Revision as of 18:51, 16 July 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles/Level/4 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vital articles/Level/4 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Vital Articles

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

This is the talk-page for: Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded. Comments made on the various sub pages will not appear here unless placed here manually.

Brief explanation

This Misplaced Pages list of Vital Articles/Expanded was created to include the 10,000 "most vital topics" on Misplaced Pages. The list, as previously compiled, presently includes approximately 10,400 topics, or approximately 400 more articles than permitted. Among the present goals of this project are to prioritize the topics of existing sublists and remove approximately three to five percent from the list as a whole. All Misplaced Pages editors are welcome to participate in this process of refinement and prioritization.

Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, one at a time, followed by discussion and !voting on each individual topic. Given that the Vital Articles/Expanded list is presently approximately 400 topics over its stated limit of 10,000, the easiest way to add a new Vital Article to the list is to propose a swap of the new topic for a topic already on the list which is a lower priority. This is not an absolute rule, but recent practice shows that swaps may gain consensus easier than stand-alone additions.

Individual topic discussions may remain open for 90 days or more, but will be archived when it becomes apparent that consensus is unlikely to be reached. We ask that all discussions remain open for a minimum of 15 days, after which they may be closed as a consensus change if (a) a 5−0 (or greater) unanimous !vote has been achieved, or (b) six or more editors have participated in the discussion and there is an !vote of 70% or greater in favor of or opposed to the proposed addition, removal or swap. Please be patient with our process; we believe that wider participation by more editors, with more informed discussion, are better and more likely to produce an improved and stable final list.

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

If you are starting a discussion, please choose a section below:

Thank you for participating in the Vital Articles/Expanded project.

This project talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this project talk page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This page was last edited by Purplebackpack89 (talk | contribs) 11 years ago. (Update timer)

People

Comedians

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Entertainers, 190 for complete sublist of related topics.

Swap Add George Burns, Remove Burns and Allen

support !votes

1. Support as nom, see discussion Carlwev (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - Per Carl. GabeMc 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

oppose !votes

Discussion

We list Burns and Allen duo but not George Burns, I am not very familiar with George Burns, I know who he was, I had not heard of Allen nor the Burns and Allen duo, before my time. Based in a biased way, purely on the quality of the articles and the number of languages the articles appear in, wikipedia users have put more work into George Burns. George alone is in 24 languages, the duo in 3. George also out lived his wife by more than 30 years so was around for longer, but the duo was also around for along time too. Again not too familiar here, but my instincts say George Burns in Burns and Allen out. Other views? Burns and Allen is also almost half written as an article about the radio and tv show, rather than the duo. Carlwev (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Google Books search results:
  
• "George Burns" — 146,000.
• "Burns and Allen" — 25,900. --Igrek (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Louis de Funès

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support to make the list more global --Melody Lavender (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. I cannot support this addition, although potentially worthy, without a proposed swap of a lower-priority topic or until we get the total VA/E articles list under 10,000. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
2. Oppose per Dirtlawyer1. Jusdafax 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc 03:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I must oppose this addition for now. It is far too easy to add worthy topics, and far too difficult to remove lower-priority ones. We need some discipline, folks, and we need to get the numbers under control before we gear up for wholesale additions again. That's what got us into this numbers mess in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone think of a swap for Louis to give him a fair chance, he has much support, even the opposes say he's potentially worthy. I was thinking, a swap with Jerry Seinfeld? any better ideas? adding him would also help make it more international which people often think is a good idea. Carlwev (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• For someone from the same era I'd go for Sid Caesar. Incidentally, the comedy section of the list is now the section I think suffers most from having too many Americans. Could easily lose a few more. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Swap Add Louis de Funès, Remove, Sid Caesar

Support !votes

1. Support see discussion at Louis de Funes above Carlwev (talk)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc 22:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

General discussion about topic area: Comedians

Comedian-Actor overlap, and comparison

We need some comedians and comedy actors obviously. But I see some odd things occurring. A large proportion of the Comedian list are people primarily known for acting, whom are also comedians, but would not be anywhere near as well known as they are, if they were not actors. Some have acted a little, some have acted loads. In this light if a person who has been in comedy movies/TV is listed in the comedian list instead of actors they appear to have a lot better chance at staying with lower credentials/impact/talent than people in the actor list. (Over half the comedians also have a huge overlap into actors, Billy Crystal, Chevy Chase, Eddie Murphy, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Martin, Lucille Ball, Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Robin Williams, John Belushi, Jerry Seinfeld, Woody Allen and maybe more have all acted in movies, and/or TV some a little some a lot). If Billy Crystal, primarily an actor, was listed in actors, he would be compared to Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne and would be removed very quickly. Whoopi Goldberg owes a lot of her notability to acting roles. If she were listed among actresses she would be compared to Hepburn and others and wouldn't last long. We are voting on removing Nicole Kidman and Julia Roberts but they probably are more notable than Goldberg, but Goldberg has more chance at staying as she's under comedians, not actresses. This is difficult I know, some comedians are primarily comedians some are half comedians half actor, some are really just actors who do comedy films, we aren't listing Action movie stars in there own list, or Western cowboy actors, or Romance actresses in a separate list, so why comedy actors. Bottom line I think many of the comedians are in fact just actors and are even lower notability than actors we are now voting on for removal. Thoughts any one? Carlwev (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with your points, and this probably means there are too many comedians. In your list above, Woody Allen is the only obvious keep I can see if compared with actors/directors (Allen should maybe be in with the directors). --Rsm77 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Inventors

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Scientists, inventors and mathematicians, 213 for complete list of related topics.

Remove Gerd Binnig

Support !votes

1. Support. As nom. Not really an inventor despite his co-design of the STM. GabeMc 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Add Walter Houser Brattain

Support !votes

1. Support As nom. We include both John Bardeen and William Shockley, so why exclude Brattain? GabeMc 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Support !votes

1. Support As nom. It would seem he was a brilliant engineer, but what exactly did he invent? GabeMc 20:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Setting any question of notability aside, 1) We just added him, 2) Inventors are right-sized pbp 21:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose On the grounds of, main reason for removal didn't really invent anything, which although true, he is among the more important engineers, not the lesser. Although not a tip top rock solid "inventor/scientist" like Edison, far from bottom too. He Revolutionized the transport industry, influencing both rail and shipping. Even the nom says he was a great engineer. Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Joseph Marie Jacquard

Support !votes

1. Support As nom. He played an important role in the development of the earliest programmable loom, but several others were decades ahead of him, including Basile Bouchon (1725), Jean-Baptiste Falcon (1728) and Jacques Vaucanson (1740), none of which are included on this list. GabeMc 20:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Cyrus McCormick

Support !votes

1. Support. As nom. He didn't really invent the mechanical reaper so much as he marketed it. John Deere (inventor) isn't on here. GabeMc 21:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose John Deere didn't invent the reaper, and he probably should be on here, but so should Cyrus, if not as an inventor, than as a businessman. He made the Atlantic Monthly's list of Influential Americans. pbp 21:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose mccormick gave us the reaper. john deere gave us a pretty cool plough. Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Adolph Rickenbacker

Support !votes

1. Support. - As nom. We include Leo Fender, presumably because many believe him to be the inventor of the amplifiable electric guitar, but he wasn't; Adolph Rickenbacker was. GabeMc 19:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap: Add Ada Lovelace, Remove Georg Bednorz

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per nom. GabeMc 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Ada made the first computer program. I thinks that's more vital than Georg Bednorz's invetions. --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename "Inventors" to "Inventors and Engineers

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - This would lead to dozens of add threads, since the section does not currently cover engineers except for a few exceptions. If consensus develops in favour of the proposal I will reconsider my !vote. GabeMc 20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC) GabeMc 20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• As correctly pointed out by Gabe, some of the people listed in "inventors" may not have actually invented anything. Some of them may however still be notable as engineers, they could be great or brilliant engineers, but not inventors. Who ever added them to begin with put them under inventors, and as the list stands, that is probably where I would look for them. There is also an overlap I believe of people who could be described as both an engineer and a inventor, more so probably than other overlaps like business people and engineers not quite as much. Although some may deserve to go, we should remove articles because we truly believe they are not vital, but I wouldn't want to get in the habit of removing articles because they don't fit the header, I wouldn't want to remove who may be great engineers only because they haven't technically invented anything. Columbus didn't technically discover America. If someone has an alternative idea, like putting engineers in their own section or merging with another or just removing them all like we did with mystics and criminals bring it up. Carlwev (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about topic area: Inventors

• I am trying to find common ground with Gabe, and yes I can support some of these, my only issue is this: ignoring for a second the individual merits for the people above. We should have people who invent things they are important. But there is this kind of breed of people, for want of a better term "great engineers" chiefly from the industrial revolution, people that take machines/inventions market them use them in different ways get them out there in masses and change industry and the world. Yes they may not have technically invented the original machine, but they may still stand out as one of the most important people associated with an invention. Yes I think some of the entries do deserve to be removed, but the sentence for Brunel, "It would seem he was a brilliant engineer, but what exactly did he invent?" kind of says my point, even you say he's "brilliant". I think the error may just be in the header. Someone made the base for the list, including a header "inventors", and others, later, tried to add great engineers, and "inventors" seemed like the best place to put them. While yes I think some can go, I don't want to get in the habit of removing great engineers and adding fairly unknown original inventors. Which is sad, as sometimes true inventors are undeservedly forgotten. Part of me wonders if some of these engineers may technically be better placed in businessmen then? But I do think they are probably in the right list, as that's where other users placed them originally, they could have placed them in businessmen to start with but they didn't; as the list stands at the moment, investors is probably where I would look for them. I may propose to rename the section, inventors and engineers to correct this perceived error. As I said before I wouldn't want to remove a great engineer and add a less great inventor just because it fits the header above better. I will get behind some of your proposals I agree with, I hope you can get behind some of mine, we should be putting our differences aside and working together to improve the list, not disagreeing all the time. Carlwev (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Politicians and leaders

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Politicians and leaders, 469 for complete sublist of related topics.

Discussion of topic area: U.S. presidents

• In general I think US presidents are important, even so when say compared to many journalists, ice hockey players or jockeys. But to say we should have every US president even the least notable as they have been the head of state for over 250'000 people may be awkward territory. They change every 4-8 years, other leaders may be much longer, like Elizabeth II and Victoria over 60 years rule. Head of state of over 250'000 people? Well china and India each have over 4 times USA's population. So by that logic we should have all their leaders too right? Need to look at their impact on their country, the world, on history and policies. Comments from other users suggest some leaders are kind of regarded as caretakers, that looked after things OK, for 4 or 8 years, didn't mess up, didn't change a lot, then left. Carlwev (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily argue with your point about China and India. In any case, I think being even just a caretaker over hundreds of millions of people is very significant in itself; certainly one of the top 2000+ people. Besides, I'm not sure that Carter looked after things OK. Ypnypn (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• @Ypnypn, for the record, we've already deleted removed Grover Cleveland and George H.W. Bush from the VA/E list, and moved U.S. Grant to the military leaders subsection. The only common thread we could find among the U.S. presidents listed was they were all two-termers, which is a pretty shallow measure of historical significance. I see no reason why Adams II, van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson I, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison II, McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, ford, Carter or Bush I should be included. I would bet 90% of the current discussion participants could not provide the first name of the foregoing, let alone name a single major accomplishment of their administrations. Viewed through the retrospective lens of the last 2,000 years of history, not every U.S. president, UK prime minister or monarch, Chinese emperor, Russian czar or president or Soviet chairman, Roman or Byzantine emperor, French king or president, etc. is a major historical figure. We currently have 21 of 44 U.S. presidents listed, and that is arguably disproportionate any way you slice it. By the same token we could list most Roman emperor, UK monarchs and prime ministers, Russian czars, etc., and if we did so on an even-handed basis, the persons sublist would double in size. Even allowing for a certain disproportionate influence of the United States over the last 100 years, we still must prioritize and make choices. Sure, he was the president and a heck of a nice guy, but do we really want Gerry Ford on this list? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd also note the following:

1. The U.S. having 250, 300 million people is a relatively new development. There were 3 million when the Revolution was fought; 32 million at the time of the American Civil War
2. Until the Spanish-American War, the United States was a relative non-entity in foreign policy
3. Until the early 20th century (thanks to the actions of FDR, Teddy and Wilson), there was no such thing as the "Imperial Presidency". Presidents really didn't do that much. Heck, the government really didn't do that much: we didn't have either the Military Industrial Complex or the safety net. As such, all of the Gilded Age presidents are out (Grant is in as a general only); so are all the presidents between Jackson and Lincoln save Polk.
4. In addition, we have people who died in office (Garfield, W.H. Harrison) and VPs who finished off terms (Ford) who really didn't do much of anything

As such, I think we should cut the presidents down to 18, plus Franklin and Hamilton. Monroe would probably be my most likely target for cutting at this stage. And, FWIW, I can give you the first names of those forgettable presidents, as well as their running mates and the men who both Prez and VP defeated. I can't give you legislative achievements for all of them, because, frankly, many of them had none pbp 23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

None of your four points relate to FordCarter. You're right that Harrison (and a few others) doesn't belong, but most of the presidents do. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, #3 mentions Ford by name. There are also some arguments to be made that pertain to Ford and only Ford, such as being the only President who was never elected Prez or VP. pbp 04:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant Carter; corrected. - Ypnypn (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

However you try and argue the point, there's still waaaaay too many US presidents on the list. This is supposed to be a global resource, not US-Wiki and a stack of these should be cut from the list to ensure both a global and historic balance (there's also more than a touch of Misplaced Pages:Recentism mixed in here). At the end of the day, are you really telling me that Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford are two of the 10,000 most important things to have happened on the planet? There are far more important things, and indeed people, than those two. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove American Politicians Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B Johnson, Henry Kissinger, James Monroe, James K. Polk, George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson

