|
Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Archive 7
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. Nominate Germ theory of diseaseObviously this relates heavily to the Health and Medicine topic (equally to both). The Germ theory of disease talk page lists it as a topic of (1) Microbiology (Top-importance), (2) Biology (Top-importance), (3) History of Science (Top-importance), (4) History (High-importance) and (5) European history (High-importance). This topic is so engrained in our lives that we hardly would doubt the theory, yet it was a novel idea when developed in the nineteenth century. The concept is fundamental to medicine, and broaches subjects like sanitation, pandemic, virus, bacteria, antibiotics, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and infection, not to mention cholera, E. coli, smallpox, tuberculosis, AIDS, and pasteurization. It ties into quite a number of the vital articles and underlies the notion called Koch's postulates, a vital tenet of medical science. I doubt an average person could even name or articulate a competing theory to this topic. If you immediately said, miasma theory or had a bit of the vapors, well, congrats, you aren't an average person! I like to saw logs! (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Since there was support for keeping history of agriculture, I wonder how people feel about history of medicine? I personally would prefer adding that than such a specific article. Cobblet (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Bone fractureI think we're listing too many medical conditions at the expense of more important medical articles. We already list trauma (medicine), and I'm not sure why broken bones would be more important as an example of trauma than broken blood vessels or nerve injuries, for example.
Bone isn't on the list yet we have bone fracture. It definitely must go. Gizza (t)(c) 05:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Parkinson's disease, add SmallpoxOur list of diseases also seems to be skewed toward a 21st-century, first-world view of medicine. We already list Alzheimer's as the most notable example of a degenerative disease; I don't think we need a second one. Smallpox was a major disease throughout most of human history, and its impact on native Americans had a colossal impact on the history of the New World. Its eradication is perhaps the biggest accomplishment in the history of public health.
I'd like to find room for poliomyelitis as well, but I'll wait to see how this goes over first. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Popular pages tool updateAs of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off). Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs. If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:32, 23 February 2014 (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 SeasonThis is effects everyone at every place in the world, and at every point in history, every culture must have been effected by the seasons from prehistory to modern day. We list year, but I don't think that is enough to leave out season. We list climate, that is probably the only topic that covers it slightly. Climate is also in the 100, so it can be expanded here, and it has. We list several weather types or natural disaster, while important don't effect everyone on the whole planet like Tropical cyclone, tornado and flood, much of the world may never see them, but everyone will be effected by seasonal change every year, it must have a massive impact on agriculture too. We also list cloud which I'm not trying to remove I think is less vital than season. Carlwev 17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Swap: Remove X-ray, Add Medical imagingThe former is about the form of electromagnetic radiation rather than its medical application, and we don't include microwave, infrared or ultraviolet, for starters. The latter covers medical X-rays along with other forms of imaging (ultrasound, MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, etc.) that as a whole revolutionized the profession in the 20th century.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove DramaHaving Theatre and then a sub-listing for Drama is redundant.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Swap: Remove Gunpowder, Add PropellantGunpowder was historically significant as an explosive and as a propellant. It became functionally obsolete for both purposes during the 20th century, although the term is often inaccurately applied to smokeless powder propellants. The propellant article deserves to be recognized as an equivalently encompassing partner to the Explosive material article; and both contain appropriate references to the historical significance of gunpowder.
