it matters a lot, but Pro Wrestlers can become quite big stars, bigger than people from some other sports, seems like quite a big sport/industry to ignore. Although we already voting to delete some.
• I lean towards only including the industry itself not any actual wrestlers. Eg: For performing arts, we have ballet plus 17 ballet dancers, but not the whole topic of pro wrestling nor any wrestlers, (olympic or pro). Although most would say ballet is more vital than pro wrestling I would not say it is 17 times more vital. Or in other words I would not say there are 17 individual ballet dancers that are all singularly more important to culture, or more vital to an encyclopedia than the whole industry/entertainment/performing art of Pro Wrestling. Maybe we could delete one ballet dancer to make room for it? I don't really like Pro wrestling by the way but I recognize how big it is. Carlwev (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2013 (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.

Ethnology

See Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/Anthropology,_psychology_and_everyday_life#Ethnology.2C_18 for the sublist of related topics.

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

---

Swap: Remove Turco-Mongol, Add Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
3. support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose votes

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.

Business and Economics

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 Gross domestic product (GDP)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose without concurrent removal per discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• All the major economic indicators were left out, such as this indicator of growth and also Consumer price index, a major indicator of the value of a currency in everyday life. --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• GDP is surely a vital topic, but we are nearly 400 topics over our VA/E limit of 10,000 articles. What less vital topic do you propose to remove to make room for GDP, Melody? This entire exercise is about prioritization and making difficult choices. There are no free adds. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• See below: Hunting and obviously a whole list of ice hockey players.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternative swap: Remove Mehr News Agency, Add Gross domestic product (GDP)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Good call, Carl. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Improves the list. Jusdafax 07:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Igrek (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I propose removing Mehr News Agency from Mass media, and replace it with Gross domestic product (GDP), in Business and economics, both within social sciences. Mehr News Agency (listed in Newspapers ???) is only 10 yrs old, and is regional importance and limited importance, not a 10'000 list worthy article in m book, It is not the BBC. GDP pretty important economics article, more vital than many other included articles. I created this swap, even though I disliked swaps at first, a swap seems to be better than a lone add, they seem to get more support, and we need to keep removing, and slow down lone adding. Carlwev (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Carl, this is exactly the the sort of prioritization and choice-making of which I would like to see more. Clearly, an Iranian news agency is of little interest anywhere outside Iran, and probably only of middling interest there. Trading it for a high-priority economics topic like GDP is a very good swap that improves the VA/E list. Hopefully, Melody can get behind this swap because GDP does belong on the list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Mehr News Agency was on my list for removals anyway. Who put these on the list? I disagree with the use of the swap-method at this point - this is something that can be used a few months down the road when the whole list is tighter. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2013 (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.

Swap: Add Hunger, Remove London Library

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.

---

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, per discussion, convinced me. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support . --Igrek (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• From within Society and social sciences I propose deleting London Library it is not the most important thing in London, Nor the most important library in the world. I would replace it with hunger in social issues the same list as poverty. (alternatively this could go in health with diet and nutrition). Many people suffer from hunger nearly 1 billion, it is a huge factor for a lot of the world, it is well documented and studied and a lot of money and effort is going into combating it. (there are 21 libraries and 61 educational institutions, maybe a different one of these could go, if London Library is not agreed on) Carlwev (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• The article says that London Library is the hugest lending library on earth, so I am hesitant to support this. I don't subscribe to the idea that "biggest, highest and most award-winning" is the best criterion for inclusion as vital article. But I wouldn't propose the Mount Everest for deletion either. But Hunger should definitely be in. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• The article says London Library the largest independent library in the world which isn't that great a deal, and the statement is also unsourced as well. The article says London Library has just over a million books/works and a membership of just 7000. The List of largest libraries says that both Library of Congress and British library have 150 million books/works and annual visitors are 1.75 million. Thats 150 times as many books! That list also says there are 20 libraries in the world that contain over 15 million books. London Library really isn't that big. If you were to ask random people or look in a book for important buildings in London you would find Palace of Westminster and Tower of London as answers. London Library not so much. I know the British Library in London, but I've lived in London my whole life and I've never even heard of the London Library before reading it here, London Zoo and probably 100s of museums in London have more visitors and are more notable I would imagine. Carlwev (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2013 (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.

Biology and health sciences

Remove thread

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 Afrosoricida

Support !votes

1. Support If the entire order went extinct tomorrow noone would notice. oOt all orders are vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 11 July 2013 (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.

Technology

Transportation

See Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology#Transportation, 109 for a complete sublist of related topics.

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

---

Swap: Remove Aerostat, Add Airport

Support !votes

1. Support'. Carlwev (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Remove obscure generic term for "lighter than air aircraft" and replace with vital "airport." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Obvious to me that this is a good swap. Jusdafax 04:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Another technology transport topic I believe is not included but definitely should be, at least in my opinion, airport. I am sure I remember seeing this before but I cannot find it in transport now, it's not there (I wouldn't think it belongs anywhere else). This is more important than so many topics within transport and technology, I don't know where to start. Since we have 12 bridges, and 6 underground train networks one could argue the top few busiest airports of the world could be included like Heathrow Airport, but I'll leave that alone for now. However I am shocked if anyone doesn't want the article airport itself here. We have train, train station, and railway track, rail transport for example, A bit of overlap there I think but acceptable. Airport is important and is not overlapped enough by just aviation and plane to not have. Airports are among the biggest busiest buildings/places there are. And we have 3 plane manufacturers. we can't have them before airport surely. Carlwev (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Remove obscure generic term for "lighter than air aircraft" and replace with vital "airport." We already have the balloon and blimp examples listed in the Technology sublist, we don't need the obscure generic term, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2013 (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.