Support !votes

1. Support No other country has 18 20th century leaders mentioned. Only the truly globally important should be included. This will be a good step towards rducing US bias and shortening the list at a quicker pace.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carter, Kissinger and Monroe LBJ, Polk and Wilson should stay; neutral on Bush. The three I mentioned are too marginal for this list pbp 00:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose removal of LBJ, Polk and Wilson see comments above and below. Am well aware that I have !voted in both the support and oppose sections pbp 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose on procedural grounds: we consider individual topics individually. Cluster proposals are completely contrary to our established procedure of giving careful consideration to every topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc 20:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - per DL1. Jusdafax 01:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• First of, it's worth clarifying that "Modern world leaders" emcompasses 1815 to the present; Monroe and Polk were dead before the American Civil War even started. I'm wondering why LBJ, Wilson and Polk are not considered "globally important". LBJ is the president most associated with getting us mired in Vietnam, to say nothing of the massive domestic agenda that he took on. It's flummoxing to me that you're advocating removal of LBJ, but keeping JFK, who didn't really do anything; as such, I've nommed JFK below (I've also divorced the Monroe nomination from the others, I think you can get that one to pass without much trouble). We added Polk only recently, and he is one of the more significant Presidents of the 19th century due to his successfully implemented agenda of Manifest Destiny. And he also was also active in foreign policy (Mexican-American War). As for Woodrow Wilson, consider the 14 Points, not to mention that he reformed American monetary policy (with the implementation of the Fed, among other things, he's also the President most associated with the 16th and 17th Amendments). LBJ, Polk and Wilson all were in the Top 50 of the Atlantic Monthly 100 Most Influential Americans list. pbp 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• It would be best if there is a separate vote for each president. --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• For those of you who are new to the VA/E discussion page, Bush, Carter and Kissinger were recently proposed for removal but no consensus was achieved; these discussions have only been closed in the last two or three weeks. Polk has only been recently added after several weeks of discussion. We do not usually consider topics as a group for removal (or addition), least of all topics such as world leaders who really deserve topic-specific consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove George W. Bush, Add Henry Clay

Support !votes

1. Support as nom 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc 22:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• George W. Bush is a) too recent, and b) didn't really make any positive contributions to American or world society.
• Including Bush is the essence of "recentism" on the list. We are trying to cut another 100 or so individual persons from the overall VA/E list. Virtually everyone agrees that the political leaders and pop culture figures are disproportionately American, even allowing for America's outsize roles in 20th Century world political affairs, economics and pop culture. Adding Clay and removing Bush

In his place, I'm advocating the Whig legislative leader Henry Clay. The Whigs and National Republicans are as of yet unrepresented on this list. Clay was behind nearly every important legislative effort between 1812 and 1850, most notably the American System, the Missouri Compromise, the Corrupt Bargain and the Compromise of 1850. Clay is #31 on the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Most Influential Americans, Bush is unranked pbp 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Charles the Bald, Add Charles Martel

Support !votes

1. Support as nom 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc 22:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Charles Martel ushered in the Middle Ages by winning the Battle of Tours, and began the Carolingian dynasty. His great-grandson was folically challenged pbp 16:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Gabe, I'd like a vital reason for this oppose. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that your latest spate of opposing proposals, including changing your votes at James Monroe and others, is some sort of retribution for the comments I made at Carlwev's talk page. I am ashamed of your actions, and I am not even sure you are familiar with the two particular people in question in this. pbp 03:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• By swapping the more important Carolingian/Frankish ruler (Charles the Hammer) for the lesser one (Charles the Bald), we are improving the list. Pretty simple upgrade. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Bill Clinton

Support !votes

1. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Bedrieger (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc 22:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Clinton was neither transformational domestically nor particularly important internationally. If we, as a group of reasonable people, believe that the VA/E 20th Century political leaders sublist is disproportionately American, then we have to be willing to make some tough choices. Having already removed George H. W. Bush (I), the obvious remaining candidates for removal are Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush (II), and Kissinger. The other remaining Americans were significantly more important domestically and internationally (Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan); there aren't any others to cut. We can't bitch about there being too many Americans on the list if we're not willing to cut a few of the lesser ones. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW, though somewhat trivial, there is no Bush II, there is Bush 41 and Bush 43. Bush 43 is not a junior since he does not share an identical name as his father. GabeMc 22:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Dorgon

Support !votes

1. Support, doesn't seem that notable. --V3n0M93 (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 18:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support We can probably find a helluvalot better Chinese leaders pbp 23:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove John F. Kennedy

Support !votes

1. Support pbp 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. This will, of course, be controversial, but Kennedy accomplished very little in two and a half years as president, and is mostly remembered in a hazy, romantic fashion as the young, idealistic president with lots of potential whose life was cut short in his prime. That's the hagiographic retelling by Theodore H. White, Pierre Salinger, Arthur Schlesinger and William Manchester. It's also not historic reality. In fact, his real world influence was short-lived and his objective list of accomplishments practically non-existent, and his 1964 re-election campaign would have been hotly contested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - I have to disagree. JFK was arguably the single most integral person regarding the prevention of a nuclear WWIII thus saving the world by de-escalating the Cuban missile crisis, which to me is a pretty darn good accomplishment. GabeMc 20:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - per Gabe. Jusdafax 01:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• What did he accomplish as President, exactly? Sure, he advocated civil rights, the safety net, and a man on the moon. Armstrong didn't make it up there 'till the Nixon Administration; the other two things happened under LBJ. Oh, and the USA and USSR almost blew up the world on his watch. Aside of the symbolic value of a loss of innocence (and the affair with Marilyn Monroe), he adds little value to this list. If we're talking about dumping Wilson, LBJ and Polk, we should look at JFK too. JFK didn't make the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Most Influential Americans list. pbp 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont think accomplishments is the right standard, but how well known they are outside of their own country and JFK is clearly one of the better known American presidents. But at this point I am willing to support, just to work against the US centric bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy vs. Polk perfectly encapsulates the difference between me and others in the way this list is viewed. Polk did a lot, but isn't well-known, JFK is well-known, but didn't do a lot pbp 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see that difference and appreciate both. I can also see that that difference in evaluation is consistently manipulated in favor of including Americans so that an American musician can be included because they are well known but have had little influence, whereas an influential non-American Musician will be excluded because they are not well known (in America). I find this hypocritical. Again a problem with the process of voiting that is not based on arguments or on a single agreed upon standard for inclusion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• That PBP said: my personal standard is real world significance. Kennedy was once romanticized as the young, handsome, idealistic leader of a modern "Camelot." In reality, he was perceived as weak by the Soviets, and accomplished virtually nothing legislatively in his 1,000 days as president. Polk, on the other hand, changed the geographic destiny of the United States and Mexico. One hundred years from now, Kennedy will be forgotten and Texas and California will still be part of the United States. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• FWIW, in all likelihood it was JFK who prevented the Cuban missile crisis from turning into a full-on global nuclear holocaust. He was surrounded by hawks that advocated war with Russia, yet he stayed true to his principles and did not fall into the group-think that a lesser leader might have. DL1, a reading of Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero just might change your mind a bit. GabeMc 20:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not likely to change my opinion, Gabe. Chris Matthews is a partisan political analyst, and an amateur historian at best. I've been a student, avid reader of political science and presidential history, and amateur historian for 30+ years, and I have studied the Missile Crisis in multiple poli sci and foreign policy classes. I am completely comfortable asserting that JFK is the most over-rated U.S. president of the 20th Century. Most serious American modern historians, with the benefit of 50 years of hindsight, will back that position. Yes, he and his ExCom advisers narrowly averted a nuclear war in 1962, but rather than some sort of military/diplomatic triumph, the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis was more in the nature of backroom compromise that papered over his own earlier mistakes (e.g., Bay of Pigs) and mixed signals sent to the Soviets (e.g., Jupiter missiles in Turkey, 1961 Berlin crisis) in the first 18 months of his administration. In the absence of an inept foreign policy and perceived weakness, the Soviets would never have attempted to insert missiles into Cuba in the first instance; they would never have dared to do such a thing when Eisenhower was president. Kennedy was tested early and often, and often found wanting. His assassination created the closest thing to an American martyr's cult since Lincoln, and most of his early acclaim was derivative of that huge outpouring of sympathy at home and abroad. That we could seriously consider removing Woodrow Wilson, one of the most consequential U.S. presidents on the world stage, while keeping Kennedy, is indicative of just how little knowledge, critical thought and analysis form the basis of some VA/E list decisions and proposals.

The key U.S. presidents of the 20th Century are Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan; they either changed the world or the United States' place in it. Not so much William McKinley, William H. Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Gerry Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush or Bill Clinton. Barack Obama is clearly important as a symbol -- the first non-white elected president -- but his presence on the VA/E list in the absence of any substantial accomplishments (okay, maybe healthcare reform, but the verdict is still out) is the definition of "recentism." Likewise, I would also suggest that George W. Bush's current place on the list deserves serious discussion, as does Lyndon Johnson. If we want to cut the list of U.S. presidents to those that are most "vital," as suggested by Maunus, then we must consider deeper cuts, greater critical prioritization, and tougher choices. No one should complain about the list of 20th Century leaders being dominated by Americans who is also unwilling to make tough choices. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you on most of these, but not on LBJ. I'd put him in the second tier of people, behind the Roosevelts and maybe Reagan, but in a class with Wilson, Truman and Ike. Remember, this is a guy who actually implemented all the stuff we associate with JFK: Medicare, Civil Rights, Space Race (and of course, he's the guy you gotta associate with 'Nam more than any other President). I also believe that if we're cutting American political figures too quickly, and other areas not quickly enough. I think 19 is the number (it was 20, but we moved Grant), and IMO, the American list should consist of the following 17 presidents and two others: Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama (I can tier those if you want). We have more American actors, athletes or musicians than political leaders; that's not right. Monroe and JFK notwithstanding, we need to get the three subsections I mentioned under control before we cut political leaders much more. pbp 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I can be talked into Lyndon Johnson. What's your rationale for keeping Clinton? He failed in all of his major policy initiatives, and his successes were either accidents (balanced budget) or trivial (school uniforms, etc.). With the benefit of 13 years of perspective, there's not much in the way that was transformative or influential nationally or internationally. Looks like a placeholder. Also, beyond the symbolism, what's the logic for keeping Obama? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I admit that the rationale for keeping them is weak, but the rationale for keeping (enough bios to get us to ~1950, where we need to be) is weaker. Largely, I believe the politicians and leaders section to be right-sized. And if U.S. since 1815 is bloated, Europe since 1815 is worse, and athletes, actors, and musicians are even worse. Sure, the case for Clinton is weak, the case for Obama is uncertain. But they're hardly the first Americans I'd cut pbp 05:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Google Books search results:
  

"John Kennedy" - 4,850,000

"John F. Kennedy" — 3,530,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Henry Kissinger, Add John Marshall

Support !votes

1. Support as nom 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Good swap, trading presidential aide for single most important U.S. Supreme Court justice and American jurist in 224 years under the Constitution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Henry Kissinger, with Zbigniew Brzezinski, was arguably the most influential political advisor of the last 40 years. GabeMc 02:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I continue to believe that having both Kissinger and Nixon is overkill. So Kissinger was an American who won a Nobel Peace Prize? So was Elihu Root. So was Ralph Bunche. So was Jane Addams. And none of them are on here.

In his place, I propose American jurist John Marshall, who introduced judicial review. We have a lot of American politicians. Marshall clocks in at #7 on the Atlantic Monthly's 100 most influental Americans (the highest-ranked guy we don't have on this list), Kissinger isn't in the top 100. pbp 15:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, we need to decide something should Marshall make it on. His career straddled 1815...do we put him as early modern (Marbury) or modern (McCulloch, Charles River, Gibbons, Cohens) pbp 05:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove James Monroe

Support !votes

1. Support Obviously.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per PBP's discussion comment below, which perfectly encapsulates my own logic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - For the sake of compromise and consensus building. GabeMc 23:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• See Maunus' rationale above in his multi-politican nomination. I agree that he is one of the more marginal Presidents on the list. Practically by definition, the Era of Good Feelings was a period when precious little happened in American politics. Sure, you have the Monroe Doctrine, but that was a) mostly the work of John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun (both of whom are more influential American political figures than he and neither of whom are on this list), and b) was largely a dead letter for much of the 19th century; America really had no power to enforce it until the Theodore Roosevelt administration. Monroe didn't make the Atlantic Monthly's 100 Most Influential Americans list (Adams and Calhoun did). pbp 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• @Gabe, you can point out at least one policy of every U.S. president that is still influencing U.S. policy. Everyone agrees that we have too many Americans on this sublist, and Monroe is among the two or three weakest remaining. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "James Monroe" — 824,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove James K. Polk

Support !votes

1. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose per my discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per DL1. GabeMc 20:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose mostly per DL's rationale.especially the part about Mary's weave pbp 22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Polk has been described as the "least known consequential President of the US." I think that is a good sign that he isn't Vital. Johnson, Wilson, Monroe and Bush are just not that vital - Bush is probably the only one of them that is widely known outside of the US, and that is because of his recency and reputation for stupidity. Inclusion should not be based on being important to Americans, but on being important to the world. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Polk was only added to the VA/E list in the past 90 days, after careful consideration and extended discussion. Polk is the most influential U.S. president most Americans have never heard of, and had a dramatic impact on the destiny of the United States and Mexico. IMO, what is "vital" is not the popularity of a subject, the number of Misplaced Pages page views, or the number of Google search hits. The VA/E list is, in effect, recommending important topics to readers who might not otherwise have considered reading about particular subjects. By comparison, we have argued about Mary, Queen of Scots, who ruled briefly and ineptly, was a pawn in the dynastic machinations of others, and exercised virtually no impact on the important historical outcomes of her time. But, hey, everyone has heard of Mary, her wig, her red corset, her little dog, and her missing head, thanks to a couple of Hollywood movies and a BBC production or two. The irony is rich when we complain of American bias in the selection of VA/E topics, and then we include topics based on the false/misleading histories/legends recounted by the American movie industry. All I can say is "wow," I guess Polk should have gotten a better Hollywood agent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "James Polk" - 349,000.
• "James K. Polk" — 279,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion: Indigenous American leaders