Gunpowder and propellant both overlap with explosive material. However, propellant has non-explosive uses too which makes me lean towards support. Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I feel the history of medicine is significant enough to merit its own entry on the list. There are many medical developments like germ theory (nominated above) and the consequent understanding of the need for sterilization, the role that dissection played in helping us understand our own anatomy, etc., that might not themselves be significant enough to deserve a stand-alone entry, but are obviously essential topics for which Wikipedia should prioritize coverage.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add SurgeryAn ancient medical specialty that I think merits specific coverage.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question about boldingI noticed that the second level of core articles use bolding to indicate which ones are first level. Any reason why this wasn't repeated for the other levels? Or was that an unapproved edit? Personally, I find it useful, & do it throughout these pages might help in limiting discussions about adding/removing articles from the various lists -- e.g., X can't be removed from the list of the vital 10,000 articles because a simple glance shows it is a vital 1000 article. -- llywrch (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2014 (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 LinguisticsIt's on level 2 but is missing from this list. I'm actually not sure whether it should be on level 2 (because of the overlap with language) but I think it's definitely worth including on this level.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Move History of science from science to history sectionIn view of the recent disputed edits to the Vital articles template on the History of science talk page, I suggest moving the History of science article from the Science to the History section of Vital articles. Looked at as a discipline, history of science is a historical discipline and this is where practitioners of the field tend to place it; on the other hand, considering its subject matter, history of science treats the development of the sciences. This suggestion has broader implications for the organization of the Vital articles pages. History of science is similar to History of art, which is found in the section concerning Arts and culture; History of agriculture, which is found in the subsection on Agriculture under Business and economics; and History of technology, which is found in the section concerning Technology. As a historian, I consider that the histories of the arts and sciences belong under history, along with the more traditional political, diplomatic, military, social, and economic histories. I'd like to see other opinions on the placement of these histories of the arts and sciences. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If we are doing this for the 1000 and 10'000, shouldn't we do it in the 100 list as well, where history of science is under science; as well as history of mathematics under mathematics history of art under art and history of technology under technology. (Although I would prefer to remove them from the 100 and add ancient, medieval, and modern history, but that's just me.) You could say the history of science, although contains information about science, it is not a science but it is a history. We also have history of nation and regions and historic nations under history not geography, so it kind of makes better sense yes. Carlwev 12:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Game theoryGame theory is not in the 60 most vital mathematics articles. It is an interesting field of study but is only one of many comparatively important branches of applied mathematics. Applied mathematics itself and pure mathematics should be in before game theory. Game theory has useful applications predominantly in economics. A move to Business and Economics would be better than its current location. Yet it is not in the top 30 of most important economic topics. There are many equally significant mathematical models and approaches used in economics (see mathematical economics).
I've said on the expanded talk page that I believe Level 4 Mathematics should be expanded to 300 but it could do with some trimming at this level. The trend for mathematics is to expand less than tenfold. One out of 10, 6 out of 100, 60 out of 1,000 currently and a target of 300 out of 10,000. It could drop down to 55 here at least. It is not an urgent issue since we are currently well under the limit. Mathematical optimization is another article I have my eye on. It is notable and not quite vital for similar reasons to game theory IMO but overall has a stronger case. Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Five subatomic particles in a list of 1000 is too many. The three most well known in electron, neutron and proton should be kept. Wave, which has its own subsection in the expanded list, is not covered at all here. Gizza (t)(c) 03:20, 9 May 2014 (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 WaveAs mentioned in the above thread, there is a whole subsection in the expanded list on waves, but nothing on this list. Waves are a fundamental part of physics, vital to understanding motion and energy, and also are commonly encountered in everyday life. Currently we're ten short of the goal of 1000 articles, so we can do a straight add.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add: SpeechI am a bit underwhelmed that there are these listed: Internet, Mail, Mobile phone, Printing, Radio, Telecommunication, Telephone, Television, Video, World Wide Web... but neither speech, voice, nor oratory. We are far removed from the time of the Homer, or for that matter, Shakespeare, in which speech seems so blasé that we forget to think of it as being vital. I propose to put it within the "Society and social sciences" topic someplace if not under Language. Ooops. What is this? The Talk page of Speech lists it as vital. Now that's confusing.
One of human voice, speech and rhetoric is probably worth listing, but I'm not sure which would be best. Cobblet (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Those are good choices, but I picked speech because speech is a form of communication along with telecommunication and printing. It predates telephony and video by millennia. And while voice is more fundamental to this form of communication, speech is the form of communication which tends to be important and vital. Voices can be rudimentary... conveying any and every type of communication, vital or otherwise. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Swap: Remove Gnosticism and Mysticism, Add EsotericismLooking at the expanded list, I noticed that there weren't any further articles on the topics of gnosticism and mysticism. These two articles don't feel that out of place in a list of 10,000 but here they do. Both articles deal with ancient religious and spiritual movements that have had an indirect but not direct influence on the main modern groups of belief. At the most, only the parent article esotericism should be in at this level.
