WikiProject Vital Articles | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Add Garden
- 3 Swap Scramble for Africa with New Imperialism
- 4 Proposing a new Vital articles list for women
- 5 Michael Jackson
- 6 Add Inca Empire
- 7 Add Maya civilization
- 8 Add Aztec Empire
- 9 Swap: Remove Akira Kurosawa, Add Emperor Meiji
- 10 More detailed vital articles list
- 11 Barnstars or other awards for VA promotion?
- 12 Add analytical chemistry
- 13 Swap Kahlil Gibran with Miguel de Cervantes; Swap Ernest Hemingway or Edgar Allen Poe with Walt Whitman; Add someone from India?
- 14 Add Ted Hughes
- 15 Add Irrigation
- 16 Remove Egg as food
- 17 Add Zoroastrianism
- 18 Add Early human migrations
Introduction
|
The purpose of this discussion page is to select 1000 topics for which Wikipedia should have high-quality articles. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to participate. Individual topics are proposed for addition or removal, followed by discussion and !voting. Since the list is currently full, it is recommended that a nomination of a new topic be accompanied by a proposal to remove a lower-priority topic already on the list.
All discussions will remain open for a minimum of 15 days.
- After 15 days any proposal may be closed as PASSED if a) at least five !votes have been cast in support, and b) at least two-thirds of the total !votes support the proposal.
- After 30 days any proposal may be closed as FAILED if it has a) earned at least 3 opposes, and b) failed to earn two-thirds support.
- After 30 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if the proposal hasn't received any !votes for 30 or more days regardless of the !vote tally.
- After 60 days any proposal may be closed as NO CONSENSUS if it has a) failed to earn at least 5 support !votes, and b) earned less than two-thirds support.
Please be patient with our process: we believe that an informed discussion with more editors is likely to produce an improved and more stable final list. When proposing to add or remove a particular topic from the vital articles list, we strongly recommend that you review and compare the other topics in the same category in order to get a better sense of what is considered vital in that area.
- 15 days ago: 15:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC) ( )
- 30 days ago: 15:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- 60 days ago: 15:39, 14 July 2016 (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 Garden
I noticed that the 2007 edition of Britannica's Macropædia contained 699 articles and two of them dealt in part with gardens: "Garden and landscape design" and "Gardening and horticulture." This list contains no similar topics, although Level 4 does contain garden, gardening, horticulture, landscape architecture and park. I think putting one of these on the Level 3 list is reasonable: as long as civilization has existed, gardens have been valued as a form of agriculture (especially in the past), recreation, and art.
- Support
- Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I have thought about garden or park in the past. Gizza (t)(c) 11:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 16:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Swap Scramble for Africa with New Imperialism
We currently have the article Scramble for Africa, but that event was only part of a larger movement called New Imperialism, including European expansion into areas such as China and Southeast Asia as well as U.S. and Japanese expansion in events such as the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese Wars.
- Support
- Support as nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Sounds like a reasonable enlargement of scope. RJFJR (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Proposing a new Vital articles list for women
Browsing this and I notice (as you'd expect) is is extremely highly stacked with male biographies. I was wondering if anybody would support a Wikipedia:Vital articles/Women list which can identify more women of importance from all of the relative fields and give the Women project something to work for on it? I think it would be important to address systematic bias and identify more articles on women. In some fields I barely count a single woman article! Obviously there's dozens more important women from each field but couldn't be included because the male ones were more prominent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Here's a list of all the women listed in Level 4 Vital Articles list: User:Yair rand/VitalArticlesWomen. --Yair rand (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how the list of women in Level 4 was compiled but I find it strange that the 17th-century Christina, Queen of Sweden with less than one page view a day is included while Margrethe II of Denmark with over 1,700 a day is not. It might be useful if the list could be sorted by area of involvement. At first glance, it looks as if there is an excess of singers and other performers. I was surprised to see Hillary Clinton was not included.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there isn't a fair balance of women in all fields I don't think. I don't think it would harm to create a Vital Article list for women, even if it was just for the purposes of the women project. I suggest we create a Vital Article list for women organized by field with 1000 articles in total.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am in favor of this. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea too. Note that one major reason why Margrethe II of Denmark gets more page views than Christina, Queen of Sweden is because of recentism. Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande and Coldplay get more views than every musician on the list but they're still not vital. Page views are a useful metric when the comparing two topics that are similar in time, geography and field of study but are otherwise affected by biases. Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
Why michael jackson's page not listed here? His talk page says that is a featured page and which has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People.Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhiljaxxn (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Because this isn't the level 4 list. This is the level 4 list. Cobblet (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2016 (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 Inca Empire
We've previously discussed adding more civilizations to diversify our coverage of world history. In particular it's been pointed out before that we lack the major pre-Columbian empires/civilizations of the Americas. Since the list is now three articles short, this seems as good a time as any to discuss adding these. I'd certainly consider the article on the Incas more vital than the article on Machu Picchu, which is listed under Architecture.