A year and a half ago, the bios list had six indigenous political leaders (Atahualpa, Huayna Capac, Moctezuma II, Sitting Bull, Tupac Amaru and Tupac Amaru II). Since then, seven more have been added (Black Hawk, Eight Deer Jaguar Claw, Metacomet, Pachacuti, Popé, Tecumseh and Spearthrower Owl. I question the addition of some of the second batch, particularly Black Hawk and Jaguar Claw. Does anyone else? Anybody think ten would be a more appropriate number? pbp 01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I need to look into this in more detail. Many of the articles you listed are stubs, are not present in many languages and do not at first glance look like vital articles. My instincts would say remove most of them. I think the native american tribes/peoples are more vital than most of their leaders. Articles like Cherokee, Souix and Apache would probably be covered by an encyclopedia before most of the leaders you listed. In fact we don't even have Indigenous peoples of the Americas, pretty vital article to leave out, when we're presently including stubs like Spearthrower Owl. I recon a few swaps plus a few lone removals are in order here. Carlwev (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Native America accounts for the history of two continents and its people during most of recorded history. The fact that this area of history is not widely known does not mean that it should not have a reasonable degree of representation relative to the geographic area and historical span. The idea of having a list of vital articles is not just descriptive, i.e. based on what topics have articles in most encyclopedias, but prescriptive, i.e. a suggestion for which topics should have articles in most encyclopedias. If a goal of an encyclopedia is to provide a set of knowledge that is globally representative then we must work to increase the representation of traditionally underrepresented topics and areas. That is what I am working for with my participation here, which I see as a part of countering the systemic bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to how this jibes with your feelings on Polk, because you seem to be using a similar rationale for including these Native Americans (i.e. not well known, but important) as I am for including Polk at the expense of JFL. Maybe it does jibe, but I'm just not seeing it. pbp 19:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right that if I were required to be consistent I would have to go with removing either Polk or JFK but not both. But I am not under such a requirement. We don't have a stable criterion for whether to prioritize being well known in the general public or being historically influential and important. My priority is to remove some US presidents because they are extremely overrepresented as US related topics are in general. That is why I support both with contradictory rationales. I also prioritize including underrepresented related topics (such as indigenous leaders) that fit either of the criteria of well-known or ifluential for the same reason. I see plenty of other people here using the ambiguity of the inclusion criterion to consistently include Americans if either of the rationales apply (including Baez because she's well known and Les Paul because he was an influential inventor lets say, while excluding non-US topics with for the same reasons "not well known only influential (Buffy Sainte-Marie)" or "just very well known but not influential" (Shakira)), and I don't feel bad about using the same strategy to increase the diversity and decrese the parochialism of this list. If we wanted to avoid this kind of strategic voting we should 1. not vote but present arguments. 2. have an established standard. or 3. let the wikiprojects decide. and 4. decide on closed quotas for each subsection of the list to make sure there is a reasonable balance between different subtopics and then alot slots for anglophone vs. global interest articles within each subsection to ameliorate the extensive systemic bias in favor of US interests. As the system works now I have no reason to vote differently than what I am doing, I am just playing the game.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Black Hawk (Sauk leader)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom pbp 16:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Black Hawk was a minor American Indian ally of the British during the War of 1812. While an interesting footnote to American and Canadian history, he did not have the same sort of dramatic historical and cultural impact of Metacomet, Sitting Bull or even Geronimo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect. What makes him notable is that he shifted from an ally to the main INdian opponent of the American government in the 1930s. The Black Hawk War had the same impact on the subsequent Indian policy for the plains tribes as King Philip's war had for the east coast tribes. Blakk Hawk's war basically was the result of the Indian Removal policies of Andrew Jackson. I would say that the exact same reasoning you used to argue for keeping Metacomet applies to Black Hawk. Ceryainly more important than Geronimo in terms of historical impact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Maunus, my comment was carefully phrased; Geronimo is more widely remembered and has had a greater cultural impact than Black Hawk; to this day, American boys doing something physically dangerous often shout "Geronimo!" However, your argument that Black Hawk was probably more historically consequential is correct, and Geronimo is not included on the VA/E list. Among North American Indians, Metacomet, Sitting Bull and Tecumseh remain on the list, and I strongly support keeping all three of them. Black Hawk gets the hatchet when we're prioritizing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Black Hawk war" - 210,000.
• "Black Hawk" — 1,050,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be the bird of prey though, no?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Metacomet

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - Per Igrek. GabeMc 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. OpposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Metacomet's war with the New England colonists has a dramatic impact on how the colonists perceived and dealt with the American Indians, and ultimately on how the Indians were treated by the U.S. government during the 19th Century. Metacomet may be obscure, but he damn sure is important in the context of North American history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• We should remove some of the obscure leaders and add the well documented Native American groups, Iroquis, Cherokee etc. Carlwev (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing obscure about these. And we can include the ethnic groups as well - its not one or the other. We also include both the US and a bunch of that particular nations political figures.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

@Carl, we can't include every British Empire colonial war, otherwise the history sublist would be overwhelmed. Metacomet is included as a representative of the more important North American Indian leaders, and I think he serves that purpose well, together with Sitting Bull and Tecumseh. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am looking at this topic differently, I am also wondering if the article on King Philips War, is more important/as important, and should be included instead/as well? Carlwev (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Metacomet" — 39,400. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Spearthrower Owl

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Igrek (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support per my discussion comments below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support. - GabeMc 22:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. opposeUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• "Spearthrower Owl?" Now, that's obscure. Putting aside the fact the Spearthrower Owl is not a household name, which as I have argued elsewhere should have very little to do with whether we include a topic on the VA/E list or not, there is virtually nothing known about this subject. Everything archeologists think they know about this Mayan king/chieftain, they have learned from a very small handful of stone glyphs. Heck, they're not even sure if all of the glyphs refer to one guy or several. What we don't know about Spearthrower Owl would fill volumes. This appears to have been a trendy news topic when the VA/E list was originally compiled, and there is very little real evidence to support the subject as a "vital" or otherwise significant topic. We have numerous other American Indian leaders whose history and significance are well documented and understood; we don't need to reinvent one from the mists of time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Google Books search results:
  
• "Spearthrower Owl" — 475. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Add Emiliano Zapata

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. -- User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - Per DL1, so long as he is added to the Revolutionaries, rebels, etc. sublist. GabeMc 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose He's already on the Activists list, folks pbp 19:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Already included on the Revolutionaries, rebels and activists sublist, which is where he should be. Let's close this thread. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per pbp--V3n0M93 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Emiliano Zapata" — 391,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I am generally amenable to adding Zapata, but I would prefer to do it as a swap if possible. Also, although it's unclear to me if Maunus intended Zapata to be clustered with the Native American leaders or not, it strikes me that he would be more appropriately grouped with the Revolutionaries, rebels, etc. sublist. Let's have some more discussion on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any preference as to where he is added. Perhaps Latin American leaders/politicians would be best with Benito Juarez and Porfirio Diaz and Simon Bolivar.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pbp, please forgive us if we don't all have a list of 10,000 entries perfectly committed to memory as I assume you have? Is that why you oppose the removal of redirects? GabeMc 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative swap: Add Emiliano Zapata, Remove Willie Mays (baseball player)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - I think we should try to avoid these types of apples to oranges swaps. GabeMc 23:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per Gabe. Also, Mays is widely regarded as one of the top all-around players in history. I can't support his removal under any circumstances. Jusdafax 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. OpposeHe's already on the Activists list, folks pbp 19:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Zapata is already included on the revolutionaries/rebels sublst. Let's close this thread. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose per pbp. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think swaps are working better than straight adds, in general I think leaders are more important than sports people. I think sports people are more bloated than leaders. Carlwev (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• I believe there are too many sportsman and not enough, leaders. Swapping a sportsman for a sportsman does not improve the list a lot. Swapping a leader for a leader, does not improve the list a lot, we are forced to remove important leaders but find the least important among them. Leaders are generally more important than sportsman. Carlwev (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I think the solution would be to put a cap number for sports people and then prune down to the agreed upon number.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sports people frankly needs to be tac nuked. We should start at 0, then add people until we get to 100, then stop adding pbp 17:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Military leaders

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Military leaders and military theorists, 46 for complete sublist of related topics.

Artists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital_articles/Expanded/People#Artists.2C_visual.2C_108 for a complete sublist of related topics.

Swap: Add J. M. W. Turner, remove Joseph Cornell

Support !votes:

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Yes, of course. Rothorpe (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 01:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

Turner appears more important than quite a few artists on the list. He definitely seems more vital than Cornell. Turner has a prize and a gallery, pretty influential. Carlwev (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add J. M. W. Turner, remove William Blake (mentioned twice)

Support !votes:

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

1. Oppose. - If Blake is listed twice, then we should just remove the redundant listing, not take the opportunity to keep adding when we are 400+ article over the pre-set limit. GabeMc 02:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Cornell, not vital to me, lots of users have been this this week but this is still a bit slow, I'll try another also.

William Blake (mentioned twice), artist or writer

artists !votes

writers !votes

1. Seems this is the best fit. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Better fit Hierophant443 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. pbp 20:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. "To Generalize is to be an Idiot; To Particularize is the Alone Distinction of Merit". GabeMc 03:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

William Blake, man of many talents, poet and painter. When we remove one of the double entries were shall we leave him? artists or writers?

Writers

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Writers, 237 for complete sublist of related topics.

Swap: Add Samuel Beckett, Remove Martin Amis

Support !votes:

1. Support Samuel Beckett has had an incredible impact on drama and a lesser impact on novels. His case should be clear. Martin Amis is a good contemporary novelist, not really that influential outside the UK. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc 20:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. Easy choice, good swap nomination that improves the list. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Martin Amis" — 115,000.
• "Samuel Beckett" — 1,010,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Charlotte Brontë, Remove Robert Graves

Support !votes:

1. Support CB is most famous for Jane Eyre, but her other novels have also been influential. Robert Graves was extremely prolific, probably most famous for Goodbye to All That and I, Claudius but is not really in the same league. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support improves the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support pbp 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

Not sure what to do with the Brontës. I'd like to get Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights into the novels list, but as WH was all that Emily is really known for (apart from a handful of poems) maybe this is one case where the book would be included ahead of the writer. I also considered adding the Brontë family. --Rsm77 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Robert Graves" — 819,000.
• "Jane Eyre" — 721,000.
• "Wuthering Heights" - 469,000.
• "Charlotte Brontë" — 1,390,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Remove Thomas Chatterton

Support !votes:

1. Support STC wrote enduring works like The Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan. Chatterton was a poet who died when he was 17 and has a bit of a romantic reputation for that reason, but his poetry is relatively unknown. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 16:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support I looked at Chatterton months back and he might be on the cutting list, but then forgot all about it. An improvement to the list. Carlwev (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - GabeMc 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Thomas Chatterton" — 133,000.
• "Samuel Taylor Coleridge" — 1,530,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Michel de Montaigne, Remove Laura Ingalls Wilder

Support !votes:

1. Support Montaigne was an incredibly influential essayist, influencing people including Emerson and Nietzsche. Wilder wrote books like Little House on the Prairie and does not have anywhere near the same importance. (I prefer to swap like for like, but the early modern European writers look pretty solid). --Rsm77 (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per Rsm77. Sound reasoning.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 22:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Laura Ingalls Wilder" — 153,000.
• "Michel de Montaigne" — 1,420,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Percy Bysshe Shelley, Remove James Macpherson

Support !votes:

1. Support Shelley is another enduringly influential romantic poet, most famous for Ozymandias with a big reputation within English literature. Macpherson caused a stir in 19th century poetry by "discovering" an ancient poet and translating his works (actually written by Macpherson himself). It's an interesting story but Macpherson is largely forgotten. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Again sound reasoning. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "James Macpherson" — 250,000.
• "Percy Bysshe Shelley" — 1,240,000. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Tukaram

Support !votes:

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 20:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support' parochial interest only, no vital global context or reach. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes:

1. Oppose, popular Indian spiritual poet and religious figure. --Igrek (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Google Books search results:
  
• "Tukaram" — 69,500. --Igrek (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Sinclair Lewis add Robert Burns

Support !votes

1. Support Lewis, although a Nobel winner, is not widely read today, even in his home country. The poetry of Burns, though never a Nobel winner for obvious chronological reasons, is much better known in the US today than Lewis' work. A completely essential anglophone poet swapped for a non-essential one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - perhaps would have searched for someone of even lower importance for removing, but it matters not, one still more vital than the other, Lewis not massively vital, agree with nom. The list probably should have Burns, and Lewis probably won't be missed. Carlwev (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Per Maunus. GabeMc 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Robert Burns needs to be in. Perhaps I should have nominated him earlier instead of either Shelley or Coleridge. Maybe would have been better to have chosen someone from the UK&Ireland to replace, as this is one part of the list where UK&Ireland is well-represented, but nonetheless I support the change. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Philosophers and Religious Figures