There is some overlap between esotericism and spirituality as well but not to the same extent. Gizza (t)(c) 04:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Swap: Remove Islamism, Add Han DynastyI think the history section could do with a bit of balancing. There is no Chinese representative in ancient history and the Han Dynasty was the golden age of Ancient China. It will probably go into "Iron Age" which will make that subsection equal with "Bronze Age". Islamism is not a period or event in history but an ideology. It doesn't belong in the history section and probably doesn't belong in the social issues section when you compare it to the articles already listed there. As it is, Islamist history is partially covered by Arab-Israeli Conflict. If we need more Islamist related history, there is War on Terror. Gizza (t)(c) 13:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Capital punishmentThere are currently 6 subtopics under "Law". Capital punishment is not among the six most important legal topics. Constitution, crime and justice definitely are. Police is borderline vital. Property is vital when you consider the topic from both an economic and legal perspective. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought about a swap and looked at the expanded list for possible options. Rights stood out as something which is vital but we already have human rights elsewhere on the 1,000 list. No other article really stood out as vital except court to a small extent which is why I framed this as a straight removal. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy if the subcategories under law were distributed elsewhere entirely. They seem to be oddly chosen. Justice should either be the higher category with law under it or a separate point under "Social Issues". It is odd to include "property" but not "contract" under law, contracts being the primary focus of most law in the world today. This becomes less odd if property is under economics or somewhere else. Constitution, I'm not sure I see its vitality at this level, but could certainly fit better under 'Government'. And, as noted, emphasizing one part of the legal system, the "police", but not "courts" or "lawyers" or "politicians" is odd. And yes, the lack of "class" under either economics or social issues is a significant problem. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove ArchArch is just one architectural element. It isn't anymore more vital than column, door, roof, stairs, etc. Some possible replacements include building, tunnel and masonry. I would like to get feedback first so I'm not proposing a swap right now.
Bkwillwm, RJFJR, Reify-tech, Carl, Cobblet, Ypnypn and Prototime. Sorry for the spam guys. This talk page has been in a bit of a lull so I'm notifying all recent contributors that there have been some new proposals posted. Thanks. Gizza (t)(c) 00:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Swap: Remove Cultural Revolution, Add Tang DynastyPer Cobblet's suggestion above. The Cultural Revolution was just one major event out of many in the Cold War, which is already listed. I feel that history articles at this level whenever possible should cover an era instead of a historically short event. Many of the reforms under the Cultural Revolution only lasted for 10 years as they were soon reverted by Deng Xiao Ping. The Tang Dynasty, as discussed above, is along with the Han, the most significant of Chinese dynasties in history. Gizza (t)(c) 04:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
While we're discussing Chinese history, I'd swap Mao Zedong for Sun Yat-sen. The termination of imperial rule in China is one of the most significant moments in that country's history and the man who was responsible for it deserves a place on the list. Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:AfadsBad proposed a Molecular biology-blood swap a while ago (see here). It failed due to many editors believing that blood is vital and therefore should stay. Molecular biology however, is vital. It is the most important branch of biology. Nobody objected to adding molecular biology during the proposed swap. I am proposing this as a straight addition since we're under the limit.
In case space needs to be made in the future, one of the individual domesticated animal species can go. This is more important than dog and horse. Gizza (t)(c) 13:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Mathematical constantPer Cobblet's suggestion above. It is just a list of "interesting" numbers, the most significant of which are already listed where they can be written about in more detail. Gizza (t)(c) 00:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove GoddessWe have Deity, God, and Goddess. I think it may be perceived by some as somehow sexist if we don't have Goddess, but I think this POV is a bit misguided. Deity and God should and do cover the supernatural or supreme being topic from a non gender specific point of view. To have goddess, an article specifically about female deity types, in addition to god and deity in a list as short as 1000 entries seems not necessary, redundant, and a waste of a slot to me. There's nothing the article could contain that cannot be included or summarized in the other two. Carlwev 12:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add FortificationGeneral topic that covers walls, castles and similar things. For war and combat topics we have weapon and 8 types, submarine, tank, knife sword, bow, nuclear