- Support
- Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support --David Tornheim (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
- Is this something that could be covered by one article, eg Pre-Columbian era? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- In fact these are currently covered by Mesoamerica and Andean civilizations. However that sort of overlap hasn't stopped us from listing Sumer and Assyria in addition to Mesopotamia, or Middle Ages and Islamic Golden Age in addition to Post-classical history, or Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russia. Cobblet (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2016 (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 Maya civilization
- Support
- Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Added Aztec, since that's listed on level 4 while Aztec Empire is not 6-0 Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2016 (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 Aztec Empire
- Support
- Support as nom. Cobblet (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Gizza (t)(c) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Thi (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
On these three proposals. A little concerned of the overlap, but not too much. Prefer these to Machu Picchu, and probably even Andean civs, the overview is needed less if we covered by these, and overlap exists elsewhere. Reading the articles, the empires lasted for a shorter time than I realized. Other empires that had large history, area and/or population could be Umayyad Caliphate in the Mediterranean/Middle East, ruled 10% of world land and nearly 30% world pop, but only for about 90 years, it's less well known though. I've been thinking about another S American nation too, Colombia perhaps? Carlwev 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I am bothered by the overlap of Aztec/Maya/Inca. I'm not going to mark myself as opposed since there are enough people are already marked as supporting for it to pass (and because as soon as I do someone will object that I am not permitted to have a view since I'm dissenting) but I'd like to leave a record that I'd prefer not to use up three slots on three so closely related articles since to me three slots from our 1000 is a lot. (We definitely need an article on these as vital but we have Andean civilizations covering Inca and I'd like to find something that covers these as a set and discusses the relationships.) RJFJR (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2016 (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.
More detailed vital articles list
It may be a suggestion to add any symbol to the left side of all vital articles. The template Template:Icon/doc contains all of the symbols and the list below shows the level 1 vital articles with any possible symbol.
1.
Earth
2.
Life
3.
Human
4.
History of the world
5.
Culture
6.
Language
7.
The arts
8.
Science
9.
Technology
10.
Mathematics
86.22.8.235 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Barnstars or other awards for VA promotion?
I'm working as a GA reviewer on a couple of Level 3 VAs (Heart and Iron), and I think it would be really cool if there were specific barnstars for VAs that I could award to the editors who are jumping through all the hoops to make an article into a GA/VA. Is there any precedent for what to award? I'm thinking a Barnstar of Diligence with a citation like "For the work involved in promoting (article) to (class)" for the editors working on the promotion. I also think encouraging VA reviewers would be appropriate for GAN/FAC contributors, but not sure what the right level of reward is for people who seek out and thoroughly review such articles. Is there any history of such awards? Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Add analytical chemistry
I think that this article is as vital as physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry & organic chemistry, since all these four articles are about subdisciplines of chemistry, and analytical chemistry is vital in geochemistry & toxicology. What's more analytical chemistry is included in the metawiki page of vital articles.