Discussion about topic: Popes

Where should popes actually be listed anyway? I want to bring this up, and I'll do it here as people are talking about popes here already. We have several popes listed and as far as I can see they are listed in at least 4 separate places. They are split between Religious people under Eastern Christianity, and also Western Christianity/Catholic Church, and also in Politicians and leaders under, Medieval European leaders, and Early modern European leaders. I know it's not an easy thing to fix as popes in some form have been around for 2000 years of history and had varying levels of power, been in different places, mostly Rome, and Christianity itself has evolved over the time period that popes have been around. It seems normal at the moment to split leaders of one nation into time periods before country, as in all the medieval leaders are together, Monarchs of England are not all together, some are medieval, some are early modern, and some modern. So popes would follow if they were in leaders. But should popes be split between leaders and religious figures? When looking at the case for pope Francis, I wanted to look at which popes were already included, and which one weren't, and it took me a while to actually find them all, I had to use the "Edit, find in this page" function of my browser and search for the word "pope" to be sure I found them all. I know the lists quite well by now, I feel if I had to use that function to find all the popes, they cannot be listed that well. What do people think? Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, could we get a list of all popes on here and which sections they're in? Secondly, the nature of the office is both religious (head of the Roman Catholic Church) and political (ruler of the Papal States, which used to include a lot more than the Vatican) pbp 22:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK it's a bit long winded but I tried some creative cut and pasting to show how popes are distributed the best I can see below, is where all popes can be found as I can see it. (What makes things worse to search is people considered to be early popes like saint Peter don't have pope in their name, making them harder to search for using the word pope in ones browser.) Carlwev (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Religious figures, Abrahamic religions

  Christianity

1. Saint Peter (r. ca. 29-67)

• Eastern Christianity, Orthodox Church

1. Athanasius of Alexandria kind of a pope?
2. Cyril of Alexandria kind of a pope?

• Western Christianity, Catholic Church

Popes

1. Pope Gregory I (r. 590-604)
2. Pope John Paul II (r. 1978-2005)
3. Pope Leo I (r. 440-461)
4. Pope Paul VI (r. 1963-1978)
5. Pope Pius IX (r. 1846-1878)

• Politicians and leader, Middle Ages, Europe

  Southern Europe

  Papal states

1. Pope Alexander VI (r. 1492-1503)
2. Pope Boniface VIII (r. 1294-1303)
3. Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085)
4. Pope Innocent III (r. 1198-1216)

• Politicians and leaders, Early modern period, Europe

  Southern Europe, 3

Italia and Papal States

1. Pope Julius II (r. 1503-1513)
2. Pope Clement VII (r. 1523-1534)

Swap: Add Mani (prophet), Remove Kumārila Bhaṭṭa

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc 19:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Mani founded a fairly big religion religion, Manichaeism, (although it's now extinct) he would seem to me more notable than quite a few religious figures we have. I'm not too familiar just using my judgment to pick on someone who appears not exceptionally vital from religious figures. Reading Bhaṭṭa's article he doesn't seem to be that vital. I was also contemplating swapping out Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj or Al-Nawawi if anyone thinks they are better? I may suggest those two for removal also? Carlwev (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Pope Gregory XIII in, Pope Clement VII out

Pope Gregory XIII (r. 1572-1585) instituted the Gregorian calendar instituted, and was aggressive foreign policy-wise. Pope Clement VII (r. 1523-1534) got Rome sacked, and was held hostage by the Holy Roman Emperor. Swap does not significantly change balance of power regionally, ecclesiastically, or temporally pbp 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. as nom pbp 21:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. - GabeMc 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)-
3. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'd like some rationale for why GabeMc and Igrek are opposing this. Clement VII is a relatively minor pope. Gregory XIII instituted the calendar we still use today. There's no good reason for Gregory XIII to be left out while Clement VII is on pbp 05:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  See Googles Books:

  "Clement VII" - 1,050,000 results

  "Gregory XIII" - 175,000 results

  "Pope Clement VII" - 82,700 results

  "Pope Gregory XIII" - 65,500 results

  Name of Gregory XIII is associated with calendar, but this topic is covered by Gregorian calendar. As a politician Clement VII is more important than Gregory XIII (Italian Wars, Sack of Rome (1527), English Reformation, etc). --Igrek (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but in all those things, Clement screwed up. The three events you mention all turned out badly for the Papal States. He got in a war with the Holy Roman Empire that ended with Rome sacked and him in prison. Meanwhile, England pulled out of the Catholic Church. Seems like he's the James Buchanan of popes. I will concede that he is mentioned in a number of historical events, but in relatively few of them is it in a positive light pbp 14:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

For my opinion, we should include at sublist politicians of this sort also. --Igrek (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, PbP, but I don't see any requirement to get into dozens of little arguments with you over everything we disagree on. Most if not all of the swaps, adds and removals are the result of pure votes and I don't have to justify mine to you or anybody else. Also, I find it too convenient that you've now adopted the "it gets X amount of google hits" argument when a couple months ago you said that sales and popularity are not at all factors in an article's vitality to the project. GabeMc 23:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Shen Yue

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 21:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Religious figures needs to be balanced

There are currently 18 entries representing Hinduism (13.26% globally) and 17 entries representing Buddhism (5.84% globally). I would suggest a few Buddhist entries for removal if I knew more about the topic. I think about 5-7 should be cut from Buddhism, but I don't know which. Any thoughts? GabeMc 23:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear User:GabeMc, and everyone else too. I believe every religion should have it's most vital topics, and there should be some balance loosely based on how big the religion is. (Eg probably more topics for Chistian Muslim Hindu, a bit less for Jainism, Bahá'í Faith, etc) say the 40?? most vital topics for Christianity and the same for Hinduism perhaps, However If I remember rightly from school, Hinduism is so old it has no founder, none that we of any way, and there aren't really Hindu prophets or popes either. So where vital christian/Jewish topics might be Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Mary. Hinduism may have some people but maybe less and more other topics like Brahma, Shiva, Nirvana and Reincarnation. We may end up with the same number of topics for each major religion, but some may have more people and less concepts. Others more concepts less people. I might be wrong, but do you see my point? I'm not an expert in the field, I wouldn't want to say "we have to have 20 most vital people to Hinduism" then list 16 vital people, then have to list 4 more fairly obscure hindu people just to make the number of hindu people match the number of christian, whilst at the same time miss topics like Nirvana or Reincarnation, which I've noticed we don't have. Carlwev (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Carlwev, are you agreeing with me that Buddhism is currently overrepresented? GabeMc 00:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For my opinion, Buddhism is underrepresented. Buddhism was main religion at China, India, South Eastern Asia, Central Asia (>50% of the world). --Igrek (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For my opinion, Buddhism is underrepresented. Buddhism was main religion at China, India, South Eastern Asia, Central Asia (>50% of world population now). And I agree with User:Carlwev: "Hinduism is so old it has no founder, none that we of any way, and there aren't really Hindu prophets or popes either. So where vital christian/Jewish topics might be Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Mary. Hinduism may have some people but maybe less and more other topics like Brahma, Shiva, Nirvana and Reincarnation. We may end up with the same number of topics for each major religion, but some may have more people and less concepts. Others more concepts less people. " We have more Greek and Roman deities than Buddhist teachers. Why? --Igrek (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but the religion that's overrepresented is Judaism. At the present day only about 1 in every 400-500 people in the world are Jewish, though several centuries ago it may have been higher, but it'd have to have been fairly significant if we're judging things proportionally and whatnot. All in all, I'm not sure this particular discussion makes as much sense as others to have in the abstract. There are Christian people who are important that we've left off (Pope Gregory XIII of the Gregorian calendar, for example, or the early American theologian Johnathan Edwards). By contrast, we may be scraping the bottom of the barrel in the Eastern religions. pbp 04:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with pbp last few sentences above. Other comments that are confusing me, Igreks comment alludes that half the entire planet is Buddhist. Figured out from the cut and paste below, including extreme minimum and maximum estimates, Buddhism is estimated to be anywhere from 5% to 24% of present world population. Thought I'd just add that. Carlwev (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

While Buddhism remains most popular within Asia, both branches are now found throughout the world. Estimates of Buddhists worldwide vary significantly depending on the way Buddhist adherence is defined. Conservative estimates are between 350 and 750 million. Higher estimates are between 1.2 and 1.7 billion. It is also recognized as one of the fastest growing religions in the world.

" Igreks comment alludes that half the entire planet is Buddhist." ??? My words: " Buddhism was main religion at China, India, South Eastern Asia, Central Asia (>50% of world population now)." Misplaced Pages: "The religion evolved as it spread from the northeastern region of the Indian subcontinent through Central, East, and Southeast Asia. At one time or another, it influenced most of the Asian continent." (History of Buddhism). --Igrek (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I see you're point, I just didn't find it clear at first, but now it is, I didn't wanna sound mean. Buddhism has influenced the culture and history of the region, a region that presently contains almost half of all living humans. Kind of How Judaism has an influence far greater than the number of total present followers, which is actually not that high. Same kind of thing huh? (and yes Buddhism is obviously more followed more than Judaism in official numbers today as well anyway). Carlwev (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I looking at the wrong page? On the Philosophy and Religion page Buddhism has eight topics including Buddhism itself. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, religion articles were mentioned, but the main part of the thread is about religious people in biographies, not topics in the actual religion and philosophy page. see here for buddhist people Misplaced Pages:Vital_articles/Expanded/People#Buddhism.2C_17, it does stand out has having a lot of start class articles, not a science but often an indicator of un-vital articles, those icons are handy. Carlwev (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry my mistake.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, with the comments above...Buddhism is severely underrepresented (as are eastern traditions in general). Even Judaism is underrepresented. I'll be glad to take a deeper look at it in the next week or so and how we can better address this area. The key question that hasn't been asked...how many articles, in your view, is enough? how many can we spare? --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Scientists and related

Remove Stanley Schachter

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Neal E. Miller

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove David McClelland

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 16:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 18:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Actors

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Entertainers for complete sublist of related topics.

Remove Tom Cruise

Support !votes

1. Support As nom. GabeMc 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Melody Lavender (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. And the Academy Award for best couch-jumping Scientologist goes to... pbp 16:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - Cruise we can lose. Jusdafax 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose – the world's one, authentic movie star of the last quarter of a century. No-one else since Hollywood's golden age comes close. Betty Logan (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Cruise was nominated for the Razzie Award twice for worst actor and in several other categories. I don't think any other actor on our list can match that. He never actually won an academy award, even though he was nominated three times. He is famous for representing an All-American Image, and for being an important member of scientology rather than for being a good actor. --Melody Lavender (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the cult is more of a side attraction, he is still vastly more notable as the world's biggest movie star. Critical acclaim and awards are one measure of an actor's importance, but film is more than just an artistic medium: it is also an industry, and commercial success is a hugely dominant factor for anyone who works within it. We could spend all day naming better actors, but no-one of the last fifty years has come even close to replicating his box office achievements as a performer. If you talk about film you have to talk about Hollywood, and the concept of the "movie star" has been central to its business model since the silent era, and there is no avoiding Cruise in that context. Betty Logan (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Opposing for now, the modern actors has almost been stripped to it's bare bones. If you take Cruise away I can only see Tom Hanks and Kamal Haasan, the only ones left under 60 and only just, we need some people to represent modern cinema too, and there's no one left. I'd say go for the actors in disguise within comedians, or the dancers instead. If we aren't putting people in based on their oscars, we shouldn't take them out based on their "Razzies" seriously?!? Enid Blyton, was slated and even banned from libraries and schools etc for her bad writing or grammar or something, do we remove her? well she still managed to write 800 books and sell 600Million+ copies. Carlwev (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• I really don't think we need more than one representative of the last 50 years, Tom Hanks will do. We are currently trying to represent about 30 different sports with 100 people - why should actors have more? Tom Cruise has a place withing the top 100.000 but in the 10.000 I just don't see enough room. Look at the math and computers section, we will need to make additions there, so we have to cut people to the essentials.

@Betty: Tom Cruise as a representative of "movie star" is a local phenomenon. He has never quite reached that status in continental Europe.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah he's unheard of here, Hollywood doesn't really sell here in France and the UK, we're all watching Kenneth Branagh and Gerard Depardieu, errr no. The Razzie is meaningless, it has to be given to someone of status to get attention, if it were really given to truly the worst actor, it would be given to someone from ridiculous films like piranha 3DD, or Lesbian Vampire Killers. We only need one actor from the last 50 years?!? but we have about 40 actors from the 50-60s and only 1 2 or 3 from the 1990s and 2000s give it some balance. We're not exactly asking for 40 1990s actors and strip down to 3 golden age actors, so we shouldn't strip the other way either. Carlwev (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The box office figures indicate he is more than just a local star: he starred in the top grossing films (worldwide) of the year on three occasions (1986, 1988 & 2000). In addition to that, he has placed in the top 10 in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996 (two films), 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2011. Apart from the Mission Impossible films none of those were sequels/franchises either, so no easy scores like Harry Potter movies. 1988 was Rain Man; could you imagine a movie about autism being the year's top grosser today? That's major star quality by any yard stick... Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• @ Carl: We don't have to have 40 actors from the 50s and 60s. Don't you think we should cut the actors' list? Are we watching Cruise and does Hollywood sell here? Yes, it does. That doesn't mean he has the same star status in Europe, at least on the continent. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• @ Betty: Sales is just one factor among many. We have deleted actors, sports people and musicians before because their merits are only based on sales and perceived beauty.--Melody Lavender (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• My last comments here I hope...For actors from the same time period 80s 90s 2000s we've already trimmed Stalone, DiCaprio, Branagh, Travolta, Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, plus Hoffman and Hackman who started a bit earlier through voting, and Will Smith, Samuel L Jackson, Denzel Washington, Sally Fields, Kevin Costner, Matt Damon? and Halle Berry??? and more before voting started, In addition to several directors of the same period, Zemekis, Peter Jackson, and any minute now Tim Burton. I know it was bloated but we've trimmed a lot, and other bloated sections have barely been touched. Everyone thinks they know movies and music that's what makes them pop culture and half this talk page is full of it. Threads about plants, psychologists, Maths or Hinduism don't get posted alot or get much feedback positive or negative when they are. Pop culture shouldn't be ignored but it's taking too much attention compared to other areas.
• Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, we have all put our views up for others to read if they want, the voting will decide if he stays or goes. I think none of us is going to change our mind on this in 5 minutes. I'd like it if he stayed, but I won't lose sleep over it, I'm trying to get more important topics like Reincarnation in. Carlwev (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you fail in this life, there is always the next... Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Morgan Freeman