weapon, firearm, artillery, things that attack, but nothing on things that protect or defend. We have 8 examples individual works of architecture, including Great Wall of China, which is a fortification, all or at least most of these works of architecture (listed above in another thread) seem less vital than fortification. different kinds of fortifications have built and used in some form pretty much since Neolithic times through history to modern day and are virtually universal to almost every culture of the world, and used in majority of wars. The only things I can see that would cover the topic slightly, are: war, architecture, construction, Great Wall of China, and these are very different topics that would not make fortification redundant, not be expected to cover it in detail, and are not a reason to exclude it. Carlwev 12:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the defensive side of war and combat needs coverage. Not so sure if I agree that the Great Wall of China, the most famous example of fortification, is less vital than the general article. The iconic works of architecture are usually more important than the type of building or work they represent. They are among the pinnacles of human achievement and they are vital because of that. For example, the Colosseum and Taj Mahal are listed at this level while amphitheatre and mausoleum aren't even listed on the expanded list. Similarly we have examples of epic poetry but not the article itself (we have the general poetry and literature articles though). Gizza (t)(c) 15:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add IslandIsland looks like a missing vital geography topic, and looking through the 1000 and 10,000 and how many geographical features are in both, the numbers support my thoughts. In the 1000 we have river and 4 examples, lake and 4 examples, desert and one example and mountain and on example, seems odd to have 4 individual lakes but not mention island. Comparing numbers of these in the 10,000 we have 10 deserts, 17 mountains, 38 lakes and 69 rivers. Islands we have 62 which is more than all the others I said other than rivers. I know it's not an exact science but if we have 4 examples of lakes here and 62 islands in level 4 shouldn't we at least have island itself at this level? I would have thought so. Carlwev 17:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
OK that's fine, the number count argument was a little flimsy, I still think it vital though. I just thought it's odd, to have 4 individual lakes, but miss off the general article island. I also think if land, which I think a little weak, can make the 100 list, island can make the 1000. Both land and island are week articles, but the point of the lists is to so they need improving. I thought the concept of island and how being on one effects the people living on it is just as important as mountain, lake, forest. I thought the wide topic of island is certainly more important than listing Lake Victoria, for example. But that's just me, thanks all the same. Carlwev 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ninety-nine of the articles on the Level 2 list are on the level 3 list: the only one that's missing is cuisine. The closest topic on the level 3 list is cooking, which isn't on the level 2 list. What should we do about this? My personal preference is to have only cooking on both lists. Cobblet (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, so perhaps we don't want to list either cooking or cuisine on Level 2 since they're too close to food, and maybe recreation is too close to entertainment while sport is too specific. I see we have eight media-related articles on Level 3 but nothing on Level 2. How about adding mass media? It and advertising are the only media-related articles on WP:CORE and I'd say mass media is more vital. Thoughts, User:Carlwev, User:Ypnypn? Cobblet (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Icon Key/Legend/Secret Decoder RingThe Vital Article listings make ample use of symbolic icons to indicate Featured Article, Start Class, Stub Class, etc. But there is no clue for the uninitiated reader to decode these arcane glyphs. After some searching around I found this page, which explains many of them. But at least one icon (that looks somewhat like a slotted screw head, or a No Entry traffic sign) remains completely mysterious. As an aid to readers, could a key or legend be added to these Vital Article lists? Perhaps a Template could be set up, to make things more efficient for updating, and keeping things in sync. Reify-tech (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles are labelled as:
(Was it something other than this you were asking for?) RJFJR (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (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. Swap: Remove Personal name, Add NameNames are not just given to persons but to places, groups and things. I can understand that a personal name is the most important type of name but the concept of naming itself is more vital than personal names.
To me it's interesting that in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the right to a name is preceded only by the rights to life and growth. Make of that what you will, I guess. Cobblet (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add IdeologyWe list many ideologies and political beliefs (more than 15 in fact) but not the overarching concept. Considering that we're 12 under 1000, I think this topic is vital enough for a straight add.