- Support
- Oppose
- Oppose it's just part of chemistry, specifically the part that deals with figuring out what's in the sample. And being just as vital as physical chemistry doesn't work with me since I'm the one who proposed removing physical chemistry. RJFJR (talk)
- Oppose --Thi (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Discuss
- I had proposed to add it before, however later it got failed (cf. Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_10#Add_analytical_chemistry).--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Swap Kahlil Gibran with Miguel de Cervantes; Swap Ernest Hemingway or Edgar Allen Poe with Walt Whitman; Add someone from India?
While I think the list of vital writers is good on the whole (I especially like the decision to include James Joyce), it seems to me that there's a real flaw in it in the shape of Kahlil Gibran. His popularity with New-Agey people notwithstanding, I think anybody can agree that he can't hold a candle to the genius and immense cultural influence of a Shakespeare or a Tolstoy or a Murasaki--or, for that matter, a Cervantes. Cervantes, certainly, should go in there regardless of what happens to Gibran. For one thing, I think anyone can agree that it's a mistake not to have Spanish, one of the world's major literary languages, totally unrepresented. But of course, Cervantes, as the major inventor of the modern novel, is also immensely important to the formal aspects of modern Western, and by extension world, literature as a whole. If Gibran is in there, we should have to include a few hundred poets, and scores more novelists, as well, because all those would be better and more vital to world culture than he is. And if we're going on popularity alone, we should have to include J.K. Rowling and Stephen King before Homer and Dante, and that would be absurd. Either of those options would be defeating the point of a list like this. Cervantes, on the other hand, can give anyone in world literature a run for their money in terms of wisdom and expansiveness of thought, even if he isn't quite the stylist that Shakespeare and Joyce are; he also remains immensely popular. I'm not an experienced editor nor an expert in literature, but I think anyone with a passing knowledge of literature and literary history would think this change a no-brainer.
The other changes I would suggest are less obvious, but I think still very much justifiable. For one thing, while I understand that Poe has been important to both American and French traditions, it seems to me that Whitman is the more global figure, and certainly the one more central to the development of a distinctly American literature and poetics. Anecdotally, my German-Jewish (later Argentine, as he fled shortly after the Nazis got power) great-grandfather, who was an unsuccessful poet, totally worshiped Whitman; and he continues to be an international symbol of liberation while remaining the ultimate American poet. There is also his immense influence on all the major American Modernists, including Eliot and Pound, and therefore international Modernism as a whole. Formally speaking, he was key in the triumph of verse libre throughout the 20th century. For all these reasons, I think it's safe to say he is more important than Poe and Hemingway, though with Hemingway I can understand that we would want a representative of the American Novel (although it seems to me that he's the weakest of the three overall). But certainly, either Poe or Hemingway should make way for the truly major American writer.
Also, if we're trying to get a really global perspective here, shouldn't there be someone from the cultural sphere of the Indian Subcontinent? Regrettably, I know very little about that, so I don't feel confident in seriously suggesting anybody, but it seems to be a gap here. Perhaps add Vyāsa? Of course he's a mythic figure, but then again Homer's existence is also quite uncertain. In particular, since the list is full, I think that Sophocles could be replaced by an Indian. Sophocles is certainly an important and great writer, but drama is already represented by Shakespeare, and the amount of Sophocles's surviving work pales in comparison to that of virtually any other writer on the list. Besides, we already have the Classics decently represented by Homer and Virgil. Otherwise, perhaps Franz Kafka could be swapped out, as much as I love him personally; Goethe already represents German, and it seems to me that Kafka's ultimate historical import has in large part yet to be proven, although I understand that we may want a Jewish author on the list. But really these suggestions are just me thinking out loud; all I know is that there should probably be somebody from India on the list.
Apologies for the long post, but I didn't want to clutter things up with three separate posts for each proposal. --One More Dilettante (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @One More Dilettante:, thanks for your comments. I believe the reason why Cevantes isn't currently listed is because we have his magnus opus Don Quixote instead. Because the list is so tight, there was consensus to limit writer/literature combinations to either one or the other. For example, we don't include Hamlet because Shakespeare is on the list. However, opinions can change and we can discuss this again.