Support !votes

1. Support. as nom. Carlwev (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Basically agree with Carl.--Rsm77 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - He is one of the finest American actors who ever lived. Also, his career has spanned 42 years. GabeMc 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, - he has had a Deep Impact on American film-history and he is popular around the world, and, like Gabe already said, he is one of the finest actors out there. I don't see why you would hold it against him that he started his career at 40 - it's all the more amazing how he made it at that age. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose, he's popular internationally. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - a little comic relief: True Facts About Morgan Freeman--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - per Gabe and Melody. This one is going nowhere, suggest speedy archival. Jusdafax 21:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• You know I like him. Although he's a decent actor, again like Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman, not hugely influential, I think Hoffman and Hackman are a bit more notable and they've gone already. I think there are more important actors missing, and I think we have removed more important actors already. I think his age is artificially pushing his image up for inclusion here. Reading his article before the 1980s he didn't do anything in Hollywood except for playing very minor roles, he did some OK stage acting acting but nothing amazing, and other non-acting jobs. A few medium Hollywood roles in the 1980s after he was 40, he wasn't really a big name until he was well into his 50s when he appeared in Robin Hood. His body of work is OK but not groundbreaking. Other younger actors (and directors) working today appeared in cinema earlier and have had more impact too. He has one Oscar but that was for a supporting actor in Million Dollar Baby, we have more substantial Oscar winners missing too. Carlwev (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• The article does need some work, it's only B-class. He won Obie awards for his stage performances, for example in Mother Courage and Her Children. --Melody Lavender (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove William Holden

Support !votes

1. Support. As nom. GabeMc 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Carlwev (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
6. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Klaus Kinski

Support !votes

1. As nom. GabeMc 23:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Kinski is a unique actor known worldwide, though in North America perhaps more for his daughter. Bad cut. Jusdafax 01:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bad idea to cut the only German on a list overstuffed with English speakers.--Rsm77 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

So, are we !voting to keep Kinski because he is German, or because his article is vital to this English speaking Misplaced Pages? GabeMc 18:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is vital to this English speaking wikipedia, which is read by people all over the world, wikipedia to have a reasonable distribution of topics related to Anglophone culture and other cultures. I vote not to remove him because he is among the most vital non-American actors, and because American actors are over-represented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So, is there a German language Vital Article list that includes Kinski? GabeMc 18:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't edit the German wikipedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If we must include a German actor, then are we certain that Kinski is the best choice? IMDb has him on a rather long list at #30, though to be fair, its not ordered in importance. GabeMc 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you think there is a better choice feel free to propose a swap. I will not support the removal of non-American topics while there is an pro-American bias in a particular section, but I will be happy to support a swap of one non-American topic for another more vital one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I hear you and respect your viewpoint. Since we are 400+ articles over our pre-set limit, I would much rather propose straight cuts than swaps, which I think far too much effort is currently being devoted to. FTR, Kinski isn't the only native German speaking actor on the list. GabeMc 18:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Harold Lloyd

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - A huge force in the founding of modern cinema. Terrible idea. Jusdafax 01:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc 03:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Randolph Scott

Support !votes

1. Support The list of films he was in is seriously unimpressive. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 18:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Musicians and composers

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

Remove Vladimir Ashkenazy

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Big name conductor as well as pianist. Rothorpe (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Per Rothorpe. GabeMc 02:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose tremendous influence on performance and interpretation. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Correcting mistake, originally had this in the support column.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Alternative swap: Remove Vladimir Ashkenazy, Add Mstislav Rostropovich

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - support the addition of MR, oppose the removal.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 23:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Lang Lang (pianist)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 21:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap: Remove Lang Lang (pianist) → Add Sviatoslav Richter

Lang Lang smacks of recentism, he isn't that good, and I wouldn't consider him vital as Richter who next to Horowitz is a God of 20th century pianists. Richter redefined style, his interpretations are praised, emotionally charged. Lang Lang is criticized way too often for bland performances and horrible technique.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 01:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

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 Garth Brooks, Add Simon and Garfunkel

Support !votes

1. Support: pbp 16:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support also Carlwev (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - essential. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. support remove but not add. --Igrek (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - US folk is already way overrepresented on this list and S&G are not vital, IMO. I've given my support for the straight removal of Brooks in the removal thread below this one. GabeMc 21:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think that there is too much representation of US country, a genre which though massive in the US, does not have the same influence globally. For Dirtlawyer1's reasons I think Brooks is a good person to go. However, if we are planning to reduce the rock section some difficult decisions are ahead and adding S&G won't help matters. I would support a straight removal of Garth Brooks. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I have struck my previous weak support for this swap, and moved to a straight removal of Garth Brooks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Simon and Garfunkel are an improvement in terms of being a "vital" topic. However, I'm not sure if we wouldn't be better off just deleting Garth outright. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Unarchived premature swap. 6-2 is neither unanimous nor a 70% majority. GabeMc 01:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) S&G are not vital. 2) I think that if we are to add any folk acts they should be non-American for the sake of globalization (US folk and country is already well, if not overrepresented). For example there are several quite notable British and Irish acts that are currently not included. GabeMc 04:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support straight removal. Rothorpe (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Garth Brooks

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support: --Rsm77 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. - Per DL1. GabeMc 04:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - per DL1. Jusdafax 01:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• I am supporting the stand-alone removal of Garth Brooks, after having previously expressed my "weak support" for the proposed swap of Simon & Garfunkel for Brooks. Brooks has sold a lot of records, but there is very little original, influential or significant about Brooks music. He is a "pop" country artist, and has had nothing like the lasting national or world-wide impact of country artists like Patsy Cline or Johnny Cash, who were true innovators within the genre and influenced music across a much wider spectrum than just country. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Guillaume Dufay

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. oppose:No reason to add. Not that influential. European rennaissance music already well represented. Not really globalization - find some figures from non-Western traditions.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Maunus. GabeMc 00:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Maunus --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Frederica von Stade

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 09:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - Jusdafax 01:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Alla Pugacheva

Support !votes

1. Support: In general, I don't think artists more notable for sales than influence should be included, but especially if they only have regional fame. Sure the former Soviet Union is a big area, but there are plenty of other big areas not represented. For example we could have Teresa Teng for East Asia, but there isn't room on the list for these kinds of artists. --Rsm77 (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Rsm77. GabeMc 05:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
3. support per Rsm77, not vital. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Bedrieger (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support pbp 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, see below. --Igrek (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• For my opinion, East Europe and Russia are underrepresented and we should have popular performers from others regions that have regional fame also. --Igrek (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• She's pretty big and been around for about 45 years. Someone has made a sublist called non-English singers, there's not many names in it. Who should appear in such a list if not people like this. Her audience/market may be just as big as US or UK rock/pop artists, just not an English speaking audience. We are including here and there people who are not very well known to accommodate "globalization" or diversity. But now we are trying to remove non English speaking people who are well known and have large sales as well to back it up too. I mean she appears to be the biggest modern Russian/Soviet musician, it's not like we have loads of Russian pop stars. For diversity someone added Fela Kuti to the vital 1000 not 10'000, 1000, I didn't agree with that. Fela appears in 24 languages, Alla in I think 67 languages. I would remove Fela Kuti from the 1000 for your stated reasons but I don't really agree with this removal, although I don't think she is rock solid, I don't think we should remove people just because they don't have a huge English speaking following, but a following of people of other languages. Thank you all the same, let others keep voting. Carlwev (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• (1) I wouldn't remove Fela Kuti from the 10,000 for my reasons because he has influenced other musicians as a pioneer of Afrobeat. (1000 is a bit of a stretch though). Maybe it's just a bad article, but I didn't get the sense Pugacheva had had much of an influence. (2) When you talk about the sublist of non-English singers being short (6 people) right now that doesn't include 7 in non-western traditions and 3 in Latin. Plus Kraftwerk often sang in their native German. (3) I will admit that the number of languages the Alla Pugacheva article appears in is a point in her favour. (4) We should probably look at making some serious cuts to Rock, but I'm not quite sure where to start.--Rsm77 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Off topic comment: I too would not try to remove Fela Kuti from the 10'000, he probably has a place here. I will try to remove him from the 1000, way too much of a stretch. If we want to list the top 10 most vital musicians ever. If you list the most vital musician from each continent, unfortunately you do not end up with the most vital musicians, you remove people that are vital because they happen to be from the same continent as Elvis or Mozart. And add lesser musician in their place because there happens to be no Mozarts from their region. I think Africa may be under presented at the 1000 list I would like to add Ethiopia, 1000s of years of history and over 90M people, not Kuti. I think Alla is a pretty good non English speaking musician to have, I oppose removal. But I'm not adamant the article is the most exceptionally vital article we should definitely have, if consensus removes her so be it, if she goes she goes. Carlwev (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Vladimir Vysotsky

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --Igrek (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, we have four French singers, there should be room for Vysotsky on the list per WP:WORLDVIEW. --Melody Lavender (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Prefer if this was a swap, but removals are still happening in decent numbers Carlwev (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

#Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 22:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Les Paul add The Dubliners

Support !votes

1. Support: Outside of the US Les Paul is known as a guitar maker, not as a musician. Currently all of the 11 articles in the folk section are Americans and half are country musicians from the 1950s and 1960s. Replacing Les Paul with the Dubliners, one of the longest living and greatest groups of the folk revival period, and a representative of a European folk tradition would be a good start on correcting that bias.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - Highly vital as a musician, and as an inventor or co-inventor of the electric guitar and multi-track recording. Removing Les Paul does an extreme disservice to the integrity of the vital 10000 list, in my view. Jusdafax 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc 23:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Jusdafax. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

@Jusdafax Then add him to another section - he is not primarily known as a musician - particularly not a folk or country musician. His main influence is in rock music - so maybe add him there. Here he is just taking up space on a topical list where Americans from the 1950s and 1960s are already overrepresented.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Les Paul should be moved to the inventor-section, some think we don't have enough inventors on the list anyway. Melody Lavender (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• To excerpt and enhance my comments from elsewhere: Les Paul had a big series of smash music hits with three number one songs, with one of them, 'How High the Moon' in the Grammy Hall of Fame. He has his own permanent exhibit in the Rock Hall of Fame. Genres in the late 40's - early 50's were mixed up, so he is termed "country" for lack of a better placement. Les Paul was highly influential as an innovative guitarist. Now yes, he also has a huge rep as an inventor, with the electric guitar and multitrack recording arguably to his credit. Wow! But he can't be listed twice, can he, with the bloat we have on the list at present. Inventor or musician? Hmm. So let's leave this alone; it ain't quite right but is the best we have. Jusdafax 02:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Look: Les Paul is not a top selling musician, that argument doesn't hold, with three "smash hits" to his credit hundreds of musicians have a comparable Grammy record. We don't even have half the artists who have gotten Grammy lifetime achievement awards, and we also don't have most of the others that have permanent exhibits in the Rock n Roll hall of fame. Finally Grammies and "halls of fame" are marks of importance that hugely favor American artists. And also we don't usually go by sales, but by influence. Les Paul is simply not vital as a musician or composer and his stylistic influence on any music genre is zilch. He is known today only because of the guitar that carries his name, and through his sound engineering inventions that we still use. His exhibit at the Rock hall of fame is also with other sound engineering pioneers - not with the artists. He should be moved.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Move Les Paul to inventors

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support,--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc 21:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Let's not tinker here. Jusdafax 21:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• He is clearly not known either as a country or folk musician, so he is definitely misplaced in this section. For Jazz he doesn't have a chance either even that is there area where he is known as a musician. His only lasting fame is as an inventor.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Or maybe he should be under "Instrument makers" with Stradivari pbp 21:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets not tinker here? Why do you want to keep an American on the list who is not even known as a folki or country artist? But you won't include a single non-American artist because the list is to big? This is crap reasoning - and the utterly parochial American bias of this ridiculous list is beginning to reek to the high heavens. I am not going to participate in this ridiculous American hit parade any longer. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Maunus. Les Paul and Mary Ford sold 6 million albums in 1951 and had 16 top-ten hits by 1963. Also, many of his innovations to recording techniques (overdubbing, tape delay, phasing effects and multitrack recording) are on par with the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix. He was every bit the significant musician as he was an innovative luthier. We need increased participation and your input is highly valued. Most of my threads havn't gone the way I wanted either; its the nature of this quite democratic process whereby our !votes hold more weight than our rationales. I hope you reconsider your continued participation regardless if your threads go the way you want. GabeMc 22:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Add The Dubliners

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose, not vital. --Igrek (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - marginal. Rothorpe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose. - Per Rothorpe. GabeMc 03:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• May I ask why you are opposed to add what is probably the single greatest and best known Irish folk orchestra to a list that currently includes only American musicians?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Joan Baez

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. I suggest we cut elsewhere, like in the rock section. Baez was also an important activist and an icon of her time. The article appears in countless languages and even several dialects that have their own wikipedia.--Melody Lavender (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Melody. GabeMc 21:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose - per Melody. Jusdafax 21:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I want to remove her to make room for non-American artists in the folk section. Baez' influence is intimately tied to Dylan's and she is mostly known for playing cover's of his songs. He own influence on folk is extremely limited.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • She has received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award - and lifetime achievement is a pretty good criterion for vitalness. Also, among other awards, she has won the John Steinbeck Award for her contributions to society "In the souls of the people".--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we can't include everyone who has received a lifetime achievement award. Also Grammy's are mostly national - and non-American artists receive Grammys in their own countries. If we were to go by the American Grammy's lifetime achievement awards we would certainly not be able to do anything about the overrepresentation of American artists.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap Joan Baez for Buffy Sainte-Marie