If we have to remove something, colonialism is a strong candidate as it is just a form of imperialism. The important events relating to colonialism are included in the history section anyway. Gizza (t)(c) 13:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question about a vital article categoryI've raised this at WT:CAT#Why is Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People with 297 entries? where I asked why it is a red link although it has almost 300 articles in it? I'm not even clear who determines this. Wikipedia:Vital articles shows only 136 articles for people, reasonable as there are only 1000 covered. How does the category relate to this Wikiproject? Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Should we rename Category:Wikipedia Start-Class vital articles in People?Starting a new section after the very helpful response above by User:DaGizza. Obviously any formal attempt to rename the category can't take place here, but some sort of decision should be made here before attempting a formal discussion. I've got no ideas right now I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
These are categories created by Template:Vital article, which has got several problems with it: for instance, the categories it accepts no longer reflect the way WP:VA/E is divided or how they're named. A comprehensive overhaul is needed. Cobblet (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC) IconsThe lists of vital articles use icons which violate both WP:MOSICON and WP:ACCESS. Not meeting WP:ACCESS clearly is a major issue and as a bare minimum alternate text should be added . WP:MOSICON states words are clearer and this is very much the case here. Instead of having too learn 9 icons ,why not just have FA, Former FA, A,B,C, GA, Former GA ... etc Gnevin (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Is having both drug and pharmaceutical drug redundant?Do we need both? Though it's odd that pharmaceutical drug is both more specific than and longer/more detailed than drug. RJFJR (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2014 (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. To me a house is just a building you live in. Building seems more general and the construction of buildings seems important. (I'll understand if others see special significance to houses.) RJFJR (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Building may still be worth it at the 1000 level maybe as well as house, but just to point out that house is in the vital 100 too. Building isn't in the vital 100 but construction and architecture is and kind of covers building, at least for a 100 list. For the 1000 list building seems OKish though, not sure if I would take out house, pretty universal term/structure for home building. We have things like Angkor Watt, Taj Mahal, Stone Henge, individual buildings, but others say they have cultural merit which is true to a point. Carlwev 05:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Exoplanet?What is opinion on whether exoplanet should be proposed as vital? RJFJR (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
We already have planet, that covers Solar system planets and exoplanets. Astronomy has quite a few articles, if we were to add more I'm not sure this would be next in line. Carlwev 13:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Level 3 ArchitectureI am trying to rationalise the arrangement of the architecture Vital articles which is inconsistent to the point of being a joke. Rather than simply accepting articles as they are nominated and score 5 points, there needs to be a consistent tree.
Subsection 2. Architecture by type:
Level 4 architecture
Section: Architectural works Remove from Level 3 These are also on Level 4, where they should be.
Current list:
Note: My proposals for additions to Level 4 architecture have been made at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded Amandajm (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2014 (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 TourismMajor part of the modern world growing since Victorian times, I believe this is a topic that would be covered before listing around 15 artists and musicians and writers, several filmmakers, several works of literature and architecture. It's a global multibillion dollar industry, very large percentage of the western world travel or go on holiday/vacation. According to the article China alone spent over 100 billion US dollars in one year on tourism, and article says that services needed by tourists accounts for 30% of worlds services and 6% of world goods and services in general. To not have it in a 1000 list seems odd (I would probably have it personally if the list was only 500 entries). The only things that cover it at all now are, transport, trade, and industry which are way too broad and definitely don't make it redundant. A swap was previously opened for History of Agriculture, 4 people stated they would add tourism and some of the opposes seemed more opposed to the removal of history agriculture in particular. Carlwev 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove World Wide WebI don't think an encyclopedia limited to 1000 entries would have both the internet and the World Wide Web. I know they not the same but there is there is a lot of overlap, the main importance of the WWW is that it is one of the main things of the internet Computer topics have a lot of space, we have artificial intelligence which I don't mind, and computing, not sure we need this either (how about removing this also). We also have mobile phone plus telephone, but these I don't think are as bad, and slightly less overlap. Internet is by far the most used term that people will look for out of the two. Carlwev 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add Computer scienceComputer science is a major scientific field and should be included on this list. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Golden ratioThis proposal was also mentioned above. The golden ratio has far fewer applications in mathematics than 0, pi, or e. It ranks lower than 1 or i in importance. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's a top art article we don't even have animation or puppetry, and comics was removed too. Carlwev 08:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I would prefer including the general phenomenon over the object, but this can be debated. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add EarWe have eye, normally any encyclopedia that covers eye normally covers ear too. We have sound, but then we have light and color and they are physics topics anyway not biology. Nothing really covers this except sound and anatomy. Might be an unfair comparison, but I'm sure I've come across articles about the ear in science book before say liver which we have. Carlwev 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd remove some of the medicine based biology first. We have hypertension, or high blood pressure, I haven't given it extensive thought but I'm sure I'd have blood before high blood pressure. I dislike burn why it's more important than bone fracture or wound I don't know. Carlwev 09:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Cobblet: If we are preferring the general organ system articles over specific parts, should lung be replaced with respiratory system, skin with integumentary system (which would cover hair, feathers, and scales), and muscle with muscular system? Also, is the liver (part of the digestive system) important enough to have its own spot? (I also agree that human gastrointestinal tract should be replaced with digestion.) And should the endocrine system and the reproductive system be included? Malerisch (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Bahá'í Faith
I have noticed we list Jainism a religion of approx 5 million also, but this has a history going back to the 5th century BC and was bigger in the past than today. Carlwev 13:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Caspian Sea, Great Lakes, Lake Baikal, and Lake VictoriaI tend to agree with the idea originally brought up in the Island discussion above that it's unnecessary to list these lakes. Removing these lakes would allow more room for cities, countries, or even rivers.