- Regarding a writer from India, the best two choices IMO are Kalidasa or Rabindranath Tagore. They are the best poets and dramatists of ancient and modern India respectively. FWIW, Tagore has pan-national fame and significance. He has composed 3 national anthems and was the first non-European to win the Nobel Prize in Literature (if you think about it, it means he won the Prize before any American did). Gizza (t)(c) 12:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Add Ted Hughes
I find it incomprehensible that Ted Hughes is not already included on this list. He is without doubt one of the most important poets of 20th century Britain, arguably more important than Larkin, Auden and the like. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose He is not even listed on level 4. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: Surely you meant to nominate at level 4? The people you compare him to are not on this list, which has only 100-odd bios, not the ~2000 VA/E does. pbp 02:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Add Irrigation
Supplying water to people, crops and animals has been carried out since before recorded history into the present day. The earliest irrigation was at least as far back as the 4th millennium BC with some claims it was in use even earlier. In the ancient world it was used on all the inhabited continents, except Australia. In both modern civilization and many if not most ancient civilizations, without irrigation there would not have been enough food to sustain anywhere near the populations that areas have grown to. It is believed without sophisticated agricultural methods, such as irrigation, people would not have been able to live in higher numbers and concentrations needed to form cities and civilizations. Although dry land farming exists as does industry such as fishing, irrigation based agriculture creates a huge chunk of the world's food, and uses an incredible amount of the fresh water used by humans. There have been many methods and techniques used over the millennia, some of which we list in the 10,000 like Qanat, Aquaduct and other modern methods exist, like simple sprinkles and centre point irrigation. We list 23 articles under food, mostly plant/crops, or their product, and we list a few more food related articles, Agriculture, Fishing, hunting, domestication, Garden, Fertilizer, stove and refrigeration. Irrigation as important as some of those articles like single crops if not more, it is more wide spread, and many of these and other crops rely on irrigation to be as productive as they are. We also list canal, which can be channels for transport or irrigation, but usually refers to transport canals, irrigation seems to be more vital than canal to me...
- Support
- as nom. Carlwev 03:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support as major impact on agricultural productivity, but conditional on an article (probably Eggs as food) being removed to make space. RJFJR (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose Out of the various technical aspects of the farming process, I'm not convinced this one is so much more vital than others like ploughing or harvesting and the technological advances associated with these (the use of draft animals, invention of the moldboard plough or the combine harvester, etc.) that it needs to be listed separately at this level. Our coverage of agriculture is weaker at level 4, but at this level I think it's basically fine. It's the only technology with a dedicated history article at this level, and one of the main things history of agriculture does is to lay out technological advances in agriculture throughout history, be it in irrigation or other areas. Cobblet (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Remove Egg as food
...To make room for irrigation there are several food articles I believe are slightly less significant. Nut (fruit), Egg as food, and possibly cheese. Nuts are a broad type of fruit, although quite important and of some use and eaten for millennia they have never really sustained huge crops or populations, possibly due to their often small size and time consuming to crack open, we also list seed which covers some of the same ground from a biology POV. Fruits or types like citrus, banana or apple could be argued more important as a food than nut. The one I dislike the most is Egg, we don't list the Chicken, the giver of most eggs, nor do we list sheep, goat or pig, which although covered partly by domestication and meat are probably still more vital than egg, which is also partially covered by domestication. I could just as easily suggest removing a person, most people are probably less vital than the concept of irrigation, but I'll try and keep it at least vaguely similar area and suggest the egg as a remove to complement irrigation.