Support !votes

1. Support: More influential as composer her songs has been covered by everyone from Elvis to Chet Atkins and Janis Joplin, she's won an Oscar and Bafta and a Gemini Award. She is Canadian and Indigenous so gets globalization points. She was just as much of a cultural icon as Joan Baez was.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Jusdafax 09:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - GabeMc 20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why oppose? Anyone?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a significant soft-spot for Baez here, IMO, but if you propose an add thread for Buffy Sainte-Marie I would support. FTR, do you support the inclusion of Simon and Garfunkel, because you havn't weighed-in there yet? GabeMc 21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot support the inclusion of any more American musicians to the folk section before there is at least a nominal representation of non-American folk artists. Baez is known for playing other people's songs, Sainte-Marie is known for writing songs made famous by others. I think the other is more influential.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you and I think there is a less than zero chance of getting Sainte-Marie added, but not Baez removed. Perhaps you would consider !voting in the Garth Brooks/S&G thread so we can put that one to bed. GabeMc 21:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Fairport Convention

Support !votes

1. Support: - User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Carlwev (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Not now, when we are trying to cut the list down, not expand. Jusdafax 22:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Inessential. Rothorpe (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose. - GabeMc 21:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I can't believe that there are no vital non-american folk musicians or orchestras - so I would really like to request that the opposers make one or two suggestions of non-American artists to add to the Folk list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Turlough O'Carolan

Support !votes

1. Support: Vital Irish folk composer of the 18th century.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Not vital. GabeMc 02:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Billie Holiday

Support !votes

1. Support: Not a single woman in Jazz section + Billie Holliday is more vital than several of the people in the section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per Maunus. GabeMc 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support I've thought about nominating her myself. Not always a fan of straight adds, but will vote to remove Fats Waller to balance things up. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - per Rsm77, this is a swap for Fats Waller. Holliday is indeed vital. Jusdafax 22:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support pbp 14:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
10. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

• Holiday's personal performance style has been often imitated, but rarely equaled. She is one of the two or three greatest female blues/jazz artists ever, and here inclusion will improve the VA/E list. As everyone has followed my comments knows, I am emphasizing removals and swaps until we get the VA/E list under its limit of 10,000 articles, but I am going to make an exception here because Maunus, GabeMc and Carl have nominated multiple other musical artists for removal, several of which appear to be on their way to being successfully removed, and I am going to treat this add as a de facto swap. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Fats Waller

Support !votes

1. Support:User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Carlwev (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, I have been considering to nominate him for some time. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Not really in the big league. --Rsm77 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc 02:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support - Had some hits but not truly vital for this list. Jusdafax 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Quincy Jones

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - There are too many producers on par with him that we won't be including, e.g. George Martin, Barry Gordy and Phil Spector to name just a few. GabeMc 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - per Gabe. Jusdafax 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Joni Mitchell

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital for Rock. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - On a list and in a field in which women are arguably under-represented, this is a bad call. One of the first big female stand-alone stars in rock. Innovative guitarist with unique tunings, strong composer and genre bending artist. Cut elsewhere, please. Jusdafax 22:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. Women are way under-represented on this list and there must be a better choice for removal than Joni. GabeMc 01:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Leaning toward support removal. almost Carlwev (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry did I vote to remove an American... SHE IS NOT EVEN A ROCK MUSICIAN AND NEVER WAS FFS. And she got her "unique tunings" off of EUROPEAN FOLK MUSICIANS!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Aram Khachaturian

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support -- "Sabre dance" and what else? seriously, can only name one thing he's composed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Shorten "Musical comedy and lyricists" to 8 entries

Support !votes

1. Support: Musical comedy is a quite Western centric - mainly anglophone -genre. Compared with e.g. Latin Music it covers a much shorter time span and geographical ranger. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 02:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support in theory, see below. Carlwev (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Rothorpe (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. I strongly oppose this on procedural grounds per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think stating a goal for a list's amount, is a step in the right direction. We still need to look at and vote on each case one at a time, here and everywhere else. I wouldn't want to trim this list (or any list, not just this list) to say 9 entries, find the articles left are all pretty vital, and feel obligated to remove one more because "we said we have to". Alternatively I wouldn't want to trim to 8 entries. Find that one or two more are actually terrible, but not be allowed to propose removal because the list was at the "agreed" amount. I haven't examined all entries here, but to have 11 in this list seems to many. I agree, attempt to shrink it to 8, or possibly even smaller. Don't be to harsh if we find 6, 7, 8 or 9 entries to be a good amount either. Carlwev (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is not appropriate to impose an arbitrary cap or limit on any one VA/E sublist when we are not doing the same comprehensively with every sub-sublist within the larger category or sublist. Imposing a cap on a single sub-sublist because a handful of editors feel it is of lesser importance, without prioritizing it within the context of the larger list, is bad form and I must oppose this. If you start a prioritized list of target numbers for each sublist of the current 2,100+ people on the VA/E list, begin a discussion toward achieving a consensus for those sublist target numbers, then you will have my unqualified support. Doing it for one list in isolation is foolish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Marvin Hamlisch

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital and recentist. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Sure, while we're in a mood to cut secondary American musicians, let's get it done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Salvatore Cammarano

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Clearly not vital Carlwev (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 21:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Henry Mancini

Support !votes

1. Support: Not vital . User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 16:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support -- not vital. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Add King Crimson

Support !votes

1. Support Progressive rock is completely underrepresented. Randomuser112 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose But rock in general is completely overrepresented. I would consider "Progressive rock" a rather narrow (both geographically and temporally) subgenre that cannot count on representation. And we have Pink Floyd already, which i wouold consider the only truly vital name for that genre - much as Nirvana is the only vital name within grunge. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 02:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Silvio Rodriguez

Support !votes

1. Support For Globalization of the folk section. Basically the Latin American Bob Dylan. Much more influential in the Spanish speaking world than Joan Baez or Hank Williams in the English speaking world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - We need to trim more before we start adding again. GabeMc 21:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• We are trimming plenty and we have 3 (THREE) representatives for the entire Spanish speaking world. This is a truly vital artist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Planxty

Support !votes

1. Support For globalization of the folk section. Probably the second best known Irish folk orchestra after the Dubliners - but considered more innovative and vital to the folk revival movement. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - We need to trim more before we start adding again. GabeMc 21:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Chief O'Neill

Support !votes

1. Support The essential collector of Irish folk music in the 19th century. The tunes he collected are the best known irish traditional music. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - We need to trim more before we start adding again. GabeMc 21:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Add The Chieftains

Support !votes

1. Support. Less influential in the genre, but perhaps better known in the US than the Dubliners. I remoind you again that the folk section does not have A SINGLE artists from outside of the US. Folk is a global genre, and Irish traditional music is globally known and appreciated. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Not vital. GabeMc 02:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Mercedes Sosa

Support !votes

1. Support The Latin American equivalent of someone like Joan Baez or Nina Simone. Hugely influential singer and songwriterin the Latin world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - I think more effort should be expended cutting the list. After we get back to 10,000 or less we can start talking about adds and swaps. GabeMc 23:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Shakira

Support !votes

1. Support: I shouldn't need a rationale here. Again: the Latin music section consists of 3 people. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Too recent/non-vital. GabeMc 20:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Camarón de la Isla

Support !votes

1. Support: Most important Flamenco artist of all time. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose--V3n0M93 (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 02:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Paco de Lucía

Support !votes

1. Support: World renowned revolutionary Flamenco and Classical guitar virtuoso. Second most important Flamenco artist, but has played in many other genres and collaborated widely with great artists across genres. Honors include grammys, BAFTA, honorary doctorate of Berklee college of music and multiple "smash hits". Oh, and globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - I think more effort should be expended cutting the list. After we get back to 10,000 or less we can start talking about adds and swaps. GabeMc 23:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Django Reinhardt

Support !votes

1. Support World renowned style creating Jazz musician. + Globalization User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. Indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove all Country musicians: Les Paul, Hank Williams, Dolly Parton, Garth Brooks, Johnny Cash, Bill Monroe, Patsy Cline

Support !votes

1. Support Country is a local US tradition and should have the same representation as other national music traditions, which currently is none for all other nations. Has no global significance whatsoever. Cutting the list down is currently going much too slow. This will both make the list more balanced and remove five entries in one go. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - While country music might not be all that global, it is quite popular in North America, and since this is the English speaking Misplaced Pages I think at least some belong. GabeMc 22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose too broad a proposal. There should be at least one from this category on this list pbp 01:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Deleting all American and Canadian country and western music artists is an ill-conceived proposal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Les Paul is an important inventor. Johnny Cash is known internationally.--V3n0M93 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• If there is one or two truly notable and vital country artists that have had influence outside of their own little genre then they can be added as a general entry in popular music. We don't need a separate section on Country and Folk. Cash and Bob Dylan would probably be vital enough to make it in the general pop section. Les Paul is not vital as a musician in spite of having made a couple of hits. His fame is as an inventor of a popular instrument. We don't need genre specific sub-lists within pop music as this greatly favorizes the particular genres standing out so that less vital names are included than what would be included if they were considered in relation to overall 20th century popular music. My point is that if you truly mean to prune the list down to only the most vital entries and not your personal pet interests then it makes sense to remove the entire folk/country list. Any truly vital artists should be able to gain inclusion in the general pop list subsequently. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove all the section "Musical comedy and lyricists"

Support !votes

1. Support Musical comedy is an exclusively anglophone tradition mostly appreciated by Urban Americans and Brits. Has no global significance whatsoever. Cutting the list down is currently going much too slow. This will both make the list more balanced and remove 11 entries in one go. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose too broad a proposal. There should be at least two from this category on this list pbp 01:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per my discussion comment below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. - Per DL1 and PbP. GabeMc 03:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Maunus, I appreciate the fresh ideas you have brought to the discussion, but this is not one of your better ones. Sure, musical comedy is largely an Anglophone phenomenon, but that does not in any way minimize its importance. Examining solely the works and lasting popularity of Gilbert & Sullivan, Rogers & Hammerstein and Cole Porter should suggest to you that deleting every so-called musical comedy composer and/or lyricist is very bad idea. This is the English Misplaced Pages, and we should not have to apologize for including topics that are of principal importance within the Agnlosphere, even as we strive to balance that unavoidable bias with world-wide topics of importance that did not originate within the United States, the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the former British Empire. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If there should be one or two truly vital musical comedy lyricists they can be included on equal footing with other popular musicians. They don't need a specific section anymore than "Heavy Metal" or "Electronica" do. Neither does country music.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Directors, producers and screenwriters, 56

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

Sports figures

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

Remove Seve Ballesteros

Support' !votes

1. Support Only won five majors, which is less than several people who are not on the list. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 23:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Marco van Basten

Support !votes

1. Support. Did not achieve as much as other footballers on the list in a career cut short by injury.--Rsm77 (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 01:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 02:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

The association football list needs to be cut, but there are many players of a similar level of distinction, so it's difficult to know who to suggest. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just take all of them, then we'll see who there as consensus for removing!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Boris Becker

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Bedrieger (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

How many tennis players do we really want in the end? 10? that might be too many. Is Boris Becker in the top 10 most vital tennis players ever, including both male and female? He does have notability for being one of the youngest winners at 17. Carlwev (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Iker Casillas

Support' !votes

1. Support Questionable whether he's the outstanding player of Spain's recent tournament-winning sides. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Roberto Clemente

Support' !votes

1. Support Doesn't appear to have achieved as much as other baseball players on the list, and started playing eight years after Jackie Robinson broke the colour line, so the cultural aspect doesn't appear sufficient justification for inclusion either. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Clemente was a breakthrough athlete in a slightly different way in that he was one of the first international superstars in MLB. He was the first international player to 3,000 hits pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Peggy Fleming

Support' !votes

1. Support Figure skating is bloated and she only has one Olympic gold. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Dorothy Hamill

Support' !votes

1. Support: One olympic gold and one world champion. Not impressive enough to be vital compared with other skaters like Henie and Fleming.
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support: Figure skating is really bloated pbp 20:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support: --Rsm77 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Jack Hobbs

Support' !votes

1. Support Grace and Bradman are already there to represent the early days of cricket. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Ingemar Johansson

Support' !votes

1. Support: A good boxer and all but we need to cut this section. Not that vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support pbp 13:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Greg Louganis

Support !votes

1. Support: In spite of a couple of olympic gold medals (in a minor field of competition) not a vital amateur athlete.
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Stanley Matthews

Support' !votes

1. Support This is a tough one (for an Englishman), but there are cuts needed and he didn't have the success in European competition and for England that Bobby Charlton had. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Willie Mays (baseball player)

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I call him vital. Jusdafax 22:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove John McEnroe

Support' !votes

1. Support Only won seven Grand Slam singles titles, which is less than others on the list (not including Pancho Gonzales who was ineligible to compete in Grand Slams for most of his career as a professional) and less than others not on the list. I don't think his colourful personality makes up for that. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Se-Ri Pak and Karrie Webb

Support' !votes

1. Support Women's golf doesn't have much of a history and having three female golfers seems like serious overkill. Deleting these two would still leave Annika Sörenstam. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Note that women's golf also has Babe Didrikson Zaharias under "multiple sports", she taught herself golf because she couldn't make any money running track pbp 15:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Axel Paulsen

Support' !votes

1. Support Seems like a minor figure - even in Norwegian his article is not very long. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Because he is one of very few sportsfigures included from before the 20th century.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Paulo Radmilovic

Support' !votes

1. Support Not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 20:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Mary Lou Retton

Support' !votes

1. Support Only won one Olympic gold medal. Not significant enough. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 23:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap: Remove Sócrates, Add Gareth Edwards