This seems sensible. We removed Caribbean Sea a while back, I never supported or opposed, but I thought it odd to leave these lakes here and remove the Caribbean, that is larger and contains several island nations, plus mainland coasts, and kind has it's own unique interlinked culture, almost seems like we could put it back?. I have previously thought of some of the places you said too, as probably should be in, my own mental list of nation/region possibilities were South Korea/Korea, Ethiopia, Morocco, Argentina, Vietnam, Thailand, Poland, Scandinavia. Others seem to really dislike nations, not sure why, especially when we have 136 people, most nations are more important than most people, sure Einstein is more important than Trinidad and Tobago, but I doubt Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Frida Kahlo, Sergei Eisenstein etc are more important than any of those listed nations. Many of these nations were previously listed here in the 1000 and for a long time too, but removed without much/any discussion or any voting at all ages ago, I don't see why why we can't have some of them back. The contents of the list at the exact time we went into voted changes only was coincidence only, it could have locked down with them in but didn't, luck of the draw to those that made the ark. Carlwev 13:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Tough questions to answer. I'd argue that the Great Lakes are as vital to North American history and geography as the Mississippi River, so I don't understand why you'd remove the former without also removing the latter. Also compare the Caspian to the Black Sea: is the former really more vital than the latter just because it's not connected to the other oceans? (Even the Volga seems more vital to me than the body of water it drains into.) Is Lake Baikal really more vital than the Ganges or Huang He? I don't think it's necessary to list both the Amazon and the Amazon rainforest, but I find listing both forest and rainforest more acceptable. I think Gizza's right about Mt. Everest not being that vital, the quest to climb it being comparable to events like the race to the South Pole; so why include one but not the other? Maybe exploration as a general topic could be worth listing, particularly if major explorations after the Age of Discovery was merged into it. I think Carlwev is simply right about most nations being more vital than most individual people. If there's any logic to prefer keeping Frida Kahlo as an article to represent Latin American culture over Colombia or Argentina, could the same logic not be used to support removing Bangladesh in order to add Rabindranath Tagore? Is there anyone who would actually support that swap? We currently list 136 people and 24 countries: personally, I think changing this ratio to 120 people and 40 countries, or even 100 people and 60 countries, would significantly improve the list. Cobblet (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Bhagavad GitaThe Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, a work that is already on this list. There is no need to list both. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think this overlap is appropriate when only 4 works of literature are listed—we don't even list the Iliad or any of Shakespeare's works! I'd be okay with removing the Mahabharata instead although. Could a possible replacement be Romance of the Three Kingdoms instead of the Ramayana? From what I've read, the Mahabharata is regarded as more vital than the Ramayana, but it isn't really compared with Romance. To quote from the article, "The novel is among the most beloved works of literature in East Asia, and its literary influence in the region has been compared to that of the works of Shakespeare on English literature. It is arguably the most widely read historical novel in late imperial and modern China." Malerisch (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add EconomyEconomy is a pretty essential article that is missing from both this and the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that both Language and Linguistics, the study of language, are included, as are Politics and Political science, Society and Sociology, Land and Geography, and Mind and Psychology. I don't see why Economy and Economics should be different. I mentioned this on Level 2 as well. Malerisch (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add EmpathyA human quality that is so essential and meaningful to many areas, psychiatry, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and so on. It is one of the hallmarks of the human species. Now that we are discussing if Human should be in the vital ten, we should also have some of the essentials of humanity on a higher level. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@DaGizza: The rationale you're giving shows a recentist bias, because these four emotions are psychological (individualistic) rather than group psychological (or group-sociological). Psychology is only about a hundred years old. What could be considered group-sociology's predecessor, religion, is much older. --Melody Lavender (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add Human BrainI think the lack of a human anatomy section is an obvious giant gaping hole in this project. The anatomical articles we do list in the biology section are on animal anatomy and I am not convinced that we need a lot of veterinary information on this level. We do list brain in that section. Human brain I think is at least as vital or even more vital. I know there are many vital organs in the anatomical sense of the word, but the most vital for the VA project is Human brain, because it is the distinguishing feature that sets humans apart from animals.--Melody Lavender (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
This isn't at the 10'000 level yet, presumably it would have higher chance there instead, or at least first? Carlwev 12:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