- Support
- as nom. Carlwev 03:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support Chicken is obviously more vital to me; since that isn't listed (and it's probably not the next animal I'd add) I don't see how an article on the culinary uses of eggs is more important. Cobblet (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support as too many other food sources for this to be vital. RJFJR (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support still think cheese is even less vital. Gizza (t)(c) 13:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Discussion
Add Zoroastrianism
At the moment we list Zoroaster but not the religion, Zoroastrianism. If my count is correct The man is is about 99 languages, and the reliogion is present in 115 languages. Also looking at the page views, the biography gets an average of 1200 daily page views compared with over 6000 daily page views for the article on Zoroastrianism which is very close to 5 times as many views (VEIW). The article on Zoraster covers information on his life, his philosophy, iconography and views of him of followers and people after him. It says majority of information about him is primarily from Zoroastrian texts themselves, and is quite thin, third party sources even more rare. The century and location of his his birth and life are not even agreed upon, and although only one view there is one line of thought that suggests he may not even be a real person at all similar to some views of Moses. No body denies the religion existed/exists though, and the amount of information available on the religion is much greater. The Zoroastrianism article covers the religion's beliefs, practices, theology, views, philosophy history etc. How it was the dominant religion in Persia, one of the most significant centres of population, power and culture for 1000 years before the Arab conquest happened. It would also make more sense for the religion article to include key information about the founder than it would for the biography article to go into detail of the practices of people who lived centuries after, so much of the important info on Zoroaster could be covered in the Zoroaster article anyway. in In short, one article focuses on little information of one man's life and works and how followers view him, the other on the cultural historical belief system of millions of people for a millennia in one of the most significant regions of the world....I think the article on the religion is a much better choice. I would suggest a swap with the biography, if people prefer that I suppose I would support a swap. But I have not, as I thin the biography is not the worst we have, but I would still support a swap if others prefer that option.
Also, The biography states he influenced other religions too, namely Islam and Bahá'í Faith, but I've never known this be be of great importance, and the articles on those other religions, which are very long, do not mention Zoroaster even once, so that fact seems not of great importance, not in the way say Abraham is to multiple religions. Also compare with other religions at this level, we have always listed Sikhism but voted to remove it's founder and text, Guru Nanak, and Guru Granth Sahib from this level. Also although we will probably always list them all here, I doubt, if the list were smaller for example, anyone would choose to include Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, or Abraham at the expence of leaving Christianity, Judaism and Christianity off, for similar reasons.
- Support
- Support as nom. Carlwev 16:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support the swap. I don't think there's much in it though. Gizza (t)(c) 06:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support the swap, but oppose adding the religion and leaving the biography. Arnoutf (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support swapping in the religion in place of the founder/namesake. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support swapping the articles. The religion is more important than the man. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose, though would support swapping Zoroaster for Zoroastrianism which would also handle the fact that we are already at 1000 articles. RJFJR (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Add Early human migrations
Ancient history, post-classical history and modern history are all covered in depth at this level. There are at least 12 articles dedicated to each one. However, prehistory is not expanded upon at all. There are no further articles covering the earliest and longest period of human existence. Early human migrations had global and fundamental importance. The article explains how we reached all inhabited continents of the world and is clearly vital.
As we are at the 1,000 article limit, something does need to go. If eggs are not removed, then we could look at removing one of the mathematicians (10 is quite high), possibly worship or prayer because of the overlap or a non very significant philosophy like pragmatism and abolitionism (which should be redundant to slavery and political freedom). There are many weaker articles than this.
- Support
- Support as nom. Gizza (t)(c) 04:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'd consider the articles on the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages and the one on the Neolithic Revolution as prehistory articles, at least with respect to the majority of civilizations that developed agriculture and metalworking before writing. Nevertheless it's true the list is extremely thin on coverage of humans prior to civilization; this is a great choice to fix that. IMO this is a much more serious omission than analytical chemistry or irrigation. Cobblet (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support Carlwev 06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Oppose I just don't see it as needing to be represented at this level. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
I would like to add Neolithic and Paleolithic too. Mesolithic, possibly too, to complete the set of 3, but seems weaker though. We have Neolithic Revolution but not Neolithic itself. In the 10'000 we also have the upper middle and lower Palaeolithic, so listing just the Paleolithic here would be good. Ancient History and Prehistory are listed in the 100, but not been expanded much here, especially not having "eras", considering what we do have especially among the biographies, which I could go into, but won't here. The Stone age lasted millions of years, much longer than other eras, it covers the whole world, even the 2 or 3 eras of the stone age lasted many millennia and include many significant advancements. Carlwev 06:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)