Support !votes

1. Support. So many football players and no rugby players. Gareth Edwards is often considered to be the greatest rugby player of all time. --Rsm77 (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose support remove oppose add. Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 20:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Sócrates

Support !votes

1. As nom. Not vital. GabeMc 01:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - per Gabe. I think we can cut a bit here. Jusdafax 09:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support There are lots of good footballers, we can't have them all Carlwev (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support pbp 22:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Lasse Virén

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: pbp 22:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support,per nom. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support we need to cut in this section. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support - We gotta trim, too many runners. Jusdafax 09:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc 20:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Won gold medals in the 5,000 and 10,000 meters at consecutive Olympics. That's pretty darn impressive. He was also a damn fine marathon runner for his generation, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Vis-a-vis DL's comment, I think we need to prioritize how many 5K, 10K and marathoners should we have on this list? I think having more than three for any distance is too many pbp 13:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Williams sisters, Add Serena Williams

Support' !votes

1. Support Serena Williams is now significantly more successful than her sister with 16 Grand Slam single wins to Venus' 7. As such Venus is not really strong enough for the list. Also, as you might expect, the Serena Williams article is better and available in more language than the Williams sisters article. --Rsm77 (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose, not about sports feats only. They are both widely known. By having the article about both of them we get two Tennis stars for the price of one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Jan Železný

Support !votes

1. Support. -- Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 23:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Besides being triple Olympic champion, he has a world record that is far away from any mark of any other existing competitor. He holds the top 5 javelin performances of all time, and he is widely considered to be the greatest javelin thrower ever.Rauzaruku (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

General discussion about subject area: Horse racing

If we are trying to trim biographies, and sports people has been suggested to go down 100 entries. Do Jockeys deserve to be in? I am not sure if a list of the most vital or important 2000 people ever should have 4 jockeys. We have so many sports with no people listed. Other than boxers there are no martial artists listed at all apart from Bruce Lee but he's listed in actors anyway. There are no snooker players like Steve Davis or Stephen Hendry, probably slightly more vital than jockeys? If we had an extra horse racing article I would list Grand National before 4 horse racing biographies, although I'm not suggesting to add it at this time. The Jockeys do not appear in many other languages either only 4 or 5 suggesting they are not of particular world wide notability or fame.

Oh and by the way one of the 4 "people" listed in horse racing one of them isn't a person at all it's actually a HORSE. Although that make sense I mean it's them that do the running not the jockey, which is also why I kind of personally think of Jockeys as not the greatest examples of athletes. There was discussion and action a long time ago to remove all famous horses from the list including Alexander the Great's horse Bucephalus potentially the most famous horse? I'm sure Secretariat was a great horse, but do we need him? also he not in this list either: List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses so is he the greatest horse ever? I post the 3 jockeys and one horse separately for voting below. Carlwev (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like this discussion could be removed now. --Rsm77 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

General discussion about topic area: Sports

Incomplete list of sports figures

From what I saw the list of athletes, it was not very well prepared. Is somewhat "Americanized" in excess. We have 9 cricketers and 9 figure skaters (sports that dozens of countries do not practice or even might not even know) and none of volleyball or handball, for example (sports widely practiced in the world). 15 people in athletics is not sufficient, we have legends like Bob Beamon, Serguey Bubka, Yelena Isinbayeva, Jan Zelezny, Javier Sotomayor and Jonathan Edwards out. I understand that two swimmers is not enough (and has no legendary female swimmer? Mary T.Meagher? Shane Gould? Kristin Otto?). 10 golfers is very much, it's a elite sport. Baseball may be the biggest sport in the U.S., but in much of the world is also little practiced, you could slightly reduce the list of 11 players. Ice Hockey is practiced only in cold countries, I think it could also be reduced from 10 to 8 or 7. In general the list leans favorite sports in the U.S. and not the most important sports in the world. Rauzaruku (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the list is also grossly bloated...there are ~170 athletes on this list, when 100 would be a better number. If you believe that baseball or hockey could/should be reduced, I'd recommend proposing some specific people who should be cut pbp 05:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I really have almost no knowledge of cricket, baseball, ice hockey or figure skating, so it's hard for me to make a good indication in these cases. But it is clear disproportionality to have 9 people from cricket, 9 from figure skating, 10 from golf, 11 from baseball and 10 from ice hockey (all sports that do not have complete global coverage) and only 2 from swimming, and 0 from volleyball, handball, table tennis, beach volleyball, fencing, judo, taekwondo, weightlifting, rowing, sailing... If it is not possible to reduce some of these lists, I would say it is impossible to summarize Sports in only 100 articles. 150 or 200 would be a more realistic number. Rauzaruku (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• No list is perfect our sports definitely needs a good going through, too many of one sport and none in others. Some add ideas are odd, some are OK. I'm not liking the idea of adding many more people especially to sports at this time. I don't really want to propose adds however one I thought about for a while was Sir Alex Ferguson, I was thinking about proposing a swap with Giggs or Beckham but they are both up for removal voting now anyway. I don't think Alex is hugely vital, but a lot more important than many existing names on the list such as some skaters tennis players or jockeys. It was only a mild thought though, and I'm thinking much more about possible removals anyway. Carlwev (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ferguson ranks higher than Gibbs in terms of traffic, maybe we could swap him for one of the ice hockey players. It's true what you say, Rauzaruku, ice hockey may seem terribly important if you live in the north and is probably unknown in the rest of the world. Soccer is known and popular everywhere in the world (I think), maybe we should cut elsewhere. I can't imagine eliminating Beckham because it is a name even I know. --Melody Lavender (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Beckham have only name, that is the problem. At soccer we have 25, 30 legendary names that have a huge name AND won extremely important titles. So, Beckham is not a good name to the 10,000 vital articles. He is famous, but not legendary enough to this list. As I said, names like Cristiano Ronaldo, Romário, Roger Milla are more important than him. Gordon Banks, english goalkeeper, is more legendary than Beckham too. Being Brazilian, I understand about soccer, and could take 10 more big names to the list, but you are wondering how to reduce, so I will not do it. But honestly, I never include Beckham in the list of the biggest in history, he is still a level below. Rauzaruku (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're right about Beckham - particularly not in your comparison with Milla who was only known for his playing in one single tournament. Beckham was among the greatest three players in Europe in the late nineties and early 2000s. It is a shame he ruined his reputation by becoming a supermodel, but save Ronaldo and Romario none of the people you mention compare to Beckham. On the other hand we do need Michael Laudrup on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It was brought up we should have NHL, as it is more vital to hockey than any one player. The National Hockey League is listed already here under sports you're right that that probably belongs before any players. I was also considering proposals for swapping in the 4 tennis grand slams for 4 or more tennis players, not completely sure on that, haven't done it yet. Sports teams have been brought up too. A long time ago there were some sports teams in here I believe the Chicago Blackhawks was here plus another ice hockey team. If I remember correctly someone removed them on the premise that sports teams should never ever be considered vital articles no matter how good or important they are? I wasn't active here back then I only found it looking about the history archives of the project, curious as to what had been discussed before. I don't know if we should have sports teams or not? I can see it both ways, like companies, teams can exist for longer than one person's career and include numerous people's achievements not just one. One could argue Man U football team is more vital than half the listed players, or not? I have a feeling sports teams would not get enough support to get in, but I'm not saying it shouldn't be brought up, otherwise we'll never know for sure what everyone thinks. Carlwev (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Rebels, revolutionaries and activists

See Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/People#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists, 45 for complete sublist of related topics.

American bias?

One-third of all rebels, revolutionaries and activists listed are Americans from the last 200 years. This is biased in a number of ways. The 15 Americans may be the wrong ones (For example, Jane Addams, Cesar Chavez and Harvey Milk ain't on there, and maybe they should be). Thoughts? I think we eventually need to get it down to 10 pbp 17:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that 10 articles is too few, but we do need to trim the Americans. --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just reviewing the list, maybe feminism needs a bit more of a worldwide spread. Although I can only think of Anglophones as replacements, like Emmeline Pankhurst for Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Germaine Greer for Betty Friedan. I did also think of Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir who are listed elsewhere. --Rsm77 (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about Brits, one prominent omission is William Wilberforce pbp 01:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Journalists

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

General discussion of topic area

• This is the list of journalists lifted straight from vital articles, currently there are 34 journalists. I fail to see why a list of about 2000 most vital biographies would have 34 journalists, there are only 31 explorers for example. There are some top selling authors and books not in the list, that are higher importance than some of these news writers and news readers/anchors, many authors are read for a long long time after their death, journalists not as much. Many news anchors I would imagine are unknown outside their own country, and the amount of languages some of these journalists appear in on Misplaced Pages suggests that too, do many people watch foreign news before their own nation's? I would probably delete most of the journalists, but I will nominate them one by one. Feel free to nominate any from the list too. Carlwev (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• At the wikiproject journalism, these have mixed importance from high to low to unrated, I am taking that into account when nominating, as well as how many languages they appear in as a rough hint of their international recognition. Carlwev (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I do think that our list presently favors fiction writing at the expense of non-fiction writing, of which journalism is part. However, many of these journalists aren't of the caliber to be on this list, and all of them are from the last 200 years, so I could see this being trimmed down to 15-20.
• I think you have a point, you could nominate any particular important non fiction writers you are thinking about, if not now when the numbers start to go down. I would say however some of the most important works of non fiction are written by people that we do have listed but not in writers, as they are listed under the topic they wrote about and had impact in. Like Darwin in scientistists who wrote, Origin of Species. Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto. eg. As well as many of the people listed in philosophers wrote important works of kind of non fiction too. Carlwev (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Carl, this is yet another example of a sublist that has been allowed to blossom without any real rhyme or reason; it is just a collection of persons who individual editors thought were important. When we talk about broadcast journalists (radio and television) in the United States, the starting point is Edward R. Murrow of CBS radio and television, whose mantel was then passed to Walter Cronkite when CBS was the gold standard of broadcast news. People should not be on this list for the simple reason they filled the anchor's chair on a network news show (e.g. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, David Brinkley, Chet Huntley, Howard K. Smith, Eric Sevareid, Ed Bradley, Barbara Walters, etc.). This list is remarkably heavy on such broadcasters and light on actual print journalists, i.e., influential people who actually wrote for a newspaper or magazine. Even if we were to add four or five key print journalists, I agree that this list could still be pared by 40 to 50 percent. It's really quite odd that we have broadcast lightweights like Dianne Sawyer and Dan Rather on this list while omitting truly great print journalists like H. L. Mencken and Horace Greeley and Walter Lippman. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fictional characters

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

General discussion of topic area: Fictional characters

• More of an open question. at the moment. If we are trying to trim movies do we need Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader when we already have Star Wars. We are voting for some movies/franchises to have or not have one space on the list, Star Wars technically has 3 spaces on the whole list. I say the same for Gandalf and Frodo when we already have LOTR, and Kirk and Spock when we already have Star Trek. Basically some franchises/fictions are getting 3 slots when some influential movies/franchises/shows/books are getting none. Captain Kirk himself could be removed, as him and his fiction are still covered by Star Trek. My favourite kind of character to have are ones where the character and franchise/fiction are almost one and the same. Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Batman, James Bond. We probably wouldn't have Sherlock Holmes the character AND the book series. All vital information is in one article why would we need 2 or 3 to cover one fiction? Carlwev (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Carl opened this as a discussion. I agree with his premise. and move that we move to topic-specific discussion and !voting. All of the listed fictional characters are already covered by virtue of the inclusion of their parent work or series, or in several cases by coverage of the author (e.g. Dr. Seuss). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Another point to add people to ponder on... If you were told you were allowed 2 spaces to represent the work of George Lucas and his studio, would you choose Star Wars and Indiana Jones, or would you choose Stars Wars and Darth Vader, having some overlapping/duplication of one franchise but completely forgetting the other altogether. (This isn't a proposal to add Indiana Jones, who is not listed at the moment by the way). If you had 2 spaces for the work of Tolkien, would it be LOTR and Frodo Baggins, or LOTR and The Hobbit? (We don't have the hobbit at the moment) Carlwev (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point Carl! GabeMc 02:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Quasimodo, Add The Hunchback of Notre-Dame

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. - GabeMc 01:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I propose to remove Quasimodo from fictional characters, and add the novel The Hunchback of Notre-Dame to the appropriate place in works of literature. We only need one Quasimodo the character or The Hunchback of Notre-Dame the original novel. There is no book series for the character like Tarzan or James Bond, there is only one novel. Most of the time the character is used in more modern media it is an adaptation of the novel not a new story. Looking at the length and detail of the two articles and how many languages they appear in it hints users believe the novel to be more important, or more worthy to put work into. The novel article is longer, has more references and appears in a lot more languages compared to the character. Carlwev (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would prefer to add Les Misérables. I considered nominating it already. --Rsm77 (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Dancers

Remove Gaétan Vestris

Support !votes

1. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlwev (talk • contribs)
2. Support pbp 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

I don't know much about dance, but I can review the articles and use my judgment on who looks less vital. I think we have slightly too many dancers, and they are all of 2 forms, while other forms of dance we actually miss the dance forms themselves, like Flamenco. If anyone has greater knowledge than me any guidance would be welcome. Carlwev (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Arthur Mitchell (dancer)

Support !votes

1. Support Carlwev (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support pbp 20:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Explorers