As an alternative to human brain, how about intelligence instead? They cover similar ground, and I think it's strange that we list artificial intelligence but not the overarching concept. Malerisch (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Whilst talking about religion, we list Zoroaster in people, religious figures, but not Zoroastrianism in religion. Is this the right way? We have Abraham and Moses but I doubt we would list them before Judaism. Compare to this, we list Sikhism, and it's never come up for removal, but we removed the founder of that religion Guru Nanak Dev,(See here) with 6-0 support, he we preferred the religion to the founder. Also comparing the religion to the man, the religion Zoroastrianism is in slightly more languages and is a slightly longer article than it's founder. Also we know so much about the religion and it's following in ancient Persia, but we seem to be slightly more patchy on the man himself, a bit like Moses we are not even completely sure what century he lived in. Should we list the religion or the founder, or both? Carlwev 13:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Policy change: Articles in Level 3 but not in Level 4 are to be discussed on Level 4The following 15 articles are currently in the Level 3 list but not in the Expanded list:
Should these be nominated individually or as a group to Level 4? Malerisch (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Melody Lavender provides a cogent argument to add the articles automatically. Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal considering that it should happen infrequently from now on. (I think a better example that Cobblet could have given is this.) Malerisch (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC) The nominator in that link is also Cobblet. --Melody Lavender (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
nth rootAbout nth root: It's a basic arithmetic operation. It covers both square root and cube root and all the other roots (if we didn't have it we'd need to add square root as vital and then discuss cube root). And, it and logarithm are the inverse functions for exponentiation. RJFJR (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Energy SectionThe energy section is strongly slanted towards renewable sources. Three renewables are listed (Hydro, Solar, Wind) while only one fossil fuel is listed (petroleum). Coal and natural gas on their own are more widely supplied and consumed than all renewable sources combined. Whether the environmental effects are adverse or not isn't really relevant. Both good and evil things can be listed as long as they are vital (for example, the Holocaust and Movement for Civil Rights). Among renewables, biomass/biofuel is the most widely used source right now (followed by hydro) and it isn't even on Level 4. In 2035, renewable energy is still only estimated to make up one third of world energy usage. I believe the main criterion for determining vitality in energy is whether human society was/is reliant on that energy source historically and currently (or at most in the near future). The major fossil fuels fit that criterion. I suggest adding coal and natural gas at the very least. (Source) Gizza (t)(c) 05:59, 16 July 2014 (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 Coal and Natural gasPer the discussion above. Gizza (t)(c) 14:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I would also support removing fossil fuel. Malerisch (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add Human overpopulation (possibly as subcategory of "Overpopulation" as is done in most Wikipedias)In: According to I = PAT, Human environmental IMPACT = POPULATION × AFFLUENCE × TECHNOLOGY. the basic idea being total impact is number of people times their average impact.
There needs to be something to quantify the people that are involved with all these things. To quote a couple of vital individuals: Albert Einstein “Overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.” Nelson Mandela “Solving overpopulation is NOT a technical challenge. It is a political one. We must summon the courage to reject the common, entrenched mindset of the nay-sayers and embrace a shared vision of a future world with 2-3 billion healthy, prosperous people. Overpopulation is SOLVABLE. It always seems impossible until it is done.” and a less vital individual: English Wikipedia has Human overpopulation which runs parallel to Overpopulation in other Wikipedias so maybe a listing could cover Overpopulation/Human overpopulation. to make sense of following comments my originally formed proposal (here) had also made prominent mention of biodiversity, extinction and Human impact on the environment with that last article suggestion now being proposed under its own heading below.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Korean WarBased on the discussion on the history section above, consensus seems to be forming for the removal of the Korean War. It is part of the already listed Cold War. No more vital than the Vietnam War. No more vital than wars within other major wars such as Pacific War or Eastern Front (World War II). There are varying opinions on the emphasis of wars and 20th century events but there are other modern conflicts which are not covered by anything at all currently such as Gulf War and War on Terror unlike Korea (not that I suggest adding them). Gizza (t)(c) 14:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Napoleonic WarsThere doesn't seem to be any opposition to removing these, so I'm starting some formal removal threads. We already list French Revolution, and there are more important wars in history. (See above discussion for details.) Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Arab–Israeli conflictNot that vital (see above). It's a localized conflict that didn't even make it onto the Expanded list. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Length alone does not make a war vital: based on that reasoning, Hundred Years' War, Roman–Persian Wars, Punic Wars, and American Indian Wars should all be on the list. I don't see how this conflict can stay when Mongol invasions and conquests and Muslim conquests aren't on the list, which were both much longer and more consequential. As I mentioned in my justification above, how is this more vital than Arab–Byzantine wars (part of the Muslim conquests), which was longer as well, or the Manchu conquest of China, or the Taiping Rebellion? None of these additions would add American POV to the list, either. Malerisch (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Revolutions of 1989Should be covered in Soviet Union, Communism, and Cold War. Malerisch (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove Movements for civil rightsEven if we agree that the civil rights movement should be included, this is the wrong article to include to refer to that movement. There was no global movement for civil rights (any google scholar or google books search will reveal no real sources). 90% of references in RSs are to the U.S. Civil Rights movement, with most of the rest referring to the Northern Ireland movements. But the OR article Movements for civil rights includes examples like Communist movements in Germany and anti-Communist movements in Prague together with no clear reason. Alternatives could be to either: A) include something about the international human rights movement (an international movement with actual literature about it as opposed to the movement for civil rights), B) The U.S. Civil Rights movement, which appears to be the usage in every encyclopedia, or C) Point to other global movements in the post-World War II era (Decolonization is probably the most important of these). Regardless, the Movements for civil rights article should not be on the vital articles list. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I support removing Women's suffrage too. Not because it is an unimportant topic but I don't think human rights articles are suitable for the history section. At the moment the article on women's suffrage is mostly structured like a list and just mentions when various countries gave women the right to vote. It can be improved but I don't think the intention of the article is to talk about the history of women's suffrage. There are better ways to cover particular human rights. Women's rights is an option but there is a strong overlap with feminism and sexism. Articles like gender, abortion and birth control are somewhat related too. Then again, we shouldn't go too far in covering civil rights and women's rights when there are so many human rights issues and forms of discrimination. We've got plenty of general human rights articles (human rights, civil liberties, discrimination, political freedom, justice) while articles such as sexualism/homophobia, ableism (discrimination against people with disabilities), sizeism and anti-left handedness are not even on the list. Honestly, I think our coverage of rights is already adequate. If there is scope for addition, maybe suffrage itself or universal suffrage is a good idea. Gizza (t)(c) 06:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If the article is OR, should it be removed from level 4 as well? Malerisch (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Since it appears not to be clear, this article is not vital. Clarity:
Now, yes there were some other movements for "civil rights" in Northern Ireland (with some texts comparing it with the U.S. experience) and some movements in Canada, and the civil rights banner has been taken up by other movements in the U.S. and Canada. But-"Movements for civil rights" never existed and is not listed in other resources. This is not a case of a page being underdeveloped, the page is actually over-developed and includes too much stuff, but a case of listing an article that goes against near-universal usage and the context in 99% of RSs. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Add DisabilityPer the discussion above.
Based on Level 4, this will go into the Medicine section. Space doesn't really need to be made for it although burn can be removed as there are too many types of injury to list at this level (we removed bone fracture recently too). Gizza (t)(c) 03:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to close this, but I'm not sure if I should put this under Social issues or Health and medicine, considering the move discussion on the Expanded page. There isn't consensus to move Disability yet, so where should this be added? Malerisch (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Remove BurnBurns aren't more important than other types of injuries such as frostbite, wounds, or bone fractures (removed here). Malerisch (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Swap: Add Digestion, Remove Human gastrointestinal tractThis swap has been mentioned a few times now, so I think it may be time for a formal proposal. We don't currently list any other articles that are specific to human anatomy besides this one (e.g. human skeleton, human heart, human eye, and human liver aren't listed), and I can't see why this article would be special. Besides, human gastrointestinal tract is the wrong article to include, even for human anatomy; human digestive system is the right one. Malerisch (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This nomination also failed on VA/E, so it should be removed from here as well. I haven't made up my mind on this nomination, so I won't vote just yet. I believe that this nomination could be troublesome: it failed 3-3 on level 4, but 3-3 isn't enough to remove it from level 3 either. Malerisch (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't have Imperial units or SI units, I don't think this is more vital. We do have, metric system. Carlwev 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