Swap: Remove John Glenn, Add Buzz Aldrin

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, this swap improves the list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support remove not add Not vital by a longshot. Being the first American to do something is not notable in itself. Being the first human to do so is.
4. Support remove not add. Gagarin was first. Rothorpe (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Glenn was the first American to orbit the Earth, but what was Buzz first at? GabeMc 00:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose bad swap pbp 01:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Both are vital and ought to be included. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Neil Armstrong has been added to the vital 1000 in that case I think Buzz at least deserves the 10'000. Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth? If USSR didn't get there before the USA would we be listing the first russian, or in either the first Chinese in orbit, probably not. Glenn is trumped by Yuri Gagarin. In any case Aldrin seems more vital than Glenn to me. Carlwev (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I didn't think nationality was a huge deal. Glenn was not the first human to orbit the Earth, just the first American. We aren't listing the first Chinese in space or Japanese or European. Buzz was closer to being the first man on the Moon than Glenn was to being the first man in space, Buzz was only set foot down a few minutes or seconds after Armstrong. We list both of the 2 man team who climbed Everest first. Do we list the first American who climbed Everest? I can understand the point of view though, and I know Armstrong was commander of the mission Aldrin wasn't. I can see it both ways. Carlwev (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• And yet no one can name the third member of the Apollo 11 team who orbited the moon a few times waiting for Armstrong and Aldrin to scoop up a few moonrocks and get their fix of hopping around down below. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carlwev - being the first American but the fifth human is not very vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove John Glenn

Support !votes

1. Support Not vital by a longshot - the vital astronaut list is short: Armstrong and Gargarin...perhaps Laika. Being the first American to do something is not notable in itself. Being the first of one's species to do so is. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support per Maunus. --V3n0M93 (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 01:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support per mine and others comments Carlwev (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove John Fremont

Support !votes

1. Support Primarily known as politician/military not explorer. Not vital. Too many American frontiersmen already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Not of a high enough caliber to be on this list, sorry pbp 00:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Daniel Boone

Support !votes

1. Support Not vital. Too many American frontiersmen already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Davy Crockett

Support !votes

1. Support Not vital as explorer. Too many American frontiersmen already.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose - Hero for nearly two centuries. Died at the Alamo. Had own Disney TV show and millions of kids wore his hat. Crockett was and is iconic, and vital to understanding the legend of the West, for better or worse. Fremont can go and maybe Bowie as well, but for me the bright line is drawn right here. Jusdafax 09:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Jusdafax. GabeMc 20:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Knud Rasmussen

Support !votes

1. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. GabeMc 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Thor Heyerdahl

Support !votes

1. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. GabeMc 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Kit Carson

Support !votes

1. Support Not vital as explorer. Famous as a lawman and "indian fighter".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 01:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Add Francis Drake

Support !votes

1. Support The first commander to actually circumnavigate the earth (Magellan died halfway). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Per PbP. This should be a move thread. I do not agree that we should have the same article listed in more than one sub-list. GabeMc 03:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Purplebackpack89 --V3n0M93 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

On the list already as a military theorist. --Rsm77 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm that strikes me as an odd placement, but at least he's here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be withdrawn and replaced with a discussion on "Move Drake to Explorers?" pbp 00:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. OR maybe we should be able to have people included in several sections - while only couting them in one of them. Just for ease of navigation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Business people

Remove Meyer Guggenheim

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk)
2. Support. - GabeMc 21:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Mark Zuckerberg

Support !votes

1. As nom: recentism.GabeMc 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Aristotle Onassis

Support !votes

1. As nom.GabeMc 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Doesn't have much notability aside of his wife pbp 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Support - Not for a 10k list. Jusdafax 09:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Add Alfred P. Sloan, remove ________

Support !votes

1. As nom pbp 15:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. oppose not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 20:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the head of GM in the mid-20th century should be on this list. Feel free to peg this to a removal pbp 15:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Leland Stanford, remove ________

Support !votes

1. As nom pbp 15:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. oppose not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 20:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the head of the Central Pacific Railroad and the founder of Stanford University should be on this list. Feel free to peg this to a removal pbp 15:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Donald Trump

Support !votes

1. As nom.GabeMc 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. pbp 01:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Dump Trump. Jusdafax 09:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support An encyclopedia would not lose much losing him Carlwev (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
7. support not vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

History

Unsorted history topics

Swap: Add Canaan, Remove Metacomet

Support !votes

1. Support Carlwev (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, good swap.--Melody Lavender (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose Native American history severely underrepresented. Metacomet's role in King Philips war war was decisive for the future of all New England tribes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Maunus. GabeMc 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose oppose add, support remove.Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

different sections, but both historic, Canaan is more vital, covers more area, more time, more events, in more languages. Carlwev (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• If he's main importance is that he influenced an "important" war...Surely then King Philip's War (that we don't have) has to be more vital than one of the leaders that took part in it. Carlwev (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Canaan

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - GabeMc 01:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ahh yes globalization, a historical non western region that lasted thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of people, several wars, not as vital by itself or compared to one historical leader who lived less than 40 years, fought one war and lost it, along with his life and the lives of 3000 of his men. Makes perfect sense. Carlwev (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• That comment was a bit rude and I want to appear passionate but not rude. I meant to say...I believe entire empires/regions like this that lasted thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of people, several wars to be good encyclopedia material. Only my judgment, though. I think there are many important history topics that span centuries or millennia and huge numbers of people, that are forgotten or left off in favour of other areas such as 24 paintings and 8 figure skaters to pick on a few. Carlwev (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

History by continent and region

Remove History of Central America

Already covered by History of the Americas

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Prehistory and ancient history

Remove Persia

It redirects to Iran, which is already on the list.

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Anyone wondering like I did, Achaemenid Empire (Persian Empire) is also included already. Carlwev (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Ancient China

It redirects to History of China, which is already on the list.

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Egyptian Dynasties

It redirects to a list article, which is not vital

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 20:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Middle Ages

Remove Bulgarian Empire

Already have First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire.

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support has a disambiguation page feel, only listing the 2 actual Bulgarian empires Carlwev (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Let's cut the fat. Jusdafax 09:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Swap:Add Pechenegs ,Remove West Francia and East Francia

West Francia and East Francia are not that notable. They can be covered by Francia. Pechenegs are a notable medieval nation.

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose oppose add, support remove. Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa

It redirects to List of historical states in Africa, which is a list that I don't think is vital.

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support see discussion Carlwev (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 20:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

In theory we shouldn't have lists. If we start having lists, especially of geography it opens up a whole new area of articles that could flood in, list of sovereign states is one of the most viewed and in most languages articles, how about list of US states, list of longest rivers. I was trying to think if there was another article that represents the title closely, I didn't check extensively but all things I thought of like Pre-colonial Africa, Medieval Africa, and Ancient Africa all redirect to History of Africa. I think we should lose it, if anyone could find an appropriate vital article that covers pre-colonial Africa, I would consider a swap but I don't think there is, History of Africa seems to cover it. Carlwev (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Early modern history

Add Atlantic slave trade

History is still under quota, and this is a vital article.

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support This is just as vital an historical topic as the holocaust or WW@ with just as much subsequent influence on global history. Entirely vital.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Slave trading was a global tragedy and I see no reason to favour this one particular chapter over all the others. Isn't slavery already somewhere on this list? Also, I oppose the arbitrary limits/goals/quotas in principle. GabeMc 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Slavery is about the concept this is about the trading practice that transformed the cultural and political history of the world to what we know now. For example none of the American rhythmic music that we are so fond of including would exist if it were not for the Atlantic slave trade. This is not just another chapter. This is the main one. Absolutely essential.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Hausa Kingdoms

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Modern history

Remove Great Chinese Famine

Covered in Great Leap Forward.

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 01:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Add Cuban Revolution

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --V3n0M93 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. - Lets get back to 10,000 or less entries before we slow this process down with adds. GabeMc 21:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Geography

Basics

Remove North, East, South, West

Covered by Cardinal direction. I doubt they can become anything more than stubs/start-class.

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per nom. GabeMc 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Regions and physical geography

Swap: Remove Andean states: Add Canberra,

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose support remove, oppose add.Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - GabeMc 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Andean states

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support, --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:43, 3 July 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. Globalization.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Swap or removal. Do we want Australia's capital or not, I probably would? Andean states, well we already have Andes, although this region is big, is it a widely used term? would an encyclopedia have an article for this topic?

Remove Argentine Antarctica

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support removing. --Igrek (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (vote moved from other section but clear)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. GabeMc 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

see also swap regions for cities

Remove British Antarctic Territory

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support removing. --Igrek (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC) (vote moved from other section but clear)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. GabeMc 18:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

see also swap regions for cities

Remove Interior Plains

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, the geography section is too big, there's almost enough material there to fill the 100.000 most vital articles list. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. GabeMc 18:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Interior Plains is not used much, probably wouldn't appear in an encyclopedia as a stand alone topic. We already have Great Plains, probably not exactly the same meaning but enough overlap to make it redundant. All good info is at Great Plains which is in more languages. Interior plains seems to be more geology, but there are loads of far more important geology topics missing, this is far from being a vital geology article too. Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Remove Turkish Kurdistan, Add Tibet

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 21:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Turkish Kurdistan is not a great article nor in a great number of languages, it's an unofficial term. In Turkish language it does not even have it's own article, it has a section within the Kurdistan article that English article Turkish Kurdistan interlinks to. We already have Kurdistan. Iraqi Kurdistan is an autonomous region, Turkish Kurdistan is not. We already have an article Eastern Anatolia Region which covers a very similar area. Tibet? I could go on about why we should have Tibet but I hope users already know. I am very surprised it isn't here. We have Tibetan Plateau in physical geography, but that is only about the climate, geology and wildlife, almost nothing about people, history, culture or religion. Tibetan Plateau is in no way a substitute for not having Tibet, and it doesn't even cover the same area anyway. We have a "regions" section in addition to a countries section, which is good place for it as it's definitely a region and we don't have to address it's status or non status. Tibet is a no brainer for me, I just hope I have selected a good swap for this though. Carlwev (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Swap: Add Korea, Remove French Southern and Antarctic Lands

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support this was an actual country until recently pbp 01:42, 4 July 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 adding, redundant. --Igrek (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose. - Per Igrek. GabeMc 19:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose Bedrieger (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

French Southern and Antarctic Lands, yet another meaningless terratorial claim with virtually no population, history or culture. Korea, why would we not have this. Yeah we have north and south Korea, but the history and culture and physical geography is all linked. There are many many overlapping geography areas, this one is too important to leave off. We have Korean Peninsula, I believe that is in no way a substitute for not having Korea. Korea is by far the dominant term used, for the area, historically, culturally in most areas. All derivative articles use it, Music of Korea, History of, Culture of etc, never history of the Korean peninsula (which redirects). We actually have history of Korea here, odd to have A history of article before the region itself. If there is redundancy it should not be the article Korea that gets left off. Korea is in more languages has more information, more views, it would be the title of what I expect to find in a print encyclopedia first. The article about the peninsula is not terrible, so I am not proposing that for this swap, but it should not be a substitute for Korea article itself. There may be room for both in the end, maybe not, but Korea itself should not be the one left off in my opinion, if we need to make that choice, later it should be the peninsula that goes not Korea. Same with Scandinavia, I added that last year, as we only had the peninsula article, you wouldn't leave of Scandinavia for the peninsula article either. Finally, technically articles about peninsulas would not include the surrounding main land areas (like Denmark for scandinavia, or parts of North Korea touching the Chinese border)that are not within the actual peninsula, or surrounding islands, that are still culturally, and politically part of the regions, and covered by the proper term. Carlwev (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• OK that's like saying we shouldn't have Ireland as we have Northern Island and Rep of Island. Or we shouldn't have North America as we have USA Canada and Mexico. If one is redundant, should we have Korea or Korean Peninsula? Like should we have Scandinavia or Scandinavian Peninsula? Italy or Italian Peninsula. Surely the peninsula articles are the ones to go in this case. Korea is vital. We may have to look at redundancy in the long run, we have British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Island, UK, England. Fennoscandia, Kola peninsula, Scandinavian Peninsula, Scandinavia, plus its countries. Including Korea is not out of place, it is vital. If there is redundancy issues, others articles should get booted of before Korea. Carlwev (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Turan Depression

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 01:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Turkish Kurdistan, Iranian Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. We already have Kurdistan --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - Per nom. Good catch, and again, this is what I was talking about a couple of months ago. We have so much redundant overlap that we should trim that out first before expending energy on contentious removals. GabeMc 01:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Kurdistan is fine, or even just "kurdish people".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

My only thought is Iraqi Kurdistan, is still less vital than Kurdistan, but seems a level above Turkish an Iranian, it's a fairly independent autonomous region, a real political entity with 5 million people, where the other 2 are only unofficial regions, and Iraqi one is a much better article in many more languages, just stands out as being above the other 2. Carlwev (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Philippine Islands

It redirects to Philippines, which is already on the list.

Support !votes

1. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 01:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Carlwev (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support pbp 20:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Bodies of water

Remove Amundsen Sea

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Discussion

Remove Bellingshausen Sea

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose, Bellingshausen Sea is more inportant than Amundsen Sea. --Igrek (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove Flores Sea

Support !votes

1. Support as nom --Igrek (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I was contemplating this one already and a few of the other small seas within SE Asian archipelago Carlwev (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Swap: Add Jordan River, Remove Benue River

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 23:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Longer isn't always more vital, as I thought with the Thames. I always thought the Jordan River to be fairly important, but I'm not as sure with this one as I was with the Thames. I will propose it anyway as the support Thames got surprised me a bit. Jordan is mentioned in the Bible is some of the border beween Israel and Jordan, and like the Nile, although no where as big serves as the main water source in an otherwise baron area. The damming or potential damming or diverting of its water is part of the reason for the states hostility to one another. I think it's more vital than Benue, but is it that vital? would it be better to just remove Benue out right? I'll let people vote on both. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove Benue River

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. - GabeMc 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Bedrieger (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

1. Oppose. --Igrek (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove Liao River

Support !votes

1. Support as nom. Carlwev (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 23:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Kara Strait

Support !votes

1. Support as nom Carlwev (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
2. Support. --Igrek (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
3. Support. - GabeMc 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
4. Support --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Support --Rsm77 (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Hierophant443 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose !votes

Remove Koro Sea

Support !votes